Floor Statements

Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly did not want to take the floor from our distinguished colleague, Connie Morella. It's so wonderful to see you. Maybe good news for you, I've lost my voice. I know it will be good news for the Speaker, but we'll see later in the day.

I join him in welcoming you back to the Capitol. I hope it is always a source of joy to you to set foot on this floor, this place our Founders decided was the marketplace of ideas, where we would compete in the marketplace of ideas and find common ground to go forth. Your legacy is an important one to us. As I look around and see all of you, I see contributions that you have made over the years that we still benefit from.

It's an honor to be here with Bob Michel. I think he enjoyed the job of minority leader more than I do. What do you think, Bob? What do you think? We were all there to celebrate his birthday recently. It was a bipartisan fiesta, wasn't it? That was just a couple months ago we celebrated a landmark birthday. Happy birthday again.

But all of you, I heard what the Speaker said about this openness on the floor, and I thought that was really good news, because we've been trying to get a budget to the floor for a very long time but without much success to allow our budget to come to the floor. So I'm going to take the words that I just heard to Chris Van Hollen and tell him that happy days are here again and that our amendment will be made in order in the Rules Committee.

Martin, Governor, Bob, all of you, we all are on a first-name basis. Last night, rightfully all of you honored the distinguished Secretary, Mr. LaHood. He has done a remarkable, remarkable job. We couldn't be prouder of him as a legislator and as a Secretary in the Cabinet even if he had been a Democrat. He's just absolutely wonderful. We love him, and he brings bipartisanship to all of what we do. And that's really what is, I think, not to get to a partisan place, Madam Chair, but is on the ballot in the next election: bipartisanship. It's something that is the most popular concept in politics. People would vote for that in overwhelming numbers; and hopefully, in this election, whatever the outcome is, bipartisanship will prevail.

I always say to people that you can win an election, that's up to the public, but the idea has to prevail, and that is what we're striving to do here. That's what we hope the election will impact. It already did have an impact in the last election with immigration. All of a sudden, it became an issue near and dear to the hearts of so many more people in the Congress who never had an interest in it before, because when the people spoke in such a big way, especially Hispanics, it became a priority for many more people in the Congress.

So, again, when all of you were here, we worked in a very, very civil and respectful way. We hope that we can return to that. But that doesn't diminish the contribution that you made in so many ways regarding the substance, the values, and the ethics that make our country so great.

So it really is a joy to see each and every one of you. I hope your lives are very happy. You certainly look well. There seems to be a good life after Congress, but it brings us such pride to see so many of you come back to continue this bonding. Thank you. It's an honor to see you.

Madam Speaker, how does it feel up there? It feels good, huh? It feels good. Welcome, Barbara. Thank you all very much for being here.

Mr. Speaker, on April 27th, in Montgomery, Alabama, leaders of the civil rights movement and the Southern Poverty Law Center came together to dedicate the Mike Stoller and Corky Hale Stoller Civil Rights Memorial Theater.

It is appropriate that the theater is named for Mike and Corky because of their ongoing commitment to the civil rights movement. The Stollers are two of kind--in music, in activism, in their generosity of spirit.

Since the day Corky came to Mike's studio to record demos as a musician, they have been partners in every sense of the word: fighting together for liberty and justice for all, for the basic dignity of every human being.

Mike and Corky's values run deep. They are tireless in their work. They are idealistic and compassionate, dedicated and determined. They know what they believe and recognize what's needed to follow through and get the job done. Thanks to their boundless energy, their beautiful relationship with one another, and their friendship with so many others, they have made a difference in advancing the cause of civil rights.

At the opening of the theater dedicated in their names, we heard Chairman Emeritus of the NAACP Julian Bond's extraordinary presentation of how African Americans influenced and shaped musical history from around World War II to the days of Elvis Presley and beyond.

Through the story of music, he told the story of the civil rights movement--how music popular among Americans emerged from the compositions well-known among African Americans; how the attraction of American teenagers in the 1950s to traditionally African-American styles helped advance the movement and break down barriers among races.

What a fitting tribute to Mike and Corky Stoller, whose music made them famous and whose compassion made them special. When Mike joined Jerry Leiber to write ``Hound Dog,'' ``Jailhouse Rock,'' and countless other hits, he was helping sow the seeds of an effort that would connect communities through music, that would transform American culture, and that would grow with Mike and Corky's leadership for the cause of justice.

Now, Mike and Corky's names will remain inscribed on the Civil Rights Memorial Theater in Montgomery. Their legacy will be intertwined with the names of the men, women, and children remembered at the memorial, who gave their lives in the cause of freedom. Their theater will stand tall alongside the Wall of Tolerance and the wheel of water that reminds us of the biblical charge to ``let justice roll down like waters, righteousness like a mighty stream.''

At this theater and across the country, may all Americans associate the names of Mike Stoller and Corky Hale Stoller with their contributions to music and their leadership for civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing the GOP's deplorable Mother's Day gift--more work, less pay for working moms. No way to say Happy Mother's Day.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday morning, millions of mothers nationwide will wake up to the excited faces of their children wishing them a ``happy Mother's Day.''

Mothers will receive gifts of all kinds from their sons and daughters--tokens of love and gratitude for all that moms do every day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is really a very unusual morning. We are here because of the refusal of the Republicans to come to the table for a conference. What is a conference? A conference is a public open meeting where differences between the House budget bill and the Senate budget bill can be reconciled. It is done with transparency and in full public view. Each side proud of our priorities, we have the American people be the judge of what is their statement of values.

Afraid of that public scrutiny, the Republicans have refused to appoint conferees for a conference--conferees for a conference. We call upon the Speaker to appoint conferees so that we can have that public airing, that transparent view, of something very important.

The Republican leadership has said in the House and the Senate they want the regular order. What is the regular order?

The regular order is the House passes a bill; the Senate passes a bill; you go to conference. Now, afraid that their views may be rejected by the American people, they don't want to go to conference. That's why we are here this morning for sequestration.

What is sequestration?

Sequestration is a mindless, across-the-board cutting of what we are now recognizing--and the Republicans are recognizing--as something that should not be cut. It affects the efficiency and the safety of our airports. That's very important. Yet, as our distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, has pointed out, there is much more that needs to be addressed instead of using this as a vehicle.

