Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership and working with Congressman Walter Jones on this bipartisan amendment, which has been brought to the floor. They have worked again in a bipartisan way, in a patriotic way, to ensure that U.S. troops are brought home from Afghanistan safely and expeditiously.

Listening to the debate, it's interesting because I don't know that we are that far apart because we all want

to ensure the national security of our country. We all respect our men and women in uniform and the job that they are doing to keep us the land of the free and the home of the brave.

We respect them when they come home as our veterans, but we have to know that involvement of nearly 10 years has serious consequences for our country.

I told the President of Afghanistan on my recent visit this spring that each time I go there I say the American people are growing tired of war; we are weary of war. We went into Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. For about 7 years, there was no plan. There was no plan on how we would execute what we went to do and how we would leave.

When President Obama became President, many of us who were eager to bring our troops home gave him a chance to put forth a plan, which he did, which calls for the drawdown of troops in July 2011, and drawing down more completely by 2014.

President Obama himself had said earlier this month, I have already made a commitment that starting in July of this year we are drawing down troops and we are transitioning. We are training Afghan forces so they can start securing their own country.

The President went on to say we don't need to have a perpetual footprint of the size we have now. So, therefore, I think it's really important for us to know what this amendment does that I think reflects the mood of the American people.

It requires within 60 days of enactment, a plan and time frame for the accelerated transition of military and security operations to the Government of Afghanistan; within 60 days of enactment, a plan and time frame for negotiations leading to a political solution and reconciliation in Afghanistan, and within 90 days of enactment, a National Intelligence Estimate on leadership, location and capabilities of al Qaeda and affiliated networks and cells.

Who can be against that? Who can be against that? We are talking about 60 days a plan for transition, and 60 days a plan for negotiations.

I appreciate the efforts of this amendment, as it underscores the importance of having a plan and a time frame for a transition of responsibility, a transition of responsibility for security and stability to the Afghans so that we can bring our troops home.

The National Intelligence Estimate on al Qaeda that is called for in the plan will also help ensure our policymakers that they have updated information on the threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates who remain a threat even following the death of Osama bin Laden. Careful intelligence analysis is essential to keeping the American people safe.

So as I salute our men and women in uniform, I also want to salute our men and women in the intelligence community who are an important part of keeping the American people safe. I commend them and CIA Director Panetta for his leadership in the Osama bin Laden operation.

But back to the specific point of this amendment. I have gone to Afghanistan year after year after year, never thinking that we would be engaged in the longest war in America's history. The first 7 years, not even a plan; but now the President has put into motion how we make judgments about how we stay and how we leave.

If you visit the women in Afghanistan, as many women in the Congress have done and some of our male colleagues as well, they will tell you whether you are talking to educated women in Kabul, but really more relevant to me, poor, poor women in the provinces, they are all saying the same thing.

I visited a group of women in the province of Zabul, just as I have visited a number of provinces and spoken to the women across Afghanistan. The women in Zabul said we really want to educate our daughters, we want to have access to health care clinics and the rest, but we can't have that until we have security, and we can't have security until we end corruption.

There are many things going on in Afghanistan that must change. There will be a better chance for change if we make an investment in the civilian side of this transition, whether it's diplomacy, whether it's part of the construction. They tell me not to say reconstruction because not much was there before. Construction there includes building schools. We visited little schools and schools in different parts of Afghanistan. It's very encouraging.

Our troops know that we have to leave, that we have to transition out. But as I told President Karzai also, we didn't come here, and we are not staying here 10 years so that when we leave women return to the subjugated position they were in under the Taliban.

So the answer to that is women must be at the table when you have the negotiations for reconciliation of the leadership of the Taliban, and reintegration of rank-and-file members of the Taliban. As we move toward more stability in Afghanistan, women must play a role. Women in America, women throughout the world care about how this all turns out there.

So here we are, almost 10 years later in a situation where we just want to have some management of this issue.

Let's have a plan for how negotiations will take place. Let's have a plan after we see the National Intelligence Estimate based on what the al Qaeda threat is.

