Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In the political life that we have here and our service to the American people, I take great pride in always saying, when somebody says to me, Were you surprised when somebody did this, that, or this bill did that or that? I say, I'm hardly ever surprised in politics because I know what the possibilities are.

I am thoroughly surprised today. I had absolutely no idea the mischief that Mr. Hoyer was up to, going back decades, I might add. But I thank him for his kind words, and all of you for your nice reception.

I thank the Speaker for his gracious comments as well. While he was speaking, I was remembering, oh, my goodness, we're taking up time on the floor and it's personal and that. But then I was recalling that it wasn't that long ago when we--maybe 5, 6 years ago when we came to the floor to acknowledge that then-Speaker Hastert was

the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House and we made much ado about that landmark. So I comfortably accept your kind words, since we could observe that, and I think and I said, Long may his record stand, at that time.

That passes for humor in certain circles.

As the gentlemen were speaking, I was recalling when I was first Speaker and sitting in the chair to welcome the President of the United States to the Chamber for the first time, and it was President George W. Bush. President Bush surprised me that day, too, when he opened his remarks by saying to the gathered crowd that many Presidents had come to the Congress to speak to a joint session, but none of them had ever opened their remarks with these two words, ``Madam Speaker.''

And he then went on to say that although my father had served in Congress with President Roosevelt and President Truman, and that was a tremendous honor for him, little would that compare to the idea that his, he said something like ``baby girl'' was sitting in the chair as Speaker of the House. That was an honor for me.

His father honored me for my 25th anniversary, President George Herbert Walker Bush, on President's Day, by inviting me to speak to his library, the Bush library at Texas A&M. We recalled a time of civility in the Congress when he was President, and we had our disagreements, as the Speaker acknowledged we still do, but we did so with great civility, and that was what we talked about that day. I considered that a great honor.

And I consider this a great honor to serve with each and every one of you, patriots all, representatives, independent representatives of your district. And that word has two meanings. It's your title. It's also our job description, that we represent our districts and bring the beautiful diversity of opinion, of ethnicity, of generations, of geography, of philosophy to the Congress of the United States. The beauty, I say in my district, is in the mix.

While I'm very honored to have served as the Speaker of the House, first woman Speaker of the House, first Italian American Speaker of the House, first Maryland Speaker of the House, first California Speaker of the House, many firsts, it always is the greatest privilege of my life, as I'm sure it is with each of you, to step on the floor of the House to represent and speak for the people of each of our individual districts.

So I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind words. While, as you said, we may not always agree on taxes, we did at one time when President Bush was President, and we worked together at that time on his stimulus package, which was tax-oriented. You remember that. And it was good for the country, and it was a good model for us to go forward.

It is an honor to serve with you as Speaker. While I with great joy accepted the gavel from you that first time, it wasn't so joyful to hand it back over. Nonetheless, it's all in the Chamber, and that's where we all serve for the American people.

Steny, you don't know when and you don't know where, but one day--one day--I will repay this magnificent honor you have extended to me, which has taken me totally by surprise. Wait until I talk to my staff about this later.

Steny Hoyer is a great patriot, a great Marylander, a great American, a great Member of Congress--a Member's Member, a person who respects every person he serves with.

Steny Hoyer--and Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for everyone in the Chamber when I say--we are proud to call you a colleague.

Thank you so much for this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge--a great feat of technological and engineering mastery, a San Francisco landmark, and a national treasure. Today, it is my distinct honor and high privilege to mark its 75th birthday on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Proving that in times of hardship, America has always invested in big things, the Golden Gate Bridge was built in the midst of the Great Depression. San Franciscans were out of work and saw no end to their woes. Yet voters nonetheless approved the construction bonds to build the bridge. As collateral, San Franciscans were willing to risk their homes, their farms and their businesses--their very livelihoods, in the hope that the toll dollars would help pay back the bonds. The Golden Gate Bridge was a symbol of hope and a vision for the future.

Joseph Strauss envisioned the Bridge, which takes its name from the Golden Gateway that links the Pacific Ocean to the San Francisco Bay. It was Irving Morrow who designed the Art Deco styling and its world- famous international orange color that made the Bridge distinct and unique. The many engineers who constructed the Bridge all shared the American spirit that makes our country great. When it opened on May 27, 1937 Strauss shared his poem, ``The mighty the task is done'' which encapsulated all that had been accomplished.

Twenty-five years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of participating in the 50th anniversary celebrations where hundreds of thousands of people crowded onto the Bridge to celebrate. The enormity of the crowd was so unexpected that the Bridge flattened under its weight. Today, the Golden Gate Bridge remains the most graceful and spectacular bridge in the world, beloved by our city and visited annually by millions of people

from around the globe. It is a beautiful welcome to the many who flock to America's shores.

Whether as a child first viewing the Golden Gate Bridge being mesmerized by its size, or as a worker whose lifework has kept the bridge strong, or as a traveler who relies on the bridge daily, it is a lasting symbol of San Francisco, of human tenacity and ingenuity, and is resplendent in the Western sun.

With great pride I join all San Franciscans in paying tribute to the Golden Gate Bridge: our constant joy, our faithful companion, and our City's pride.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership year in and year out to clarify what our mission is and to make sure that we honor our troops--and ``honor them'' means not having them stay in harm's way any longer than is necessary for our national security.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, and I do so with some level of sadness; because when we're talking about the defense of our country and the oath we take to protect and defend the Constitution, I would have hoped, under this bill, we could have had, on the floor, the appropriate discussion of what is happening in Afghanistan.

I rise today, just having returned with a bipartisan, all-women congressional delegation to Afghanistan. It's our traditional Mother's Day visit to our troops who are there in combat. We've recently been going to Afghanistan, and Iraq before that. The purpose of the trip this time was to have a conversation with the President of Afghanistan, President Karzai, as the first congressional delegation into Afghanistan following the signing of the Strategic Partnership Agreement between President Obama and President Karzai.

But our main purpose of the trip was to visit our troops and to thank them for their service and their sacrifice to keep America's families safe on Mother's Day and every day in the year. The further purpose was to thank, in particular, our women who are in service there--other mothers in combat and, believe it or not, our grandmothers who are in the war zone.

We met a Mom who has a baby that is just 16 weeks old. I had the honor of pinning a ribbon on a newly appointed woman captain who has six children, age 4 to 14, in the 10th month of her 1-year deployment in Afghanistan.

Our women in the military serve our country very well. They strengthen our national security. We are grateful to them and their families, and we are grateful to all of our men and women in uniform.

They are the 1 percent that we should care the most about and focus on. You hear a great deal about the 99 percent and the 1 percent. Well, this 1 percent is less than 1 percent of our men and women in uniform, a little higher than that, when they come home. What we say in the military is on the battlefield, we leave no soldier behind. And when they come home, leave no veteran behind. We will be meeting with our veteran service organizations today as this bill is being debated.