One of the distinguished chairmen said earlier that the safety of our airports should not be subject to political debate. Neither should the education of our children, the nutrition for our seniors--4 million Meals on Wheels, tens of thousands of children thrown off Head Start. Our defense--mindless across-the-board cuts in our defense, and what that means for our national security and for the workers in our national security sector--the list goes on and on. Investments in our future--biomedical research, cut by this.

So I suppose, if this is an example of governance, that the Republicans will next come up with something else and will say we should exempt that. Why don't we just get rid of the problem? Why don't we just get rid of the problem and go to conference?

Some of the press said to me, Does this hurt your leverage in going to conference?

I said, No. This is an opportunity because it demonstrates to the American people how unwise this course of action is and how much better it would be to find solutions, to get results in the regular order-- respectful of everyone's point of view but recognizing that decisions made here will have an impact, not only in the lives of the children and in the lives of their teachers and in the lives of all consumers, but on our economy as well.

This should be a clarion call. It's almost ludicrous to hear my Republican colleagues get up there and talk about their individual airports. Most of us have airports. We understand what this issue is about.

Why don't you understand that there is a great deal at stake, including the efficiency and the safety of our airports as well as the education of our children?

How can we sit there and say 4 million Meals on Wheels for seniors, gone? But that's not important. Over 70,000 children off Head Start. But that's not important.

What is important is for the Republicans to hold a hard line about the public debate about the budget that a conference would provide. The Members will vote the way they're going to vote on this, but recognize that this is not the way Congress should be meeting the needs of the American people. Let's go to conference.

Mr. Speaker, appoint conferees so we can end this mindless sequestration.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished colleague, Congresswoman Sewell, for yielding.

As you can see, there are many of us who are very eager. Our distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, and I have had the privilege--he, more than I--to travel to Alabama with John Lewis. And thank you this morning for informing the Members that that's a transformative experience. Anybody who travels there and sees what happened in the lifetime of many of us here, and certainly in the lifetime of everyone's parents here, in our very own country cannot help but be moved. So I'm pleased to be joining you, Congresswoman Sewell, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Bishop, and other colleagues in coming to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, as we are all acknowledging, 50 years ago, on a Sunday morning, four precious little girls walked into the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, the same day they did every week.

These four little girls were there for Sunday school. They were not civil rights activists; they were not agitators or advocates. They had simply come to church to learn, to pray, to be with their friends and classmates. When you visit there, you see they didn't really have a chance. They were in such close quarters when they went down those steps and the rest.

These four little girls did not enter the church seeking to become symbols of the struggle of equality; yet, in a moment of brutal, horrific, unspeakable tragedy, they would become icons of a movement for justice. The names Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley remain seared in the hearts and minds of us today as painful reminders of a dark moment in our history.

For their families, for their friends, for their loved ones, their loss in a bombing at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church would change their world forever. Yet even at that time of great change across our country, little did we know that their deaths would change our world forever too.

Among the many milestones of the civil rights movement, September 15,

1963, may be bestowed with some of the greatest pain and anguish. But it was on that day, as this resolution states:

The world took notice of the violence inflicted in the

struggle for equal rights.

It was that day that stirred the conscience of our Nation, galvanized the forces of justice, and spurred the momentum to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act--landmark steps in righting the wrongs in our country's past.

It was on that day that the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church became a symbol in the cause of human rights and human dignity, from the streets of Birmingham to communities nationwide. It was that day that once again reinforced what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., just weeks earlier, called the ``fierce urgency of now.''

These four girls made the ultimate sacrifice in the battle for civil rights, joining too many fellow Americans in paying for freedom with their lives.

This weekend, I will join the Southern Poverty Law Center to rename and rededicate the Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, Alabama. This memorial is a tribute to 40 individuals killed during the struggle. It is a place to remember the fallen, to take heed of their message, to deepen our understanding, and to renew our commitment to equal rights under the law.

They were four small little children going to church--four students, four daughters, four members of a tight-knit community in Birmingham. Four lives ended too soon; four victims to the forces of hatred and prejudice, racism, and injustice. Their senseless and premature deaths ignited the fires of progress and fanned the flames of equality.

I thank the gentlelady, one of our new, not brand-new, but newer Members of Congress, for coming here and joining with colleagues Mr. Bachus, Mr. Bonner, certainly John Lewis, and Members of Congress not representing Alabama, but from Alabama. As the resolution that she presents declares, the legacy that these four little Black girls left will live in the minds and hearts of all for generations to come.

To honor that legacy, to cherish their memories, to inscribe their names once more in the pages of history, it is only fitting to bestow our highest civilian honor, the highest honor that Congress can bestow on a civilian, the Congressional Gold Medal, on these four Americans. That will be a glorious day in the Capitol when we all come together under the rotunda, under the dome of the Capitol, to remember them. I hope that is a comfort to their families. They gave so much. So much sprang from that, and we will always remember.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great statesman, a great Democrat and a great American, Joseph L. Wyatt, Jr. who passed away on April 15, 2013, in Pasadena, California.

California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton put it best in describing Joe's essence and contribution, his commitment to our state and his work as the California Democratic Party Parliamentarian, our gratitude for his service and our fond memories of his extraordinary life, saying in a statement:

California Democrats lost one of the closest members of our

Democratic family in California. Joe Wyatt, Jr. who served as

our Party's parliamentarian since 1970 passed at the age of

eighty-nine.

To know Joe was to know first and foremost a kind and

wonderful human being. He was also a committed husband,

father, grandfather, and Democratic activist.

Joe was a founder of the California Democratic Council

(CDC), a federation of local volunteer Democratic clubs that

helped reinvigorate statewide Democratic politics in

California and was instrumental in the election of Pat Brown

as California governor in the election of 1958. He was a

delegate to the Democratic National Convention on numerous

occasions.

He was a committed activist in the truest sense of the

word, tirelessly serving our state party and always offering

sage and fair counsel on the rules and procedures needed to

advance party business. For over 50 years he practiced trust

and estate law for three law firms, most recently as Senior

of Counsel to Morrison/Foerster LLP, since 1995.

It was a privilege to know and work with such a deeply principled, humble, accomplished, and exemplary human being. All of us will always remember his signature bow-tie, his wonderful wit, his kind heart and unwavering spirit. His life has been a gift to all who knew him; his memory will be a blessing for all who remember him.