This is a very wise amendment. I thank Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones for how they put it together because it is very reasonable. It has a goal in sight. It has a reasonable approach as to how we get there. But make no mistake: in overwhelming numbers, the American people think we have done our job there in terms of helping the Afghan people. Our purpose there was to protect the American people. We can do both by focusing more on the civilian side of governance issues and how Afghanistan is governed on anti-corruption issues. And our initiatives that I have seen there on this recent trip are an improvement over the past, by training the national security forces of Afghanistan, be it police or the military, so they can maintain their own security, and by diplomatically enlisting other countries in the region because they all have a vested interest in the stability of Afghanistan.

But an open-ended, unending war there, which is costly but is nothing compared to the cost of the loss of our young men and women, that's our first and foremost concern. But there is also the cost in dollars, the cost in opportunity and in military strength. This involvement and engagement in Afghanistan is not strengthening our military.

So Americans are paying a big price. We want to make sure we are getting a return on that investment, and time is a very important factor. It's time for our troops to come home. And I thank Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 90th birthday of a great songwriter, lyricist, advocate, and leading voice of America's artistic community: Hal David.

The child of immigrants blessed with an extraordinary talent, Hal David has lived--and continues to live--the American dream. He used his musical gifts in service of our country as part of the U.S. Army Entertainment Section on the Pacific front during World War II. He returned home to write songs for the nation's top performers; produce Grammy-winning Broadway masterpieces and Oscar-winning lyrics; and partner with great composers to create soundtracks for stage and screen, and popular hits that remain classics to this day.

For his achievements, his success, his creativity, and his contributions to our history and society, Hal David was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame and the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame.

On behalf of his colleagues--whether leaders in the field, famous faces, or those struggling to earn their place in the pantheon of great artists--Hal David has advocated for the rights of all performers and writers in the halls of Congress and in our nation's public discourse.

As President of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, he focused on key legislative issues facing music creators, led the charge against source licensing efforts, and oversaw the organization's increased presence in the field of country music. As Chairman and CEO of the Songwriters Hall of Fame, he invested in new technologies and an expanded digital presence for the institution, and strengthened the Grammy Museum in Los Angeles.

Hal David has spent his career enriching our music, our culture, our society, and our nation. His story is a tribute to his desire to do what he loved, his willingness to work hard, his ability to succeed and thrive across generations, and his creativity. I join my colleagues in the House of Representatives, and fans of music across the country, in wishing Hal David a happy and healthy 90th birthday.

As the Speaker takes the chair, I join him in commending to the House the spiritual leadership of Father Patrick Conroy.

Speaker Boehner, I wish to associate myself with your remarks so beautifully explaining how proud we are that Father Patrick Conroy has agreed to this additional responsibility.

I would only like to add that in his ministering to the needs at Georgetown as a chaplain there, he was engaged in many interfaith ministerings. So that serves him well to come here with the diversity of beliefs that we have within even the Protestant part of our Congress but also throughout the Congress.

Father Pat Conroy comes with a healthy respect for what we do, as Speaker Boehner said. He has been a longtime Jesuit and again served very beautifully in that capacity. Before that he was an attorney. So the making of laws is of interest to him. That is not to say that he doesn't understand his first responsibility, and that is to minister to the spiritual and personal needs of our colleagues.

Yes, Speaker Boehner was correct in saying that one of the last gifts that Father Coughlin left us was a recommendation that Father Patrick Conroy would be considered to follow in his footsteps, and huge footsteps they are. For more than 10 years, Father Dan was our spiritual leader, and we were blessed with that.

Today, we are blessed again with the Speaker's recommendation to the body of Father Patrick Conroy as the Chaplain of the House of Representatives.

It is a beautiful honor, steeped in history, deeply personal, free of politics; and we wish him every success in that job.

Father, we pray for you. Please pray for us.

Welcome, Father Patrick Conroy.

Mr. Speaker, the first responsibility of all Members of Congress is to keep our country safe. Critical to fulfilling that obligation is providing members of the intelligence community with every resource they need to do their jobs.