So I wish that the rule would have allowed for the consideration of the McGovern amendment. I was surprised, frankly; and I'm rarely surprised around here. But I was surprised that that discussion could not take place on this floor in the form of approving that amendment because it is in furtherance of what is happening in the strategic partnership.

I can tell you this on the basis of our trip, and we have to be careful when we return as congressional delegations from a trip that we don't read too much into our own observations, but what we did hear that was different from before, going every year, is that our troops' leadership is fabulous. General Allen is so great, as are the other generals and commanders who serve with him. They are preparing for the timetable spelled out in the President's strategic partnership agreement signed by the two Presidents.

On the civilian front and what we are doing with USAID and our Americans who are serving there, as well as the coalition forces and friends who are helping in Afghanistan, are working along the path of this strategic partnership, and then the civilian part to go beyond that.

So, really, I come home more encouraged than ever that it is possible for us to accomplish our mission, which is the protection of the American people, to do so in a way as it comes to an end. And it is never over, our protection of the American people is an endless commitment, but at least the commitment of that many troops on the ground in that country is one that we can say that soon we will bring our troops home safely. And that hopefully will be soon.

So the timetable that Mr. McGovern has in his amendment is in sync with what that partnership is. There is other language in the bill which I think, frankly, confuses the issue; and that is why the clarity of debate would have been helpful.

I am glad that the amendment by Mr. Smith, the ranking member, which is a bipartisan amendment, will be able to come to the floor. It addresses the detention issue, and we will have a fuller discussion of that when that amendment comes to the floor. But to recall, President Obama, when he signed last year's bill, did a signing statement that said that he would not enforce that part of the bill. Hopefully, today, we can remove that part of the bill because it flies in the face of our commitment to protect the American people and to have the proper balance between security and liberty and freedom. And that is our responsibility.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, to vote ``no'' on moving the previous question unless we can take up the McGovern amendment. And, again, I salute the President for the strategic partnership agreement. But most of all, I support our men and women in uniform and their families for their service, their sacrifice, and their patriotism for our country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership on this important issue, not only as this legislation comes to the floor, but for the past couple of decades on the subject. I commend the maker of our motion to accept the Senate bill, Congresswoman Gwen Moore, for her sincere leadership on this issue as well.

Madam Speaker, 18 years ago, Members of Congress came together--some of us gathered in this Chamber right now--came together to make history with the original passage of the Violence Against Women Act. We helped ensure that no victim of domestic violence has to suffer in silence.

I want to especially salute our Vice President, Joe Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate at the time, who worked with our chairman and many Members on both sides of the aisle to pass that legislation, again, making history.

The original Violence Against Women Act took domestic violence out of the shadows and shone bright sunshine on it.

In the years since, domestic violence has decreased by more than 50 percent--more than 50 percent. What a remarkable outcome. Twice in the intervening years we have come together in a bipartisan way to reauthorize and strengthen the law. This year our colleagues in the Senate acted similarly, passing a strong bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 68 1, including the support of every single woman in the Senate, Democratic and Republican alike. In doing so, they not only built on the history of the past, but they made progress for the safety of American women.

In sharp contrast, sadly, while it was a strong bipartisan bill in the Senate, and our substitute that we requested from the Rules Committee was to be able to put forth the Senate bill, so that would be the Senate Democrats and Republicans and House Democrats all in agreement, unfortunately in sharp contrast, House Republicans have brought to the floor today a bill that is controversial in that it will weaken the protections we have given to those who suffer domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

This legislation on the floor fails vulnerable people--members of the LGBT community, Native American women, and immigrant victims. All people deserve to be protected from domestic violence. There should be no exceptions to this law. We can't say women of America, we're passing a bill to protect you--not so fast in your applause if you happen to be a member of the LGBT community, an immigrant or otherwise, or a Native American woman.

Because the Republican bill is a step backward from the current law of the land, more than 300 organizations have spoken out in opposition, from the American Bar Association to the YWCA.

Local law enforcement officials have said that this Republican House bill ``will impede criminal investigations, undermine prosecutions, and interfere with victim safety.'' I repeat the quotation. The local law enforcement officials have said this bill ``will impede criminal investigations, undermine prosecutions and interfere with victim safety.''

Religious organizations such as the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and the National Association of Evangelicals have also expressed strong opposition to certain provisions of this legislation.

The many advocates and experts who work day in and day out on this issue, on the issue of domestic violence, have also opposed the House Republican version of the Violence Against Women Act. Republicans have chosen not to listen to the professionals in the field and are failing to give the many organizations serving battered women the tools that they need.

The Obama administration has said in their Statement of Administration Policy that the legislation ``rolls back existing law and removes long-standing protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault--crimes that predominantly affect women.'' That is why the President's senior advisers have said that they would recommend that the President veto this bill.

Today, this House of Representatives has heard powerful statements from women Members of Congress about the

need to pass a strong Violence Against Women bill. I hope that the safety of women will be high on the list of our colleagues as they determine their vote.

For nearly 20 years, the Violence Against Women Act has strengthened communities and provided critical life-saving support to victims of violence. Because of this law, more victims get the help they need and domestic violence rates have decreased. Not only has VAWA saved lives; it has saved money. All Americans are entitled to feel safe, including in their own homes--every one of us. Yet too many women continue to live in fear. That is why we must strengthen, never weaken, the Violence Against Women Act.

And I want to commend the members of the Judiciary Committee, my colleagues on the House side, the Democratic side, who have brought such tremendous intellectual resource to this legislation, listening to those who minister to the needs of women who have been victims of domestic violence and to those who are trying to protect it.

I know that everyone in this body, Democratic and Republican alike, have the same goal, which is the safety of women. We not only want us to have the same goal, we want us to have the same goal for all women in America. And that's why we must strengthen, never weaken, the Violence Against Women Act.

Because this bill on the floor rolls back current law and fails to protect all victims of violence, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Office of the Democratic Leader

May 16, 2012.

UPDATED: More Than 300 Organizations Oppose House GOP VAWA Bill

Today, the House will consider H.R. 4970, the House GOP

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization bill. The

bill is being considered under a closed rule.

More than 300 organizations oppose the House GOP bill,

including such groups as the U.S. Conference of Mayors,

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National

Network to End Domestic Violence, National Coalition of Anti-

Violence Programs, Break the Cycle, Legal Momentum,

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National

Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, YWCA USA, AAUW,

Business and Professional Women's Foundation, National

Women's Law Center, Planned Parenthood Federation of America,

American Bar Association, NAACP, National Council of La Raza,

Human Rights Campaign, United Church of Christ, United

Methodist Church, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and

National Congress of American Indians.