I only hope it is a comfort to his wife Marjorie, his sons Jonathan, Daniel and Lawrence, his daughter Linn, his daughter-in-law Tamara, and his grandchildren Jack and Taryn, that so many share in their grief at this sad time.

Mr. Chairman, today the Internet and new technologies are shaping a world that we could scarcely have imagined even 10 years ago. It's giving Americans an easy way to build friendships, build business, and participate in democracy, all with the click of a button.

But because so much of our daily lives are invested in cyberspace, it only takes one more click to put our personal identities, our economic stability, and our national security at risk. The threat of a cyber attack on our country is real, and our response must always balance our security with our liberties. That has always been the case in the history of America, the balance between liberty and security.

There can be absolutely no doubt or delay in shoring up our Nation's cybersecurity. We must take clear, responsible, effective action to enhance the security of the American people.

I want to commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger, working together in a bipartisan way, for their leadership on this issue and their efforts to craft and try to improve this legislation. I want to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson on the Homeland Security Committee for their energetic leadership on this subject as well. I thank both committees for recognizing the jurisdiction of the other committee.

I had hoped that today we would be addressing some major concerns of Members of Congress and the White House by improving the legislation's protections of personal information. With all of the respect in the world for the work of our chairs and ranking members on this, and it has been considerable. You have standing on this issue that is recognized and respected. I am disappointed, however, that we did not address some of the concerns, as I mentioned, of the White House about personal information.

Unfortunately, this bill offers no policies, did not allow any amendments--and I don't put that to you, no amendments--and no real solutions that adequately uphold an American's right to privacy.

For one thing, in promoting the sharing of cyber threat information, the bill does not require the private sector to minimize irrelevant personally identifiable information from what it shares with the government, or other private matters. They can just ship the whole kit and caboodle. We are saying minimize what is relevant to our national security; the rest is none of the government's business.

The bill continues to offer overly broad liability protections and immunities to the businesses that could violate our liberties rather than offering more targeted liabilities to ensure that the private sector only shares appropriate information.

We thought there might be a way to get this done by amendment--I'm sure that it would enjoy bipartisan support--but the Rules Committee did not allow that amendment to come forward.

Most importantly, the bill fails to critically address the greatest weakness in our cybersecurity: our Nation's infrastructure. Too many of our country's systems, both physical and virtual, are still exposed to an increasing number of intrusions and attacks.

Now, as a longtime former member of the Intelligence Committee, I know that infrastructure is not your jurisdiction, so in your original bill you couldn't go to that place. But now the Rules Committee could have allowed, with the cooperation of the Homeland Security Committee, us to go into infrastructure.

If we're truly going to secure a reliable and resilient cyberspace that reflects our country's values, we must target our clearest vulnerabilities, while preserving a space that promotes the innovation, expression, and security of the American people.

The world we live in and the threats our country faces can change with just one click. While we should never let Americans doubt our vigilance, our preparation, our effectiveness, we must never let us compromise their civil liberties.

If we fail to meet the standard of security, we always do more harm than good.

I, myself, am personally going to vote ``no'' on this legislation but, in doing so, salute the chairs and ranking members of the committees for taking us way down the road on this issue. It's just that crucial balance between security and liberty that I do not think has been struck in that bill. So, for my own part, it will not have my support.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 84, the Scott of VA Substitute amendment to H. Con. Res. 25, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him, Mr. Chairman, for his tremendous, tremendous leadership and giving us an opportunity in the House today to vote on a budget that is a reflection of American values--values of work and jobs, promoting them, a value of fairness, a value of advancing the success of America's families. I thank him for giving us a budget--I think we can all be the judge-- where we say that a budget is a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a Nation is a place where we allocate our resources.

This budget is in stark absolute contrast to the Republican budget that is on the floor today.

Contrast number one: jobs. The Republican bill, the Ryan Republican budget, is a job killer. Nearly 2 million jobs lost right out of the gate, and more lost after that; whereas the Van Hollen Democratic substitute is a job creator. It invests in rebuilding the infrastructure of America. It invests in innovation, energy, and education. Speaking of infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers has given us a D in terms of the condition of the infrastructure in our country. So the need is there. This budget recognizes that need, but it also does so in a way that creates jobs in a very innovative way.

It is in strong contrast when it comes to fairness, fairness as to how we, again, establish our priorities to invest in education, rather than continue to give tax breaks, loopholes that are unnecessary, unworthy of a values budget that the Republican budget continues.

And in terms of our seniors, the contrast could not be greater. The Ryan budget, in 10 years there will be no Medicare guarantee--flat out, absolutely. There will be no Medicare guarantee.

In the meantime--in the meantime--the Ryan budget takes the resources that we have in the health care reform bill, repeals the bill, and takes the money and runs to give it to his priorities, rather than strengthening Medicare and keeping it strong for a longer period of time, keeping the benefits that are in the Affordable Care Act, prevention and wellness services right from the start, closing the prescription drug doughnut hole, and the list goes on.

I listened intently to the gentlelady speak about our high school 18- year-old seniors and where they'll be when they're 28 years old. And since young people are always used as sort of a point of discussion, and rightfully so--we're here to provide for their future--I think it's important to listen to what they have to say.

And the young people that have passed through the Capitol--as you know, many do--I frequently invite them to sit down and tell me what they would like us to say at the table of the discussion of the budget--especially when it comes to them--because we always say we cannot heap mountains of debt on the next generation. I fully agree. That is why I support the Van Hollen budget.

These young people say, We want a strong education system, a strong public education system. We need student loans that are affordable. We need Pell Grants. We need our families to be able to focus on us, and so we need Medicare and Medicaid so that our grandparents' health needs are met.

For a long time to come, they hope, loving their grandparents. But these young people want to be helpful in solving the budget crisis. That's what they have told us: We want to do our share.

The initiative that brings more money to the Federal Treasury is education--education, early childhood, K-12, higher education, post- grad, all the rest of that lifetime learning.

Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than educating the American people, and that is why investing in education, creating jobs, that brings revenue. It's hard to see why we would put forth a budget that stunts the growth of jobs, the growth of our economy with jobs and our investments in education.