Today, with this Democratic amendment, we address this challenge head-on.

I'd like to acknowledge the leadership of those who introduced this amendment: Congressman Nadler, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and Congressman Ellison.

I thank them for bringing to the floor legislation that: ensures that our top priority in funding our intelligence services is the campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations; honors the extraordinary courage, dedication, and sacrifice of the intelligence officers, analysts, and Navy SEALs who located, tracked, and killed Osama bin Laden; and commends the leadership of President Obama in carrying out this mission and recognizes the commitment of Presidents Clinton and Bush for advancing this fight. As it says, this action ``brought a measure of justice to the families of the victims of 9/11.''

Strengthening our intelligence capabilities and establishing clear priorities are not partisan issues; they are critical to our national defense.

That is why I urge Republicans to join Democrats to pass this motion and keep the pressure on those who attacked our shores nearly 10 years ago.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this very important issue, important in having an immediate impact on America's families.

They are feeling the pain at the pump. Our families, our workers, our small businesses, every day it gets worse for them, the price at the pump. So what can we do about it? Well, we can do a number of things, and we will, that we have been advocating for.

Of course we must increase domestic production, and there is a way to do that. But that is not all that we have to do. The American people understand that their tax dollars are going to subsidies for Big Oil. If we ended those subsidies, we could save over $30 billion for the American people.

To put it into context, my colleagues, for the first quarter of this year, the Big Five oil companies made profits of over $30 billion. Why are we, the taxpayers, subsidizing their drilling of oil when they are making huge profits, doing it in the free market?

President Obama has written to leaders in Congress asking to bring a bill to the floor to end these subsidies. I have written to Speaker Boehner asking him to do so. He has said the oil companies should pay their fair share. Mr. Ryan, the chair of the Budget Committee, has acknowledged that in his own district. And yet, in the budget that is proposed by the Republicans, Big Oil still gets a big subsidy from the taxpayer. It would mean a great deal to us, in a situation where we are saying to seniors, We are going to cut Medicare; you are going to have to pay $6,000 a year more, at a minimum, for fewer benefits because we want to cut Medicare at the same time we are giving tax cuts, big tax breaks to Big Oil.

So here we are today. Just last week, ExxonMobil reported $10.7 billion in profits during the first quarter of 2011. Over $10 billion in profits, a 69 percent jump from last year. In fact, this quarter marked some of the largest oil profits since 2008.

Democrats are introducing comprehensive legislation. Mr. Tim Bishop is going to be leading us on the previous question, which we urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on so that we can bring up Mr. Bishop's legislation.

Much of what that does is to eliminate tax breaks for the five largest oil companies, saving over $31 billion over 10 years. Think of it. We are trying to just save $31 billion over 10 years, when the oil companies made $31 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year. That is so unfair to the taxpayer.

Legislation to ensure that oil companies are paying the royalties that are due the American taxpayer. Hold Big Oil and the industry accountable for price gouging at the pump. Use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase the oil supply and combat price hikes. In addition to that, we must end the harmful speculation which Wall Street tells us accounts for a large percentage of the increase in the price at the pump.

We also will have measures that increase American energy production. It is very important. We don't disagree that we have to have production, but we do agree that we have to do other things that have a more immediate effect on the price at the pump. And we can do that. And we must invest in our clean energy future, which will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is a national security issue, which will enable us to create new green jobs in our country, a jobs issue which is a moral obligation we have to the American people to create jobs.

But what the Republicans are proposing today has blinders on it. It does not recognize that what it is doing does nothing to reduce the price at the pump in the short term; that there are

many other avenues that we can proceed down in addition to increasing domestic production; and that the American people need something fresher and newer on this than being sabotaged every few years about the price at the pump while we, the taxpayers, are giving subsidies to Big Oil to drill while they are making profits in the first quarter of 1 year that are almost more than what we would save for the taxpayer.

They don't need a subsidy to drill. They don't need an incentive. They have the profit motive, and it has served them well.