The National Association of Evangelicals and the Lutheran

Immigration and Refugee Service are opposed to the immigrant

provisions in the bill.

The Administration has also issued a veto threat on the

bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to call to the attention of all of our colleagues and those who follow the work of Congress the extraordinary contribution that Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen has made to this debate. He has led our Democratic members on the Budget Committee in a way that reflects the values of our country: how we can meet the needs of our children, their health, their education, and the economic security of their families.

When people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress, I always say the same thing: our children, our children, our children. And the issues that are addressed in the budget address the needs of our children directly and the families in which they live.

I watched with great pride the debate and the strong distinction that has been made between a values-based budget, put forth by the Democrats, that supports a thriving middle class, and the Ryan Republican Tea Party budget that upholds millionaires over the middle class.

We are here today because the Republicans in the House have decided over and over again to walk away from a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that we reached to avert economic crisis and to reduce our deficit and to honor the full faith and credit of the United States of America. They are walking away and punishing the middle class, because they refuse to close even one special interest tax loophole to reduce our deficit. They are putting Big Oil and millionaires ahead of America's middle-income families.

In recent weeks, House Republicans have voted twice--not once, but twice; here we go again, in the words of a great Republican President-- have voted twice to pass a budget that gives massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while ending the Medicare guarantee and increasing cost for seniors in the meantime. That is an absolute fact. Today Republicans are voting to begin implementing their out-of-touch budget, and middle class people, seniors, women, and children will pay the price.

Consider these few things. I know that members of the committee have made the case, but I just want to focus on a few things that affect people very directly in their lives.

This Republican-Ryan-Tea Party budget will assault women's health by eliminating the Prevention Fund: 326,000 women would not get the breast cancer screening they're slated to receive next year; 248,000 women would not get the cervical cancer screening they're slated to receive next year. Those are big numbers, but every individual case is important to the families that those women live in.

So the numbers are staggering, but the specific cases are what is important, and this is hundreds of thousands.

This budget would harm children and seniors, literally taking food out of the mouths of babies, as nearly 300,000 children would lose free or reduced-cost school meals--300,000 kids. Wait a minute. We're going to give a $400,000 tax cut to people making over $1 million a year, and we're going to take food from 300,000 children to do that.

1.7 million seniors would lose Meals on Wheels--people are familiar with that in their neighborhoods, in their communities--and other services.

It would put Wall Street ahead of middle class and working families by weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the Wall Street reform bill, we not only had the biggest changes in regulations so that the recklessness on Wall Street would no longer cause joblessness on Main Street--the recklessness of some. I don't paint everyone with the same brush. The recklessness of some on Wall Street would not create, again, massive joblessness on Main Street.

In that same legislation--and they were the biggest regulation changes in a long time, decades--the biggest change in history was in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This budget weakens consumer protection. That's just not right.

So, here we are again with the Republican budget, to name a few.

In contrast to this draconian Republican bill, Democrats are fighting for a balanced approach that creates jobs, expands opportunity, reduces the deficit, protects the health and economic security of America's families, and honors the entrepreneurial spirit of America.

Republicans are focused on obstruction rather than solutions. Americans have rejected Republican obstructionism and made it clear over and over again: We must work together to find solutions.

Because this legislation will have a devastating impact, it's opposed by numerous organizations, from Easter Seals, to the National Women's Law Center, to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Voices for America's Children.

As the Obama administration wrote in expressing their strong opposition to this bill, the bill's unbalanced provisions fail the test of fairness and shared responsibility. At the same time the House is advancing tax cuts that benefit the most fortunate Americans, this legislation would impose deep budget cuts that cost jobs and hurt the middle class and vulnerable Americans, especially seniors, veterans, and children.

Mr. Speaker, instead of the slash-and-burn approach, let's come together in a bipartisan way, in a balanced way, to cut our deficit by growing the economy, creating growth, creating jobs, bringing in revenue to reduce the deficit, to make the priority choices that reflect the values of our country, the values of fairness and opportunity, of sustaining a thriving middle class for the middle class and all who aspire to it. It is the backbone of our democracy. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this devastating bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership in presenting a commonsense piece of legislation to ensure that the interest on student loans is not doubled in July, and to pay for that by cutting the subsidies to Big Oil instead of, as the Republicans do, continuing their all-out assault on women's health.

So much of the time that we spend on this floor seems completely irrelevant to America's working families as they're struggling to make ends meet. Imagine them around their kitchen tables as we talk about this, that, and the other thing that seems disconnected from their emergency and urgent needs. What we're talking about today directly relates to what keeps people up at night: their economic security, the education of their children, the health of their families. The list goes on. Some of those are addressed in this legislation.

I think we all agree that the greatest thing the country can do and that a family can do is to invest in the education of the next generation, the education of our children.

Imagine if we're sitting around that kitchen table as a family, as we are, and we say as a family, in order for you to go to college, we're not going to be able to immunize your little brother or sister, we're not going to be able to have preventative care in terms of screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer--the list goes on and on--for your mom or any other preventative care for men and women in your family. It just would be wrong.

Who are we as a Nation, if that's a statement of our values, to choose between the education of your children and the health of your family? It is just not right. Especially when you have a situation where we had this fight over and over again.

But let me put it in context. In 2007, the Democratic majority in the House, working in a bipartisan fashion with our Republican colleagues, passed a bill that ratcheted down the interest rate to 3.4 percent. We were very proud of that legislation passing with 77 members of the Republican Party voting with the Democratic majority. The bill was signed by then-President George W. Bush, and we all celebrated that legislation.

That is expiring in July, and if no action is taken, those interest rates of 3.4 will go back to the level of 6.8 percent. We had been making that argument over and over again, which is that in our budgeting we must provide for the education of our children in a way that enables them to acquire a higher education should they desire and be qualified to do so and if that is in their interests and in their families' priorities.

Republicans have grown impatient, they've said, with hearing about student loans--don't look at us--until the President went to the public and clearly spelled out the public policy debate that was going on here, which is that in the Republican budget--the Ryan-Republican-Tea Party budget--it enabled the doubling of the interest rates. In the House Democratic budget, we provided for keeping it at 3.4 percent--a big difference if you're sitting at that kitchen table and if you have a college-aged child.

It's about the children and the debts they incur. It's about the families and the parents and the debts that their families incur. Because the President took the issue to the American people, he made the issue too hot to handle, so the Republicans this week are doing an about-face for what they did last week, to vote overwhelmingly for their budget, which now has enabled the interest rates on student loans, the Stafford loans, to double. An about-face.

But what did they do? They said, Okay, we won't allow it to double, but we're going to take the money from women's health.