On the subject of education, tens of billions of dollars are struck in the Ryan Republican anti-job bill, in that job-killer bill, tens of billions of dollars. They say, it's better to give a tax break to a special interest than to invest in the education of our children.

Would that be a statement of your national values if you were writing a budget for our country? I don't think so. It certainly was not a statement of the values of the young people who have come through here saying how they would help solve the budget deficit challenge we face.

We all know the deficit must be reduced. We've known it for a long time. We've recognized it for a long time. President Clinton recognized it and took us on a path of soundness.

It was totally reversed in the Bush years when our Republican colleagues didn't say a word. They said, no problem; it's the appropriate percentage of GDP. No problem with the deficit. They never complained about it.

But now, with their initiatives, the Ryan Republican job-killer budget is making matters worse in terms of reducing the deficit because it deprives our economy of the very initiatives that would create growth, the education of our people, lifetime learning for the American people.

Investments in education, as I said, nothing brings more money. Investments in jobs, whether it's infrastructure, energy, innovation-- absent in the Ryan Republican job-killer budget.

Medicare, so important to the stability of America's working families, the provisions in the Affordable Care Act that affect Medicare have already demonstrated that it is halting the rapid increase in the cost of health care spending, and so that is what has enabled the CBO to say, with more promise, that we can use a different baseline to reduce the deficit, and that has been used in the Republican budget.

So I urge my colleagues to think about the kitchen tables of people in our country. We sit at a table here and have these discussions. What's really important is how the decisions we make here, what we think, and how that relates to the challenges they face, the education of their children, are they going to be able to keep their home, keep their job, keep their pension, all of this heaped one on top of another of concerns.

And the economic and health security of our seniors not only has an impact on them, the seniors, but on their families. And if we're going to be true to those young people, those 18-year olds, we must recognize how important their education is, but also, how important caring for their grandparents is to the economic success of their entire family.

I'll end where I began. The most important part of all of this is this issue of jobs, jobs, jobs, and the fairness in our budget to promote jobs and to reduce the deficit for the success of America's families.

The choice is clear: Job-killer Ryan Republican budget bill, job- creator Van Hollen substitute bill. I urge my colleagues to support the Van Hollen bill.

I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Lowey, for her leadership and for yielding time on this important debate.

I listened, too, attentively to Mr. Frelinghuysen and the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I heard Mr. Frelinghuysen say how awful sequestration would be. And I completely concur with him on that. I also heard him say nothing in this bill does anything on sequestration. Well, if it does not, why is it in the bill? Is it to get votes on the Republican side because there's not the support for the investments that were called for in the Budget Control Act? If that's the case, let's be clear about it and put it forth. But if it has nothing to do with sequestration, Mr. Frelinghuysen, why is it in the bill? Is it a waste of time and space? Is it a topic of discussion that is fruitless because it has nothing to do with sequestration but it's in there because it sends a very serious message?

And why are we in this place? We're in this place, the Chamber of the House of Representatives, to represent the American people. We recognize that a thriving middle class is the backbone of our democracy and that we are here to meet the needs of the American people and strengthen that democracy. With the legislation that is before us today, we undermine all of those efforts.

With the sequestration, which is reaffirmed in this legislation, we go down a path that is harmful to our economy and harmful to our national security. Don't take it from me. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress last week on more than one occasion that cuts of this size made this quickly would hurt hiring and incomes, slow the recovery, cost the economy 750,000 jobs, and keep deficits larger than otherwise.

Why are we in this place? We're in this place because the Republicans have said that they would not close any tax loopholes except to lower rates--not to lower the deficit, but to lower rates. Because they will not close any loopholes to reduce the deficit, we have to reduce the deficit in other ways.

For example, they will not close the loophole for tax breaks for corporate jets. Instead, they want to cut 4 million Meals on Wheels. Instead of closing loopholes for Big Oil, they want to cut investments in little children's education. Instead of closing tax loopholes for corporations that send jobs overseas--that's my personal favorite, tax cuts for corporations that send jobs overseas--they want to lose 750,000 jobs here in our country. Instead of ensuring that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share, our military readiness will be impaired and health care for our military families could be cut.

On a personal basis, we have teachers educating children of our military families who will be harmed by this. We have psychiatric nurses who meet the needs of our returning vets with PTSD and other challenges who may be furloughed because of this. What do we say to them? Oh, it's more important for us to have loopholes for tax breaks for corporate jets and millionaires and billionaires to send jobs overseas and the rest of it?

We had an opportunity to today in our previous question to bring to the floor the proposal advanced by Mr. Chris Van Hollen, our ranking member on the Budget Committee. Mr. Van Hollen's proposal is responsible and fair and it is balanced. It cuts spending responsibly. It ends unnecessary tax breaks for special interests, some of which I just named, and advances the Buffett rule, ensuring that millionaires pay their fair share.

I mention it because it's yet, again, another time where the Republicans on at least four occasions shut down the opportunity to debate an alternative to what the Republicans are proposing. And this is on top of all that we've already agreed to.

Many of us in a bipartisan way voted for the Budget Control Act, which cut $1.2 trillion in spending. That was in addition to over $300 billion already cut last year. That is in addition to the President and Members of Congress saying we are prepared to make further cuts in waste, fraud, and abuse. And some things are not wasteful. Maybe they're just not a priority anymore or we found a better way to do it. Maybe they're duplicative or obsolete. But, nonetheless, we can't afford them anymore.

So let's subject every dollar to harsh scrutiny; but we also have to subject to scrutiny all the spending on these tax breaks, because that is spending. When you give a subsidy to Big Oil of $38 billion as an incentive to drill, you are spending the taxpayers' dollars. Let's cut that spending, too.

Now, what's interesting about this is that, in what the Republicans are supporting, they are totally out of sync with the American people. Republicans across our country are opposed to the corporate jet loophole. They want to close the corporate jet loophole. And Republicans, by majority, support that. They want to eliminate oil and gas tax breaks. Republicans, by majority, support eliminating that. Republicans across the country say we should limit deductions for millionaires and billionaires. Republicans, of course, say we should end tax breaks for corporations to send jobs overseas. The list goes on.

Republicans, by majority, support the Buffett rule. Even some Republicans in the Senate say we must look at closing some of these loopholes--not just to lower rates for corporate America, but in order to lower the deficit--instead of going to our children, our seniors, our workers and all the rest to make those cuts.