We in this Congress have to be thinking about the future. How do we prevent this from happening again, but also how do we have the most immediate effect on the price at the pump? Congressman Tim Bishop gives us that opportunity today, recognizing that we want to have the full diversity of energy possibilities available to us so that the American taxpayer and the American consumer are well-served.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to allow Mr. Tim Bishop to bring up an initiative that he will talk about that addresses concerns of the American people that they know about, that they want to end subsidies on Big Oil, especially when we are talking about it in the context of we must cut investments in Medicare, seniors must pay more, but don't ask us to cut subsidies to Big Oil.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his ongoing leadership on issues that relate to privacy and the health of America's women.

Madam Speaker, today is approximately the 120th day of the Republican majority in the Congress of the United States; and in all those 120 days, we have yet to see a jobs bill brought to the floor. We haven't even seen a jobs proposal or a jobs agenda. Instead, once again, we see a diversion. We see legislation which is extreme and divisive and harmful to women's health.

I rise today to urge my Republican colleagues in the House to let us come together to work in a bipartisan way to address the number one priority of the American people, the creation of jobs; and I rise today as the Republicans bring to the floor this legislation instead of bringing to the floor a bill to end the subsidies for Big Oil. They gave the impression during the break that they would do that. I wrote to the Speaker; the President of the United States has written to the bipartisan leadership in Congress asking for an end to the subsidies to Big Oil. Instead of doing that, we are, again, undermining women's health.

Let us begin this part of the debate with a clear understanding of the facts. Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited under the law due to the Hyde amendment except in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited. This bill is even a radical departure from the Hyde amendment. It represents an unprecedented and, again, radical assault on women's access to the full range of reproductive health care services. For the first time, this bill places restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend their private dollars in purchasing health insurance.

This bill will deny tax credits for women who buy the type of health insurance that they currently have, health insurance that covers a full range of reproductive care. As a result, now, this is about businesses. If you're a woman and you have a job and your employer gives you health insurance, that employer will no longer be able to take a tax deduction from your health insurance--quite different from what happens with their male employees. And in that event, when that happens, health insurance companies will then roll back that coverage because there won't be enough people participating in the pool to justify that insurance. So there are millions of women who will no longer have access to insurance policies from their employer that cover all reproductive services.

The practical result of this legislation for many is there will be a tax increase, a tax increase on small businesses and a tax increase on women based on how they choose to spend their private dollars simply for keeping the coverage they have right now.

Even more of a problem, this legislation allows hospitals to deny life-saving care to women in moments of direst emergency. The bill would permit medical professionals to turn their back on women dying from treatable conditions. It is appalling.

As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote in opposition to this effort: ``We oppose legislative proposals to limit women's access to any needed medical care. These

proposals can jeopardize the health and safety of our patients and put government between a physician and a patient.''

Madam Speaker, let us not work to limit the care; let us expand it. Let us not raise taxes on small business and women; let us strengthen our middle class. Let us never attack the health of women; let us, instead, create jobs. That's what the American people expect us to do, and that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this divisive and radical legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his very kind words. I thank you for yielding your Special Order that you have practically every night that Congress is in session to talk about jobs for the American people and to, instead, allow us to use this time to come to the floor to say, ``Hail to the chief. Congratulations and thank you, President Obama. Many of us in Congress come together in appreciation of your leadership, your determination, and your commitment of resources in the fight against Osama bin Laden.''

I am pleased to join so many of my colleagues who have come to the floor to express their appreciation for this historic achievement. We all know that the death of Osama bin Laden is not the end of terrorism, but it is a significant step. It sends a clear message that the American people will pursue justice.

I would also like to express my gratitude to our former Congressman colleague but now Director of the CIA and soon to be the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta. He was tasked by the President and named by the President in his remarks on Sunday evening as the person who had the responsibility to get the job done.

Our colleague Congresswoman Jackson Lee has referenced the entire national security team, some specifically. I want to associate myself with her comments in that regard: the President's national security team and the Special Ops team--the men and women in uniform and our officers in the intelligence community. It is a testament to their professionalism, their precision, and their talent that no American lives were lost in this action; but it is indicative of, again, the contribution that they and their families make to help us uphold our oath of office to protect and defend. That's what we take an oath of office to do.