It should be no surprise to anyone because they have an ongoing assault on women's health. This is in their budget, and this is just a continuation of that; but I think it's important to note the following: that they not only in their bill call for taking the amount of money that would cover the cost of keeping the interest rates at 3.4 percent; they say, while we're at it, let's eliminate the entire fund. Let's eliminate the entire fund for the prevention, for the immunization, for the screening, and for the rest--for the CDC to do its public health work. Let's eliminate it.

So that should tell you something about where their priorities are if they're saying, We stand here, once again, handmaidens of the oil industry, protecting subsidies for Big Oil, and instead we want Mom and the children to pay the price with their health. It's just not right. It's just not right. The President made it clear to the public the difference in our approaches on the student loan issue. Now he has made it clear that he will veto this bill if it contains this pay-for.

Unfortunately, rather than finding common ground in a way to pay for this critical policy, the Statement of Administration Policy says:

This bill includes an attempt to repeal the Prevention and

Public Health Fund, which was created to help prevent

disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they

become severe. Women, in particular, will benefit from this

prevention fund, which would provide for hundreds of

thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer.

This is already happening. This would have to stop under this bill. So let's back up for a moment and say we all want the most educated population in our country so people can reach their self-fulfillments, whatever they decide those are; so we can be competitive in the world market; so we can have an informed electorate in the spirit of the GI Bill, which educated our soldiers when they came home and created a middle class in our country, which is the backbone of our democracy. In a global economy, it is even more necessary for us to be able to have the skills and trained workforce to compete.

Let's also recognize that nothing brings more money to the Treasury than the education of the American people. Whether it's early childhood, K 12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning--nothing brings more money to the Treasury. So it would be a false economy to deter people from seeking more education. It's also adding insult to injury to say, now that we've finally had to fold on the issue and agree with the Democrats that we should keep the interest rates at 3.4 instead of doubling them to 6.8, we're going to put women and children first as those who will pay for that. It's just not right.

I congratulate the President for his message to the American people and for the message of his administration in his Statement of Administration Policy that a veto would be recommended. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us this opportunity to talk about a choice we have here today.

Everybody knows that what is essential to a democracy is the education of our children, of investments in the future so that people can reach their own personal self-fulfillment and provide for their families but, also, so that our country can be competitive in the global economy. It is a very important part of the American Dream.

Democrats believe in imposing ladders of opportunity where people can have the opportunity to succeed if they want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility.

An important rung of that ladder is education. We all know the impact that the GI Bill had on America's great middle class, growing America's great middle class, the education of our returning veterans to our country, enabling them to have more education than their parents, and that has been the way it has always been in our country's history, the enduring theme of reigniting the American Dream.

So we have a challenge before us, because the clock is ticking on a July deadline. At that time, left to the budget of the Republicans, the Ryan-Republican-Tea Party budget, there would have been a doubling of interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. We've been having this debate for a while on how we could stop that doubling from happening. Republicans told us they were tired of hearing about the interest rate debate.

Until now, thanks to President Obama taking this issue public so that the American people understood what was at stake here and that the doubling of interest rates would deprive some people of even going to college and be more costly for many others. In fact, 7 million students would be affected, and that means at least 20 million people, assuming they have an average of two people in their families.

So this has a direct impact on many people in our country. It's a bread-and-

butter issue. It's a kitchen table issue where people talk about how they're going to make ends meet, and one of those ends is the education of their children.

So all of a sudden Republicans in the House have seen the light. They're willing to reverse a vote that they took not more than a week ago--100 percent of them voted for the Ryan budget, which would allow the interest rates to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Thank God they have seen the light. Thank you, President Obama, for shedding some light on this, and now they say they're for stopping that.

But how do they want to pay for it? They want to take it from their favorite target--women's health. I don't know why it hasn't dawned on them yet that the health of America's women is very important to the health of America's families.

So they want to take the funds from women's health and then also childhood immunizations. That's very important. Immunization of every child in America is very important to every other child in America. That's where they want to take the money from.

The motion that we have here today is to say instead of taking the money, instead of robbing Paula to pay Peter, we should be taking the money from the tax subsidies that go to Big Oil in our country. That's what we should be doing. Isn't that a better show of what our values are, that we value the health of our women and our children?

To make matters worse, not only are they suggesting that we take the money from the prevention fund, the immunization and screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer and other women's health issues, not only are they saying we should take the $6 billion from there, they're saying we should take the additional $5 billion that would be left in the account and repeal it. We're taking twice as much money as we need for the student loan bill because we're going to use this as an excuse to do away with this prevention initiative that affects women's health so directly. It's outrageous. We prefer tax subsidies for Big Oil rather than the health of America's women.

Once again, they're targeting women's health.

So, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so we will have an opportunity to at least put before the House an alternative that says give us a choice to choose between whether we want to pay for our young people's education by removing some of the subsidies to Big Oil or we want to take it out of women's health.

The very idea that the Republicans would deny us a vote to do that speaks very clearly about how focused they are on targeting women's health as something that they want to cut.

So, again, I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the previous question, which would allow the House to vote on a Democratic bill that reduces the interest rates, keeps them at 3.4 instead of raising them to 6.8, which is in the Republican budget. If we cannot do that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived, way-out-of-whack statement of values that we would make women's health pay for children's education when we should be doing both.

So ``no'' on the previous question--we're not allowed to at least even take a vote--``no'' on the bill, and let's admit that we can do better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us all this opportunity to speak about what is happening on the floor today. It's happening just as we have returned from 2 weeks with our constituents, listening to them talk about core challenges facing the American people and the key priorities our families, businesses, and workers are facing.

Americans have made it clear over and over again. It is their constant message. We must work together to create jobs and grow our economy. We must preserve the economic security of our seniors, the middle class, and small business owners. This is all the backbone of the middle class, the backbone of our democracy.

We must protect Medicare and not dismantle it. And yet, Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues are at it again. Not once, not twice, not three times, but now four times are they voting to cut the Medicare guarantee. We must protect Medicare.

We must enact a budget that reflects our Nation's values of fairness and opportunity and puts the American Dream in reach for every American. Yet, House Republicans simply refuse to listen to what the American people are saying to us. Instead, they have decided to pull a stunt here today and ``deem and pass'' their devastating budget. They know their budget cannot stand the scrutiny of the House, the Senate and the rest, so they want to deem and pass it using a procedural trick to pretend that both the House and the Senate have signed off on their radical agenda.

But the American people know better. They know that the Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee, making seniors pay more to get less on the way to severing the Medicare guarantee completely; that this budget destroys more than 4 million jobs in the next 2 years, destroys jobs. And three, gives a tax cut of nearly $400,000 to people making more than $1 million per year, protects tax breaks for special interests and Big Oil, and forces the middle class to foot the bill. Ends the Medicare guarantee, is a job killer to the tune of 4 million jobs, gives over $400,000 in tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year. How can that be a statement of our national values?