So we are in a situation here today that is created not because the Republicans passed two bills last year. I know the gentlemen speaking on the floor know that last year is over. That Congress has ended. Those bills have no weight. The spending cuts that we agreed to last year are for over 10 years.

The bills that the Republicans passed last year ended at the end of the last

Congress. How to make a law? Just read the book. I realize that you would hardly recognize that civics lesson if you see what's happening on the floor here today and over the last period of time.

But I have enormous, enormous respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We sat on that committee together for a number of years. I appreciate that he wanted to bring a bill to the floor that honors the Budget Control Act.

I disagree with the tactic of putting a reinforcement of a sequester into law. It exists. We have to do the sequester unless we can head it off, unless the safety of our troops and their training, our national security, the education of our children, the safety of our neighbors, unless that takes precedence over protecting tax breaks for corporate jets, businesses that send jobs overseas--the list goes on, and I have mentioned it now more than one time.

So I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this vote. This isn't a vote to shut down government or not. That vote will come at another time.

The Senate isn't going to accept this bill. The Senate is not going to accept this bill. When they don't, they will send back another bill. And we'll just see how many votes are on the Republican side to keep government open, because we have absolutely no intention of having the government shut down. We will just see how many Republican votes there are for that, for a bill that will be a better bill than this.

Although, with the threat of sequester and what that will do to our economy--and our job creation and our reducing of the deficit--that's one thing; but think of what it does in the lives of those 4 million meals not delivered to seniors. Think of those seniors who are not getting those meals, those children who are not getting Head Start--or even beyond Head Start, the education of our children. Some of them are being educated by teachers who are teaching children of military families who will now have to lose their jobs or be furloughed. This has an impact right to the kitchen table of the American people. So we have to think very seriously about what we are doing here. But whatever we do, let's just have it be on the level, Mr. Speaker. Let's have it be on the level.

This is a bill that reinforces the sequester; if it didn't, it wouldn't be in the bill. So this bill, I think, has no merit, and it will not have my support.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving me this opportunity to support his proposal, the Chris Van Hollen proposal, as our ranking member on the Budget Committee, a proposal that is fair, responsible, and balanced.

Mr. Van Hollen has put forth an initiative that cuts spending responsibly, ends unnecessary and wasteful tax breaks for special interests, and advances the Buffett rule, ensuring that millionaires pay their fair share.

I think it is really important to note, as he did, that this will be yet another time we are coming to the floor asking for the Republican leadership to allow a vote in what they boast of as an open Congress, open to other ideas, that has blocked over and over again the mere consideration of Mr. Van Hollen's proposal on the floor.

Instead, today, we are engaged in subterfuge. What can we do instead of doing what we really need to do and make it look as if we are doing something responsible? Yes, okay, let's get the calculation. But let's reduce that deficit. Let's reduce that deficit.

And it is important to note that this debate happens in a week that we will be taking up the continuing resolution. It has been 4 days since the sequester went into effect. The continuing resolution that the Republicans are putting forth is a bill that reinforces the sequestration.

So what does that do? The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, told Congress last week that cuts of this size, made this quickly, would hurt hiring and incomes, slow the recovery, cost the economy 750,000 jobs this year, and keep deficits larger than otherwise.

So we are not reducing the deficit by what is really happening on the major legislation coming to this floor last week and this week in terms of sequester and continuing resolution. That is what we should be doing--figuring out a way to get rid of the sequestration.

What does sequestration mean? Whatever its Latin roots, it equals job loss--750,000 by the estimate of the chairman of the Fed.

And what is the point of all of this? There is an answer. We already have agreed in the continuing resolution--the President and the Congress have agreed to $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. We all recognize we must reduce the deficit. We have all agreed to spending cuts of that magnitude. That was in addition to $400 billion of other spending cuts in the last term of Congress. So $1.6 trillion in spending cuts, which dwarfs the $600 billion, as significant as that is, in the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of last year.

But we need more revenue, and there is a place to get it.

Our distinguished Speaker said there is $100 billion in tax loopholes that could be closed. I think there is more than that, but many of the deductions that we would want people to take to strengthen the middle class I think we should separate out from what the Republicans want to do. The Republicans in Congress are protecting tax loopholes and wasteful spending in the Tax Code, which increases the deficit instead of solving problems.

Instead of closing tax loopholes for Big Oil, the Republicans want cuts for little children in Head Start--Big Oil over little children. Instead of closing tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas, 750,000 jobs will be lost here because of the sequester and the continuing resolution that contains the sequester, which is a fix that we're in because of the refusal of the Republican leadership to close those loopholes. Instead of ensuring millionaires pay their fair share, our military readiness will be impaired. We have kids who won't get the proper training when they're put into harm's way unless the Defense Department can reprogram the money; and health care for America's military families will be cut.

So there is an answer to all of this, and that is that we need to stop the spending in our Tax Code. Everybody talks about reducing spending, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do, and we all agree that we need to reduce it. That's why the $1.6 trillion in spending cuts, and we can try to find more. But why can't we stop the spending on the Tax Code, the spending of tax giveaways? They're called ``tax expenditures.'' They cost the taxpayer.

If you are so concerned about how much the deficit is costing every individual American, why don't we calculate how much the tax break is for Big Oil, corporations sending jobs overseas--the list goes on and on--and how much those tax expenditures cost America's working families. They do so by increasing the deficit and by not creating jobs in our own country.

Again, there is an answer here. To be hopeful, we can come together to say, okay, we all agree: let's reduce the deficit, cut spending, make some changes--those that we can--without hurting beneficiaries in mandatory spending. But why are these tax loopholes for special interests such sacred cows for the Republicans, such sacred

cows that they will not even allow Mr. Van Hollen's bill to come to the floor? Are they afraid of the debate? Are they afraid of the outcome of their vote?

With that, I thank the gentleman again for his leadership and for putting forth a balanced, fair proposal to reduce the deficit in order to avoid sequestration, which we didn't, and as a counter to what the Republicans are putting forth. It's more than a counter. It's about leadership. It's about what is possible if we can work together in a bipartisan way to get the job done for the American people.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, when Congress enacted the original Violence Against Women Act nearly two decades ago, we sent a very clear and immediate message to the American people: no--and I emphasize ``no''--woman would ever be forced to suffer in silence in the face of abuse. No one would ever be forced to fear for their lives and their safety in their own homes because of domestic violence. That promise formed the foundation of our work then, and it has served as a cornerstone for our efforts in the years since to reauthorize and strengthen this landmark law.