We recognize that this achievement was not just the goal of President Obama's, who said as candidate Obama and as President, If I have actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, I will act upon them--and act upon them he did.

I called both former President George W. Bush and President Clinton to

thank them for their work in this regard. In the '90s, President Clinton declared Osama bin Laden to be America's ``public enemy number one.'' He saw that danger long before 9/11. Then, of course, following 9/11, President Bush tried to pursue Osama bin Laden. Their work was important, but I am here to commend President Obama in particular for executing the plan to get it done in recognition of the foundation that was laid by President Clinton and President Bush.

When we think of the symbol of Osama bin Laden and why bringing this to closure is so important, we are venturing onto sacred ground, 9/11-- a shocking act of terrorism that affected our country very, very deeply, but none more deeply than the families who were affected by 9/ 11. We can never make them whole. We can never make up to them all that they have lost, but I hope it is some comfort to them that at least this has happened, however long it took. They used their grief for the greater good at the time by supporting the 9/11 Commission to investigate why this happened so endangering the lives of the American people would never happen again.

I commend the 9/11 families for their sacrifice, yes, for their patriotism, and for what they did to make a difference as we go into the future. Who knows? Maybe the work of the 9/11 Commission contributed to the success of this operation as well.

I know that our time is running out, and I just want to close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that our colleagues in the United States Senate unanimously passed a resolution to honor those who so successfully carried out this mission, and I'd like to associate myself with the language of their resolution. It says in part:

``The death of Osama bin Laden represents a measure of justice and relief for the families and friends of the nearly 3,000 men and women who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, the men and women in the United States and around the world who have been killed by other al Qaeda-sponsored attacks, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the intelligence community who have sacrificed their lives pursuing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.''

As they said, the death of Osama bin Laden represents a measure of justice. With gratitude for this measure of justice, I again hail to the chief, President Obama, for his great work. I thank him and congratulate him and all who made this historic achievement possible.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As is very evident by the response to your remarks in praise of Father Coughlin, if there's one thing that Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives agree on, it is that God has truly blessed us with the service of Father Coughlin as our Chaplain for the past 11 years.

When we talk about him being our Chaplain, it's not that he's just the Chaplain of the Members, he's the Chaplain for the staff, for the carpenter that we see in the hall, for the service employees who are here. He ministers to the needs of all of us here, sometimes in a very macro way.

When 9/11 struck, or in Tucson most recently, or with the anthrax threat, those kinds of things had an impact on all of us. Father was there for us as a group, and he was there for us individually. We never know what joys or pain our colleagues or our workers here are undergoing or suffering. Father Dan knows more than most of us, and his discretion is something that we all value and respect.

Father Dan has ministered to the needs of the poor with the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta, India. He has meditated with the Trappist monks in the monastery, and I think he's going back to do some of that again. He has been a scholar-in-residence at the North American College in Rome, exchanging ideas there. He has ministered to the needs of his parishioners in LaGrange, Illinois, and that probably serves him best for ministering to the diverse needs of the flock that he shepherds here. We are very, very, very honored.

Last year, many of us in a bipartisan way stood up and sang the praises. It seems so recent, but it was a year ago. Then after that, Father was honored in Illinois for serving as a priest for 50 years. For some of us, it was really a special source of pride. Although we respect all of our Chaplains, it was a source of personal pride that he was the first Roman Catholic Chaplain in the House of Representatives, and he showed that he could minister to the needs of all of the Members of all faiths here.

So, yes, we are very blessed by his service in the Congress. We are going to miss him a great deal. We wish him well as he goes forth. The legacy that he left us is one that was not only of opening prayer each day to inspire us and lift us to a higher place in our deliberations, but he set an example of civility in the Congress of confidentiality of relationships. He was a great Chaplain. We will miss him greatly, and we are enormously grateful to him.

Thank you, Father Coughlin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him and the members of the Budget Committee for their hard work to bring legislation to the floor to enable us to have this debate yesterday and today and I think for a long time to come.