We also know that the Republican budget will undermine Medicaid for the elderly and people with disabilities, slash critical investments in education--education, where all innovation springs from, education, the source of America's competitiveness internationally, education, the source of people reaching their aspirations in life. Education, jobs, and health care would be slashed.

And we know that cuts have to be made, and important spending decisions must be made. But you just can't say let seniors pay more for Medicare, let's not invest in education and the rest, while we give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country.

So this bill, called a budget bill, breaks the deal. It breaks the debt agreement. It makes matters worse for the deficit. It breaks the deal struck last summer, abandoning a firm bipartisan promise to the American people.

Americans already rejected the Republican budget plan last year, and this year is no different, except the Republicans think so--by bringing it up over and over again, and this time by saying we know it can't pass the Senate, so we'll just deem it passed in the House.

Rather than trying to fool the American people, the Republicans are being called upon to join us today in opposing today's previous question and simply allowing the House to vote. And our measure would say, if the Republicans contend--and they do--that their bill does not hurt Medicare, then let the House go on record and say that our measure would prohibit any plan to eliminate Medicare, raise costs, ration care, or reduce the benefits for seniors and people with disabilities.

By supporting our proposal we can keep the bedrock promise to our seniors that, after a lifetime of work, all Americans should be able to retire with dignity and security.

As Members of Congress, we each have a responsibility to protect Medicare for our seniors, to create jobs for our workers, to grow our economy, to build a strong, all-inclusive, and thriving middle class.

As Democrats, we are committed to reigniting the American Dream, to building ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules, and take responsibility. And we want them all to succeed. We just don't want people that make over $1 million to climb up their ladder, make over $1 million a year, and then pull up the ladder so that no one else can even reach some level of success.

We ask our House Republican friends, please let us work together to reach

our shared goals to strengthen families, to secure a future of prosperity for all people in our country.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to stop the drive to deem and pass a measure that will end the Medicare guarantee.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his tireless efforts on behalf of America's workers and for his attempts to bring to the floor a bipartisan transportation bill, as has been the custom in our House and as we do have the opportunity to do by taking up the Senate bill.

The bill in the Senate has bipartisan support--74, plus one who was absent but voting for the bill. Seventy-five Members of the Senate support that legislation. It is bipartisan. It creates jobs. It is worthy of our support.

It has the cosponsorship of the chair and the ranking member of the committee, from Chairwoman Barbara Boxer to Ranking Member Inhofe, a wide array of philosophical thinking, and all of it coming together around a bipartisan initiative.

The American people have a right to know why the Republicans in the Senate, the Democrats in the Senate, the President of the United States, and the House Democrats all support this bipartisan bill while the Republicans in the House are odd man out. It calls to mind when there was an odd man out on the payroll tax cut in December, when all the parties had come together in a bipartisan way.

But what is dangerous about what is happening here today is that this initiative, this kick-the-can-down-the-road, this my-way-or-no-highway- bill attitude is costing jobs. I'm sure that they have been reviewed-- 41,000 in North Carolina; 4,500 in Illinois; 4,000 in Maryland; and the list goes on and on--just because of the delay and the uncertainty that is injected into the system. This costs the taxpayers more, and small businesses suffer because they cannot proceed with contracts and the rest to go forward. And it is a job-loser, as I mentioned.

So this has nothing to recommend it except to be explained by the fact that the Republicans can't even bring their own transportation bill to the floor and pass it. Their own transportation bill is not a good bill, but at least it would take us to conference. They can't vote for their own bill. I don't know how it happens that they have a bill that they can't support.

But in addition to not being able to support their own bill--and it's interesting that the budget and transportation are on the floor at the same time--they have this bill, and yet in the budget that they are going to be voting on today, they have cut transportation funding in half: from $90 billion to $46 billion. That's $44 billion worth of jobs, promotion of commerce, improving the quality of life of the American people, building the infrastructure of America, and that means mass transit and all the rest of that. Cut that in half. Oh, and by the way, give a tax break of over $300,000 to the wealthiest people in America. Wealthy people get off fine. Middle class people pay. Small businesses pay. The taxpayer pays. Job-seekers and workers pay the price.

So I think it's really important to understand what the bipartisan National Governors Association has said:

A string of short-term extensions will only increase

uncertainty for State and local governments and the private

sector.

So, again, I call the House back to its bipartisanship on this legislation. The distinguished chairman, Mr. Mica, has been part of that bipartisanship in the past, and now they come up with a bill that the Republican Secretary of Transportation says is a job-loser and is dangerous to public safety. It's the worst bill he's seen in his 35 years of public service, and his public service has been in this field. Again, it departs from bipartisanship.

So I urge my colleagues to not aid and abet the Republicans in going down this path that is not a good one, but to urge them to bring up the Senate bill. It can go to the President's desk today, putting people back to work immediately.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to rise to sing the praises of our Democratic members on the House Budget Committee, led by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). Thank you for bringing us a balanced budget to the floor, a balanced option on how we go forward to the floor.

Yes, we know we have to make cuts, and we have to increase revenue, but most of all, we have to increase jobs. Growth is what is important.

And the difference between these two budgets, the budget that Mr. Van Hollen is proposing and the Ryan Republican budget, is that the Ryan Republican budget loses jobs. The Van Hollen budget, the Democratic budget, is a job-creator. It's a job-creator.

It also invests in education. Think of it, if you're a student and you have a student loan, on July 1 your interest rate will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The Ryan Republican budget says that's just fine. The House Democratic budget prevents that from happening.

And if you're a senior, the Ryan budget takes you down a path where the Medicare guarantee is cut. You may have to spend $6,000 or more for less in terms of benefits.

All the while, while not protecting our students, while not creating jobs, while not protecting our seniors and their Medicare, the Ryan budget gives an over-$300,000 tax break to people making over $1 million a year.

How can that be? How can that be?

The more people know about that budget, the more they know that it hurts them and their lives. The budget that is put forth by the House Democrats is a positive one for economic growth, for investing in our small businesses, for honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of America, for strengthening the middle class, for building ladders of opportunity for people who want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility for themselves to succeed as we re-ignite the American Dream.

So I thank you, Mr. Van Hollen, for your leadership in putting a budget forth that is responsible, that honors our commitment to future generations, that reduces the deficit in a positive way, as opposed to Mr. Ryan's Republican budget. It doesn't even get to deficit reduction, ending that until close to 2040. I mean, the contrast could not be greater. The impact on America's families could not be greater.

Just think, seniors pay $6,000 more for fewer benefits in Medicare, while they give a $300,000 tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country.

You be the judge. Is that a budget that is a statement of your values?