Even as the times have changed, our commitments have remained the same, and strong, yet over the years we have always sought out ways to improve this legislation. Today on the floor of the House we will have a very clear choice. We have the choice to support the bipartisan legislation that has passed in the United States Senate. It passed 78- 22. Seventy-eight percent of the Senate voted for this legislation. A majority of the Republicans in the Senate supported this legislation. All of the women in the Senate--Democrats and Republicans alike-- support the bipartisan legislation that I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on today on the floor of the House.

In contrast, we have the House Republican proposal, which, while described in such lovely terms, is a step backward for the women in America and those who suffer domestic violence or sexual assault.

It's really hard to explain why, what eyes are the Republicans looking through, that they do not see the folly of their ways on this legislation that they are proposing. Not only is it much weaker than the Senate bill; it is much weaker than current law. And that is why whatever groups you want to name, whether it's 1,300 groups opposed from A to Y--we don't have a Z--any groups that have anything to do with this matter throughout our country, in every State, oppose the Republican legislation that is on the floor today.

This is what the American Bar Association has stated in its letter to Members in opposition to the Republican bill. It says:

The House substitute eliminates certain critical

improvements and actually rolls back some provisions of the

law that have been successful.

So let's understand the difference between these two pieces of legislation that are on the floor today. Our bill, again, a reflection of the bipartisan bill in the Senate, says to all American women: you will be protected. The Republican bill says to the women of America: we want to protect America's women, everybody step forward--who is an American woman. Not so fast if you're from the immigrant community, if you are a Native American, or if you happen to be part of the LGBT community.

It's just not right. America has always been, and our Constitution demonstrates, a country of expanding opportunity, protection, and diminishing discrimination. And today on the floor of the House, the Republican bill discriminates against a woman if she is lesbian or gay or whatever, LGBT, a member of that community; discriminates against a woman if she lives on a reservation and has been assaulted by someone not from the reservation; discriminates against women in terms of their immigration status--exactly the women who are the most vulnerable and who are in situations where there's a power over them, whether it's immigration law or whatever. The most in need of this bill are excluded by the Republican--the Republican proposal.

So this Republican proposal is nothing to be proud of. It must be defeated, and its defeat will enable us to bring to the floor the Senate's bipartisan, overwhelmingly passed and supported legislation which strengthens current law, not weakens it, and expands the legislation which was passed.

It has not been a bipartisan issue. I was here when the bill passed before. I saw the great work of Pat Schroeder and of Louise Slaughter, who argued so beautifully for this legislation yesterday as the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee. I salute the work of Joe Biden, who was really the author. Without Vice President Biden, at that time there would not have been a Violence Against Women Act. I am so proud of the work of our chairman, a leader on this legislation then and now, Chairman John Conyers, former chair of the Judiciary Committee, now- ranking member. We will be hearing more from him shortly. He has been there steady and strong as a champion in the fight to end violence against women. Thank you.

Our legislation today, the Democratic proposal, is really a bipartisan proposal from the Senate that is authored and presented by Congresswoman Gwen Moore of Wisconsin. Congresswoman Gwen Moore has shared her own personal story with us. The strength of her knowledge of the issue, whether it's knowledge of the legislation or knowledge of the trauma of domestic violence and assault, is something that has impressed so many of us. And when we pass this legislation--and we will--it will be in large measure because of her leadership, her persistence, her wisdom, her knowledge of this issue and the difference that every word in the legislation means in the homes of America and for women who are at risk.

Now, who thinks this is a good idea? I don't know. I hear the gentlewoman, who commands great respect in this body, describe this bill as if it is a good thing. It is not. Why does this take so long? It has been over 500 days, Madam Speaker, 500 days, my colleagues, since the expiration of the Violence Against Women Act. Last spring, almost 1 year ago, April of last year, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed the Violence Against Women Act--in a bipartisan way.

Months have gone by with no reauthorization. Congress ended. A new Congress came in, and the Senate, once again voted--and again in a strong, bipartisan way--for legislation. The House Republicans want to be odd man out on this, or odd person out on this, and have a bill that weakens current law as well as does not rise to the occasion of changing times that the Senate bill does.

Others of my colleagues will go into more of the specifics of it. It's just too much to put into the Record of all of the groups who oppose the House bill. It is almost unanimous. The only people who were holding out were those who were hopeful that something, that light would be shed on this, on the Republican side of the aisle. But this is a remarkable day because we have clarity. And between the two proposals that are coming forth, one of them has the support of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Democrats in the House, and the President of the United States stands ready to sign it. The other is opposed by almost everybody that has anything to do with addressing the challenge of violence against women, and we have the documentation to prove that without going into the specifics.

I just want to say how proud I am of Congresswoman Gwen Moore. She comes from Wisconsin, and she is a respected leader in the House. She has made this, I would say, her life's work. But she has a number of things on her agenda. She has made a tremendous difference, not only in terms of this legislation, but more importantly in terms of what it means, what it means in the lives of America's women--all of America's women.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, the champion on fighting violence against women, Congresswoman Moore.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington State, Congresswoman DelBene.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Mr. Becerra of California.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Congressman Bera, a physician and a new Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a champion on protecting women and protecting them from violence, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida, a freshman Member, Congresswoman Frankel.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Keating, a former prosecutor and a champion on fighting for the safety of America's women.

(Mr. KEATING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another champion on protecting women, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Larsen).

Madam Speaker, may I respectfully request the state of the clock.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a Member of Congress who has been a champion on this issue for a very long time, a health professional in her own right before coming to Congress.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to Congresswoman Kirkpatrick of Arizona who has again every day, every step of the way, been helpful in protecting all women, especially those on reservations.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Lee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), who has been a champion for ending violence against women for all women in America.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize our distinguished Democratic whip of the House, Mr. Hoyer. He was there in the nineties when we worked to pass this legislation on the Appropriations Committee. He and Rosa DeLauro and Congresswoman Nita Lowey and I worked to fund the Violence Against Women Act. He's been there on this issue for a long time. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I want to inform the gentleman that the YWCA USA supports the bipartisan Senate bill that we are urging Members to support and reject the House bill.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), who came to Congress fully committed to passing this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to some of the comments made by those who support the House version of VAWA and they use words like ``all women,'' as the distinguished majority leader said. Not true in the Republican bill. Not all women if you're gay, if you are from the immigrant community, or if you happen to be living on a reservation.