We have said it over and over again: A Federal budget should be a statement of our national values. It should reflect what is important to us as we allocate the resources of investments for the future. Much has been said about this deficit, and I want to join the distinguished ranking member before I go any further in correcting the record.

I listened with great interest as Members on the other side are taking credit for the Clinton administration balanced, or budgets in surplus. And I remind them or tell them, because many of them may not know, that those budgets were a result of the 1993 budget vote that we took on this floor of the House without one Republican vote which was the source of that fiscal discipline and job creation, again, as other speakers have said, over 20 million jobs created.

So when I hear the Republicans say it was the Clinton Presidency and the Republican Congress, no, it was the Democratic Congress, because we know that deficit reduction is essential. We had to stop the budget deficits that President Clinton inherited, and now

we have to stop the budget deficits that President Obama inherited.

Budget deficits, I've heard our colleagues say, are immoral. I quite agree. We have a responsibility and an obligation to our children and our grandchildren not to send them any bills, personal or official. And we do not intend to do so. But they were immoral during the Bush years, too, when they were giving tax cuts to the rich, two unpaid-for wars and a prescription drug benefit that gave away the store to the private sector and sent the bill to the taxpayer.

So here we are with a choice on the floor. Some of it was spoken; a vision of it was shared with the Nation by President Obama the other day. He talked about an America of greatness that cared about its people. He talked about the essential need for us to reduce the deficit. He talked about growth, investments, and job creation.

He talked about being fair to our seniors and keeping our promise to them. In the budgets that we have before us today, one presented by Mr. Van Hollen, one presented by the Republicans, we see a sharp contrast, one that supports the vision that the President puts forth, and one that definitely does not.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the budget deficit; but we also in doing so, if we are going to do right by the American people, have to recognize that there are other deficits. We have a deficit in education. We have a deficit in innovation because innovation begins in the classroom. We have a deficit in investments in our infrastructure. All of these investments have a payoff back to us. They create growth. They bring revenue to the Treasury, and they help reduce the deficit.

It is a false economy to think that we can write a budget that cuts serious investments in education, infrastructure, innovation and the rest and think that we are going to end the deficit. You cannot cut your way out of it. You cut, you grow, and you increase revenue. That's a subject I will hold for when we talk about the Republican budget more specifically.

What is important to note, if you had one thing to know about the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in terms of these budgets, if you had just one thing, it would be on the subject of Medicare. The Republican budget breaks the promise that this country has made to seniors that after a lifetime of work, they will be able to depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement. But the plan here ends Medicare as we know it and dramatically reduces benefits for seniors. It forces seniors to buy their insurance from the health insurance companies where the average senior would be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefit--as much for some as $20,000 a year.

I want to call the attention of my colleagues to this chart, ``Senior Citizens Health Cost Skyrockets Under Republican Budget.'' Blue is the government share, red is the beneficiary share. Health care spending for a typical 65-year-old in 2022 dollars, the Republican budget would have $8,000 from the Federal Government, $12,500 from the individual, which is more than twice what the Medicare cost should be to a senior, $6,150; twice as much for less in benefit.

Now, this chart is not our chart. This information was conveyed to the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a letter to him describing what the cost would be to seniors under his plan. I just don't think that is fair to our seniors. This plan has the wrong priorities. It is focused on helping corporate special interests and Wall Street, not reducing the deficit or helping the country.

It raises taxes for the middle class while cutting them for the wealthiest in our country. It repeals Wall Street reforms for the big banks. It abolishes Medicare as we know it, cuts funding for education, health care, alternative energy and job training programs, and uses the money not for reducing the deficit but to help the most privileged, help the most privileged and negate what we did in our health care bill, which was to start to close the doughnut hole.

If you are a senior and you see that your prescription drug costs will come down under the health care bill and the doughnut hole will close, this budget reverses that.