Vote ``yes'' on the Van Hollen budget. Vote ``no'' on the Ryan Republican budget.

I thank the Speaker for yielding. I am proud to join him to honor the long and distinguished service of the House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan.

For 25 years, as has been said, he has served the House with distinction and dignity, integrity and intellect. He has used his keen mind, excellent legal training, and a commitment to public service to make nonpartisan, objective decisions. Always first in his mind was the Constitution and, therefore, his undying respect for the institution of Congress. Indeed, through his service and his example, John Sullivan has become an institution himself, a source of wise counsel and parliamentary leadership, and though his name rarely makes headlines and though his hard work is seldom noticed in the public eye, the American people have benefited greatly from his extraordinary career.

A proud son of northwest Indiana, John Sullivan was a lawyer by training, a graduate of the Air Force Academy, and served our Nation in the Judge Advocate General's Office of the Air Force. He went on to advise the House Armed Services Committee before joining the Parliamentarian's office. He would ultimately hold the title of Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives, a post occupied by only three others in the past 75 years. He has been a fair and independent voice, a professional of the highest caliber, a careful steward of the rules of the House, a true public servant.

Mr. Speaker, as a point of personal pride, on June 2, 1987, I was sworn in as a result of a special election, and I was the first Member of Congress to take the oath of office during John's tenure. For many reasons, he will hold a long place of honor in the history of the House, and in my personal history as well.

In a recent story on his career, John Sullivan summed up the key characteristics of his success. In his own words, he said, ``You have to be very attentive to every syllable being uttered and able to think on your feet,'' as the Speaker said.

Attention to detail, quick thinking, staying attuned to the letter of the law, these were the hallmarks of John Sullivan's service. He has left a lasting legacy, and I am confident that his deputy and replacement, Tom Wickham, will continue in the same fine tradition.

We owe a debt of gratitude to all of our Parliamentarians. We owe a special debt of gratitude and our heartfelt thanks on this day to our Parliamentarian, John Sullivan. He has earned the respect and the admiration of Members of Congress, and he will be missed. We wish him and his wife, Nancy, and his children our best wishes for their future endeavors.

Congratulations and thank you, John Sullivan.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee for yielding to tell him how proud he makes us all for his important work in constructing a Democratic alternative to the Republican budget, that is, Mr. Van Hollen's budget proposal that is a statement of our national values that says to the American people what is important to you about the education, health and well-being of our children, the economic security of their families, and the health security of our seniors, those are important values to us; and those values are reflected in the Democratic alternative.

The Republican Ryan bill, on the other hand, I do not believe is a statement of our national values as to what is important to the American people as reflected in their budget priorities. But you be the judge. Would it be a statement of your values if you had a budget that said to seniors we're going to end the Medicare guarantee and you're going to pay $6,000 or more while you get less in terms of benefits, while at the same time, we're going to give an over $300 billion tax break to the wealthiest people in our country? Would that be a statement of your values, this $6,000 more for seniors with fewer benefits, $300,000 or more to the richest people in our country?

Would it be a statement of your values for you, my colleagues and the American people you represent, if you had a budget that said to Big Oil, we're going to continue to subsidize you to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, but at the same time, we're going to freeze Pell Grants, we're going to eliminate them for 400,000 young people and make them less available to over 9 million young people? Lower the benefits for some, eliminate it for others, and use the money to give tax subsidies to Big Oil, Big Oil which is making tens of billions of dollars in record profits each year?

Would it be a statement of your values if you said in your budget that all of those young people who are now children who have a preexisting medical condition--asthma, diabetes, birth defect--any of those preexisting medical conditions, under present law, under the Affordable Care Act, they may not be discriminated against in obtaining health insurance? But the Republican budget says they should be because we're going to eliminate that.

To the 2.5 million young people who are now on their parents' policies until they're 26 years old, this budget says ``no'' to you too. We're eliminating that. We're too busy giving tax breaks to the richest people in America. And while we're at it, with young people just graduating from college, some of them may have student loans, and in the House budget--thank you, Mr. Van Hollen--in the House budget, we have a provision that says that come July 1, the interest on those loans will not double. We have taken care of that. Under the circumstances, the path we're on, the interest rates would go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The House Democratic budget says ``no'' to that doubling of interest. The Republican budget keeps it the same.

That's just to name a few things that I think may not be a statement of the values of the American people, whether it's interest paid on student loans, availability of Pell Grants to young people, ending the Medicare guarantee, and as the distinguished ranking member said, right now today, overturning the resources that were put in the Affordable Care Act to reduce, to narrow the doughnut hole. Maybe 5 million seniors have benefited to the tune of $3.2 billion already in the bill. Also, there are preventative services; there are annual wellness visits without a copay.

So we're talking about kitchen table items for people where people are trying to make ends meet, where people wonder about if their children will be able to go to college, and if they do, will they be able to have health insurance so that when they look for a job, they can reach their aspirations without having their choices only narrowed by whether they have health insurance or not until the bill comes into full effect.

So there are just a couple of things that I would want people to know about this bill. They are: ends the Medicare guarantee; ends the Medicare guarantee; ends the Medicare guarantee while making seniors pay more for less, while giving over $300 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. And by the way, did I mention it? It's a job loser.

So I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support the House Democratic proposal, which is a statement of our values and which our distinguished colleague will present--I don't know if it's tonight or tomorrow morning. I understand that it keeps changing.

The House Democratic alternative invests in America's priorities, creates jobs, protects our seniors and our students, strengthens the middle class. Democrats protect Medicare; Republicans dismantle Medicare. The Democratic plan asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share and put our fiscal house in order; the Republican plan gives them more than the tax break they've had, they almost double their tax break.

Our Democratic plan reflects the most enduring theme in America, the American Dream. Democrats want to reignite the American Dream, to build ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules, and take responsibility. It does this by investing in small businesses and entrepreneurialism in our country, by strengthening the middle class. In that regard, we believe that our budget is a statement of our values.

We call upon our Republican colleagues to work with us on a budget that reflects our values. We must work together to protect and strengthen Medicare. We must put people back to work and build a broadly shaped prosperity for all Americans. We must make it in America to stop the erosion

of our manufacturing base. We must rebuild America, putting people back to work. We must do this with community involvement. And all of these things strengthen the middle class, which is exactly what our Democratic alternative achieves.

For the sake of our seniors, for our families, for our children, for our workers, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican plan, which ends the Medicare guarantee and makes seniors pay $6,000 or more for fewer benefits while it gives $300,000 in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the United States. And it costs us jobs to do so and doesn't reduce the deficit until nearly 2040. It's not a good deal for the American people. The Democratic budget is.

I urge a ``yes'' on the Van Hollen budget, a ``no'' on the Ryan Republican budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I couldn't resist the opportunity to come to the floor to speak on the situation that we have before us.