I hear the appeal from a freshman Member, very eloquently stated, ``Why can't we work together and put partisanship aside?'' That's exactly what the Senate did, 78-22. A majority of the Republicans in the Senate voted for the far superior bill.

We've never had a perfect bill, you're absolutely right. But we have a far superior bill that expands protections, as opposed to the House bill which not only is not as good as the Senate bill, it diminishes protections already in the law.

I heard the gentlelady talk eloquently about the money and where it needs to go. It's sad to say that with

sequestration, $20 million, according to a new estimate from the Justice Department, will be cut from the Violence Against Women account. That means approximately 35,927 victims of violence would not have access to lifesaving services and resources.

So the fact is people have come together on the Senate bill. The House agrees with their bipartisan position. The President stands ready to sign it. It's just the House Republicans that are odd people out on this.

It's hard to understand why you think ``some'' equals ``all.'' It doesn't. And that's why it's really important to reject the House version and support the Senate version.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell), a Member of our freshman class.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership as the senior Democrat on the Rules Committee.

Today, we have an interesting discussion. We are debating the rule that will enable us to bring to the floor the Violence Against Women Act. As part of the debate on the rule, we are asking a ``no'' vote on the previous question which will enable us also to not only vote on the Violence Against Women Act but, at completion, to go on to voting on the proposal that the Democrats have to resolve the sequester issue.

I'll start first, though, with the Violence Against Women Act. As of yesterday, it was over 500 days since the Violence Against Women Act had expired. The reauthorization is long overdue. Last year, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed a bill that was comprehensive, that did the job. The House Republicans resisted that. Here we are again, this year, last week, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed 78-22 the Violence Against Women Act, which is comprehensive and does the job. That means 78 percent of the Senate voted--78 percent of the Senate voted--for this Violence Against Women Act. It means also that all of the women in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for this act. It also means that a majority of the Republicans in the Senate--a majority of the Republicans in the Senate--voted for this comprehensive Violence Against Women Act.

So the Senate has passed it overwhelmingly with the majority of Republicans supporting it. The President stands ready to sign it. Democrats in the House support it. We will call upon the leadership of Gwen Moore, who has a similar bill in the House. We stand ready to support the Senate version. The Senate has passed it, we support it, the President is ready to sign it, and, once again, the Republicans in the House are the obstacle to passing this legislation.

It's really hard to explain to anyone why we would say to the women of America, Women of America, step forward; we are stopping violence against women. Not so fast if you're an immigrant, not so fast if you're a member of the LGBT community, not so fast if you're a Native American. What is that? Violence against some women but not others? Quite frankly, the groups that are excluded by the House bill are the groups that are in the most need of protection against violence.

So I would hope that in the course of the debate that we will move on to on the Violence Against Women Act that we will all open our hearts to what is needed to reduce violence in the lives of America's women.

In the meantime, we have a procedure that is not preferable, we have asked over and over again, as the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) has said, this will be the third time we've asked to get a vote on a Democratic alternative. The American people want to know why we can't pass something to avoid sequestration. We have this proposal that is

fair, that does make cuts, that does produce revenue, and that does not impede growth with jobs in our economy. All we want is a vote. Why do we have to beg, hat in hand, for a vote on the floor of the House in this marketplace of ideas? What are the Republicans afraid of? They may be afraid that it will win because it makes so much sense that their Members may be attracted to vote for it. Or they may not want to put their Members on record voting against something that is so balanced, that is so commonsense driven that is a solution, a solution to sequestration.

What does sequestration mean? Well, whatever it means, this is what it equals: sequestration equals unemployment. Sequestration equals job loss. And we just cannot have a slowing down of our economic growth. We cannot afford losing the 700,000 jobs. That's the low estimate that has been put forth by economists and by the Congressional Budget Office itself.

We urge people to vote ``no'' on the previous question, which means that we would then be allowed to come to the floor to take up the Violence Against Women Act and also to take up the sequestration bill. It is really something that deserves debate on the floor of the House.

The Republican leadership has said, well, we voted on that last year. Last year was another Congress. That Congress ended. How to make a law: Congress ends, we have an election, and a new Congress begins. The Constitution says that bills that relate to revenue or to appropriations must begin in the House. So they said, We did it last year. It doesn't count. Let the Senate begin. That's not what the Constitution says.

So let us take our responsibility and not be afraid of the ideas that people sent us here to discuss. We don't have to agree on every point, but we certainly should have an opportunity on the floor of the House. People across the country are talking about this. You can't turn on any media without their talking about this. The only place we can't talk about it or get a vote on it is on the floor of the House of Representatives. That's plain wrong.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the Republican Violence Against Women Act, and a ``yes'' vote on the bipartisan Senate bill when we have an opportunity to vote on that.

Madam Speaker, I rise with great pride to pay tribute to a very distinguished American and a longtime member of the congressional staff, John Lawrence. In fact, he has served the Congress for 38 years as a member of the staff--30 years of it for George Miller and 8 years as my assistant in the leadership office. I'm happy to pay tribute to him.

I'm sad because John will be--and I don't know if the word is retiring--but he will be leaving service in the Capitol. He has always been a great proponent of science, technology, and innovation. As he concludes his service to the House, it is only fitting to cite the words of Alfred Lord Tennyson as inscribed on the walls of the House Science and Technology Committee:

For I dipped into the future, far as human eye can see, saw

the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Over his nearly four decades serving the Congress, John has always kept his sights and his vision firmly on the future. He believed and he knew that the future is about investing in our children, supporting working families, and strengthening the middle class. He knew that the future is about protecting our environment and preserving our planet for generations to come.

John knew that the future of the House is strengthened by fellow staff members working in a bipartisan way. John has always respected the role played by our staffs on the Education Committee, the Natural Resources Committee, the offices of the Democratic leader, and as my role of Speaker of the House and as our distinguished Speaker's role as Speaker today. Indeed, the staff looked to him for leadership, just as Members looked to him for guidance.

In that spirit, this afternoon, my colleagues, the Speaker will honor John Lawrence with the John W. McCormick Award of Excellence on which, as declared by former majority leader, then-Majority Leader Carl Albert in 1970:

The name of the House employee, who performs the most

valuable service for the House, will be inscribed.

What a fitting tribute to John Lawrence's 38 years of valuable service, extraordinary leadership, and dedication to the future. We've had the privilege of honoring in a bipartisan way other members of the staff in the Congress, and John's name will bring luster to that list.

Colleagues, please join me in thanking a dear friend, my former chief of staff, John Lawrence.

I yield to the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner.

With the Speaker's permission, I acknowledge Elijah Lawrence, the teenage son of John and Deborah Lawrence, who's with us in the Chamber.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise, Madam Speaker, to congratulate Congressman Ruppersberger and the other members of the Maryland delegation and, more importantly, join them in congratulating the Ravens. They beat a mighty champion at the Super Bowl.

As a proud 49ers fan who grew up on Johnny Unitas in Baltimore and going to those games as a teenager and raising my own children on Joe Montana and Steve Young, you can just imagine how exciting this game was for me.

Mr. Ruppersberger quoted Coach Harbaugh. I will quote him in another way. They asked him after the game, Was it hard coaching against your very own brother in the Super Bowl? He said that it was very hard. The only thing that would have been worse is if one of us were not coaching in the Super Bowl.

So while it was hard to lose to the Ravens, it would have been even harder to lose to someone else. If someone had to beat the 49ers, I congratulate the Ravens on a game well played.

I was in the stadium. I wondered who on the Baltimore side decided to pull the plug on the electricity. They were wondering who on the 49ers' side did. In any event, there was good spirit. I think if you were there and you saw that delay in the game and you saw the mood of the people, it was a real tribute to the people of New Orleans, who had extended such gracious hospitality in every way. People were in a good mood and they rode out that time.

I want to join you in commending the owner, Steve Bisciotti, in his leadership of the Ravens, but I also want to acknowledge the wonderful leadership of Art Modell. He passed away in the fall after being such a great leader in the Baltimore community, bringing the Ravens to Baltimore and in being a part of the city in philanthropic and other ways. He was a great man. It was wonderful to see the Ravens and everyone else, including Governor O'Malley and Mayor Rawlings-Blake, with ``Art'' on their lapels throughout the weekend.

So to Art Modell's family, to the ownership of the Ravens, congratulations. To the people of Baltimore, I know how exciting it is and what it means to Baltimore. I extend my congratulations. And I didn't have a bet, because I said while I'm rooting for the 49ers, I would never bet against Baltimore. So congratulations to all concerned.

Well, if the Ravens' and the 49ers' fans can come together, hopefully so can the Democrats and the Republicans on an issue of this grave concern to our country, our budget, which should be a statement of our national values. Instead, as Mr. Van Hollen said, we see the Republicans playing games with the budget. Playing games-- that's what they have been doing and that's what they continue to do as we go into this spring, when we need to find solutions; playing games that give new meaning to the term ``March Madness'' because that's what will result if we have to face a sequester. It's a very bad idea. A sequester should be out of the question, and we should be talking about how we find a solution instead of a sequester.

Mr. Van Hollen offered a solution. Here we have a debate on the budget, the blueprint for how we go forward. And the Rules Committee, dominated by the Republican majority, has said we won't even let your proposal come to the floor, not in the form of an amendment or a substitute or in any other way. What are they afraid of? They're afraid of common sense because that is what Mr. Van Hollen's proposal is about.

It recognizes that we need to have spending cuts. In fact, we've already agreed to $1.6 trillion in spending cuts in the Budget Control Act. It recognizes that we must address the entitlement issue. In fact, Democrats have already agreed to more than $1 trillion in Medicare savings to strengthen Medicare and to protect beneficiaries. So with that as a basis, we go forward with the Van Hollen proposal, which is a very commonsense solution. It is a plan to replace sequester. It makes further spending cuts in a responsible way. It ends tax breaks for Big Oil, and it ensures that millionaires pay their fair share. Who could be opposed to that?

So let's get serious. It's time for us to get serious. We have a serious challenge. We should be working in a bipartisan way to find a solution. Instead, again, the Republicans are playing games leading up to what will make ``March Madness'' a term that would be inadequate for the consequences to our children, millions of whom will be affected in terms of their education and their wellbeing; to our seniors, to our veterans, to our safety industry in terms of cops on the beat. The list of cuts across the board and a meat-ax approach with no common sense given to it is ridiculous. It's ridiculous.

Let's stop this march to folly, this ``March Madness.'' Let's get serious. Let's accept the President's challenge that he put forth. If we can't have a big, bold, and balanced solution now, let's at least do something that is balanced and bold as we go forward to the end of the fiscal year, as Mr. Van Hollen has proposed, so that we can do what is right for the American people instead of what is wrong for our economy.

What the Republicans are proposing is a blueprint for a downward spiral in our economy. It's irresponsible. It does not have value in terms of being solution-oriented.

I might add, in conclusion, Madam Chair, that I'm listening attentively to this debate and I hear my colleagues on the Republican side talking about how important it is to reduce the deficit--and we are in total agreement on that subject. I think we have a moral obligation to reduce the deficit. I think we have a moral obligation to create jobs, to put people to work because growth, in addition to spending cuts and revenue increases, growth is what's going to help us reduce the deficit.

But I didn't hear one ``boo'' out of any of the people, not one little hoot, one little peep, or any other sound an endangered species of a deficit hawk would have made during President Bush's term when most of this deficit was amassed--tax cuts for the wealthiest people, which did not create jobs but increased the deficit; giveaways to the pharmaceutical companies with an ill-advised pharmaceutical plan; and two unpaid-for wars. Just not fair to investments that we should be making in America's future, whether it's biomedical research to create cures and to keep America preeminent in terms of science, whether, again, it's invested in the seed corn and the education of our children. The list goes on and on. The list goes on and on of all of the initiatives that are important to growth, to making our future brighter, to keeping America competitive, to keeping America number one.

So I urge a strong rejection of what the Republicans are proposing. It's, frankly, silly and, as I said before, unworthy of the challenge that our country faces and the bipartisan solutions that we should be trying to achieve.

I urge a ``no'' vote.