I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for his ongoing leadership in terms of bipartisanship and constructive legislation to rebuild America, which is so important to us. It has been the tradition--Mr. Mica will admit--that this has always been a bipartisan effort. That is the history. That is the tradition. That has served the country well.

For the first time, however, the Republicans have chosen to do a strictly Republican bill which our very respected Secretary of Transportation who served in this House as a Republican, served as a Member of Congress as well as served the minority leader, Mr. Mica, as a staff person, so he has a long history of knowledge of legislation in the Congress, said this was the worst transportation bill he had seen in his 35 years of public service--and, again, this is a field in which he is an expert.

He said the bill loses jobs, the bill Republicans want to put forth, H.R. 7, and it also diminishes safety. That is not a formula for a good transportation bill--less safety, fewer jobs, losing jobs. And so, we have an opportunity to support a bipartisan bill that has come from the Senate, three-quarters of the Senate in a bipartisan way passed it out. March 31 is the deadline when all of this will expire unless Congress acts, and Congress is not acting because the Republican majority does not have its act together. Their ``our way or the highway'' attitude means no highway bill that creates jobs and promotes public safety.

It's really so sad because in the tradition of our country, from the start, from the very start, Thomas Jefferson understood the need for building the infrastructure of America. He tasked his Secretary of the Treasury, Gallatin, to come up with a project that would expand into America, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Lewis and Clark expeditions. And out of that initiative came the Cumberland Road, the Erie Canal, and other things like that over time, and in that tradition, the Transcontinental Railroad and the rest that would come later.

Then in our century, a Republican President, President Eisenhower, at a time of bad economic times, bad economic times, he went forward and took the initiative for the interstate highway initiative, which was so important to our country. It was a security issue to unite America. It was a jobs initiative to build that interstate highway system. And it was about promoting commerce, connecting people, and improving the quality of life. It was a great initiative, and it, too, was a bipartisan initiative. In fact, in the Senate, our friend, Senator Gore, Vice President Gore, his father took the lead on that legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, as we heard earlier from the gentlemen from Tennessee.

So this has all been a bipartisan initiative. It's about rebuilding America, which is part of our reigniting the American Dream to build ladders of opportunities so people who work hard, play by the rules, and take responsibility can have a ladder of success to climb and then put down for others to do. And part of that is A, Make It In America so that people can make it in America; and B, and I get to this point, build America, build America, build the infrastructure of America. And that means everything from the highways with mass transit, rapid transit, high-speed rail, and all kinds of technological infrastructure that we need with broadband and the rest.

It doesn't have any political or partisan cast to it at all. It never has--until now. And until now, for reasons that are very hard to explain to the American people, while we have a solution, we have a challenge. The authorization expires March 31. We have a bill that can be sent to the President in a matter of hours from this House of Representatives this day. And instead of smoothing the way, the road to jobs, we have the Republicans putting up, yet again, another obstacle because they have not been able to get unity in their caucus on a bill that promotes commerce, builds America, promotes safety, and creates jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.

So what are we doing wasting the public's time with a 60-day extension? I support the leadership of our ranking member, Mr. Rahall, when he talks about why we have to do something better, something more important, something more worthy of the concerns of the American people than a parliamentary maneuver that isn't going to produce anything. It doesn't even have anything attached to it that says, let's do this now so that we can do something better later. It has a bill that they cannot even pass on the House floor, their own H.R. 7. If they could pass that, they would. Their own caucus doesn't support what they're putting forth. So they expect the rest of us to cover for them.

Well, that is a real disservice to the American people. It is a real disservice to the hundreds of thousands of construction workers who are out of work. This job in its totality, and the jobs it would save and the jobs it would create, over 2 million jobs, and yet instead of doing that, we have a tactical maneuver for God knows what reason.

Everything we do is about time. It's about time, shortening the time in which people have to wait for jobs, shortening the times in which people get to and from their jobs. And it's about time that we put the American people back to work by passing the biggest jobs bill that Congress can ever pass, and that is a transportation bill. We have it right at our disposal. Mr. Bishop introduced it as H.R. 14, we brought it up earlier today, and the Republicans resoundingly voted against the Senate bill. And I understand it was a procedural vote.

Now in a substantive vote, why don't you bring that bill to the floor? Why don't you bring that bill to the floor? And I ask the question again to my Republican colleagues: Why don't you bring the bill to the floor that three-quarters of the United States Senate in a bipartisan way passed out? We all want a longer bill. This is the bill they can pass. This is the bill we should pass so that the President can sign it into law. Anything else is just a conversation. Taking action, taking the votes, that is what the American people expect us to do. So we can talk all we want. What the American people want us to do is to act. And so I reject 60 days when we can do something much better for the American people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his leadership for helping us honor what our Founders put forth in our founding documents, which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that is exactly what the Affordable Care Act helps to guarantee: a healthier life, the liberty to pursue happiness free of the constraints that the lack of health care might provide to a family. If you want to be a photographer, a writer, an artist, a musician, you can do so. If you want to start a business, if you want to change jobs, under the Affordable Care Act, you have that liberty to pursue your happiness.

So that is why I am so pleased that this week we can celebrate the 2- year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act; and I want to mention some of the provisions that are in it but not before mentioning that the legislation on the floor today is a feeble attempt to unravel legislation that makes a big difference in the lives of America's families.

You be the judge: if you are a family with a child with asthma, diabetes, is bipolar, has a preexisting medical condition, up until this bill, your child could be discriminated against for life of ever receiving affordable health insurance and, therefore, care. The full thrust of the law does not take place until 2014; but already, for months now, no child in America can be denied health coverage because of a preexisting condition, and soon all Americans will have that same protection.

For the first time in American history, millions of American women and seniors have access to free preventive health services, services that prevent, that are better early intervention to detect a possible illness in a person.

Eighty-six million Americans have already received key preventive health benefits under the law, and more than 5 million seniors have saved over $3.2 billion in prescription drug expenses. Already, $3.2 billion in prescription drug benefits because of provisions of the law that are already in effect.

So if you're a senior and you're caught in the doughnut hole, or you would have been, you are already benefiting from this law. And that's what the Republicans are trying to take away from you, from your family, from your life, from your liberty, from your pursuit of happiness.

The last point about seniors and prescription drugs is particularly important because it fits in with our consistent commitment from day one as authors of Medicare in the sixties, fits with our consistent commitment to always strengthen Medicare for American seniors, never weaken it. Indeed, as I mentioned, Democrats created Medicare, sustained Medicare, and Democrats will always protect Medicare even from language that is so misleading as to make one wonder.

Republicans, on the other hand, have voted to end Medicare. End the Medicare guarantee. They have said that their goal for Medicare is for it to wither on the vine. And tonight's legislation is a part of the withering on the

vine. It's important for you to know that if you care about Medicare, if you depend on Medicare, this is the wither-on-the-vine scenario.

In fact, just yesterday, the Republicans released their budget, which would end the Medicare guarantee and shift cost to seniors. End the guarantee. What does that mean? Shift cost to seniors--perhaps up to $6,400 for most seniors a year--and, again, let Medicare wither on the vine. That's why today's legislation is such a cynical political ploy. And I know that American seniors will not be fooled by it.

Today brought legislation to repeal what is known as IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Independent. Independent of political influence over decisions that are made. This piece of the legislation was a bend-the-curve to reduce the cost of health care in America.

Republicans are desperate to distract seniors from their real record on Medicare, and that's what they're trying to do today. I say that without any fear of contradiction and without any hesitation because nothing less is at stake than the well-being of our seniors, their personal health, and their economic health. And that means their security.

Further, in this bill Republicans have recycled their old medical malpractice liability legislation that undermines states' rights and hurts the rights of injured patients to obtain just compensation.

Because of the impact on American States of what they're trying to do in this bill, the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures has strongly opposed this bill. That bipartisan group says that after a careful review it had reached ``the resounding bipartisan conclusion that Federal medical malpractice legislation is unnecessary.''

Again, Madam Speaker, this week we celebrate the 2-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act for what it embodies. It's about innovation. It's about not just health care in America but a healthier America. It's about prevention and innovation. It's about customized, personalized care. It's about electronic medical records. It's about lowering costs, expanding access, and improving quality.

So much misleading information is put out there about it that it's important to keep repeating the difference, the transformative nature of the legislation. In fact, it has already begun to transform the lives of America's children by saying no longer will they be denied coverage because they have a preexisting medical condition. And soon we can fully say that no longer being a woman is a preexisting medical condition, where women are discriminated against to the tune of a billion dollars a year, and cost of premiums, not to mention exclusion from obtaining coverage.

And so I proudly celebrate the 2-year anniversary, and I emphatically oppose the legislation on the floor. If you want to unravel Medicare, vote ``aye.'' If you want to support Medicare, if you think health care is a right for the many, not just a privilege for the few, vote ``no.''

Thank you, Mr. Roe, for yielding. I thank you and I thank our colleague, Congresswoman Christensen, for taking this Special Order today so that we can sing the praises of a great man, our colleague, dear friend, precious person, Donald Payne.

I waited. I said I wanted to go after Mr. Cleaver because I didn't know how I was going to even have the strength to come to the floor because this is a personal as well as official loss to many of us here. And he is always a source of strength to us, putting in perspective the fragility of life and the value that we must place on the contribution of all of our colleagues, especially when we are blessed with the life, service, and leadership of someone like Donald Payne. There are very few people that you can say ``someone like Donald Payne,'' because he was exceptional and unique.

When the distinguished Mr. Cleaver and Reverend Cleaver says that we have to fill in where and take his mantle, that would be almost impossible to do because, over a lifetime, in public service, and a long time in the Congress of the United States, Donald Payne gained standing on issues that takes years to do. But he did teach us along the way. He gave us guidance on what paths to follow, what clues to recognize, and doing the right thing, whether it was in the continent of Asia, Africa, or Latin America, wherever it was, and in our own country.

I had the privilege of traveling with Donald Payne when we were going to Darfur. He didn't want to go to the Sudan. He'd been there many times, Darfur, but he was at that moment boycotting the regime in Khartoum because of how they treated their people there. And while we were in Khartoum and in Darfur, he was in Ethiopia and Somalia and the rest, always working, always working to have policy advice to all of us and caring about what the impact of that policy was on people.

What was interesting to us, though, it was on that same trip to Africa, which many of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus were on, including our distinguished assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn, when we went to Liberia it was a boiling hot day. And we all went to the AME college there, the AME university, and they were honoring Donald Payne for his everything, for what he knew about Africa, for his values and how he was concerned about, again, policy as it related to people, the encyclopedic knowledge that he had, the great wisdom that sprang from that knowledge, the plans that he always had to make things better, and the way people just flocked to him because they would learn, they would be inspired, and they would love Donald Payne.

It was boiling hot. And we go there and they decide that we're all going to dress alike that day, so it even got hotter as we donned our robes. And here we were, seeing--not only telling them the esteem with which he was held in Congress, that was the least of it, because what we were hearing was what people from around Africa, the esteem in which they held him, named a library for him at that university in Liberia.

He was a schoolteacher, and he never forgot how important it was for us to put our students first. He called them the bright lights of our Nation's future, for investing in their potential, for inspiring them to succeed, igniting the sparks that they had within them to do their very best.

He was very proud of Newark and serving there. I remember when he first came here, his work on behalf of his constituents, his neighbors, the middle class, working people, people who were striving to reach up into the middle class, he was always working for them.

He was New Jersey's, as has been mentioned, first African American Member of Congress. He remained a committed champion of equality and opportunity for all. His accomplishments, both on his committee, where he served with Congressman George Miller, who holds him in the highest esteem, and now the Foreign Affairs Committee, where he serves with Congressman Howard Berman. Well, to hear the two of them talk today as if they have lost a brother, and we all have.

We all have an appreciation of his hard work ethic. The knowledge that he brought to his subject, the concern he had for the American people, and the love he had for our country.

Just think, last week we had a visit to our office from Bill Gates coming to our office to talk about the issue of global health, and he asked if Donald Payne could be in the meeting. We had hoped that would be possible but then had to say that he was not feeling well that day. That was a week ago.

But up until the end, he was in demand, recognized for his, again, standing on issues that related to the alleviation of poverty, the eradication of disease, again, alleviation of hunger throughout the world. What more could be about the gospel of Matthew than ministering to the needs of God's creation, which the Bible tells us is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us. Donald Payne was all about worshipping God by ministering to the needs.

He was an expert on economic, political, and security situations throughout Africa, and I had the honor of nominating him, recognizing his extraordinary work around the world. I was proud to recommend that President George W. Bush name Congressman Payne, our representative of the House Democrats, at the United Nations. Usually it was just for one term. In the case of Donald Payne, we went well beyond that in recognition of the extraordinary contribution that he makes.

So again, whether it was in his own district, whether it was Newark, New Jersey, or across the world, he was a powerful and passionate voice. I hope it's a comfort to his children--to Donald, Jr., to Wanda, and Nicole--and all who loved Donald Payne, his dear brother, Bill, who traveled with him frequently and loved him so much, I hope it's a comfort to them that so many people who knew him well, loved him so much, mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I again thank Mr. Roe and Congresswoman Christensen for the opportunity to say just a few things about our dear friend who will be sadly missed and long remembered. His legacy lives on in the Congress of the United States.