There are so many reasons for seniors and people with disabilities and people who care about Medicare to be concerned. Medicare is a bedrock of stability for our seniors, for their health, for their economic security, and for those with disabilities who depend on it. We must make sure that it is solvent, but we must not charge seniors more while giving bigger tax cuts to the wealthy.

Just remember these three points. First of all, it abolishes Medicare as we know it, increasing costs to seniors, while it gives tax breaks of tens of billions of dollars to Big Oil.

Changes in Medicaid will send seniors out of nursing homes while we give tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. This Ryan budget, the Republican budget, will hurt education, cut the education of our children, increase the cost of higher education for young adults, 10 million young adults, while we give tax cuts to the wealthiest. That's just not the American way.

The President said in his remarks that we are about shared responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are about a sense of community in our country. And so as we want to reduce the deficit, the fiscal deficit, and we must, and we have proven, Democrats have proven that we can, this proposal does not.

But what Mr. Van Hollen is proposing in the positive sense is recognizing that we need to reduce the deficit, growth is a part of that and so we have investments in education and the innovation that springs from that, and other initiatives that grow our economy, that strengthen the middle class, that creates jobs as it reduces the deficit.

I urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Mr. Van Hollen's budget and ``no'' on the Ryan budget to strengthen the middle class.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for bringing a budget proposal to the floor today that is a statement of our national values and about what we care about: investing in our children, honoring our seniors, creating jobs, growing the economy and strengthening the middle class. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen, for your great leadership in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, today we will be taking a vote that is very, very important for the health and security of American seniors. A great deal is at stake. I'm just going to focus on one part of this Republican budget. I want to say to my Republican colleagues, Do you realize that your leadership is asking you to cast a vote today to abolish Medicare as we know it? Because that is the vote that we have. This is not about an issue; this is about a value. This is about an ethic. Medicare is a core value of our social compact with the American people. Yet this budget shreds that contract which is part of the strength of our country. The Republican proposal breaks the promise that our country has made to our seniors that after a lifetime of work, they will be able to depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement.

This plan, the Republican plan, ends Medicare as we know it and dramatically reduces benefits for seniors. It forces them to pay more to buy their insurance from health insurance companies, where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefit. I want to repeat that: the Republican plan forces seniors to buy their insurance from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefits, as much as $20,000 per year more for some seniors.

This plan has the wrong priority for our seniors and for all Americans. Just remember these three things about the Republican budget: It ends Medicare as we know it as it gives big tax breaks and subsidies--tens of billions of dollars--to Big Oil. This budget reduces Medicaid for our seniors in nursing homes, sending them away from nursing homes, while it gives tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. This budget hurts our children's education. In fact, it increases the cost of higher education for nearly 10 million of our young adults, while it gives tax breaks to America's wealthiest families. That's just not fair. It is just not the American way.

Here we are. Yesterday, we observed the 100th day of the Republican majority in Congress. In those 100 days, not one job has been created. Not one job agenda is in the works. And what are we doing? We are here to abolish Medicare instead.

I have heard our colleagues say that the budget deficit is immoral. It's been immoral for the 8 years of the Bush administration, and I didn't hear anybody say ``boo'' while we were giving tax cuts to the rich, having two wars unpaid for, and giving prescription drug bills to the private sector.

Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. We have demonstrated that we can during the Clinton administration, and we will. We are committed to strengthening the middle class, to growing our economy as we reduce the deficit, and to creating jobs. The Republican budget fails to do that, and the Republican budget will not have Democratic support.

We are here, and as one of the previous speakers said, now is the time. Now is the time to preserve Medicare. And Democrats will. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican plan.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her forceful leadership in promoting women's health.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, when I was in high school--a long time ago--I participated in an extemporaneous debate contest. One of the contestants there, a friend of mine, drew from the bowl a slip that said, ``Do women think?'' ``Do women think?'' Now, this was a long time ago, but even then we thought that was a startling question, ``Do women think?'' The young lady who drew it--she was really a girl in high school--spoke with great grace and strength about women and won the debate, which we hope to do today.

I hadn't thought of that debate for a long time, but it came rushing down on me as I heard our Republican colleagues put forth their cuts on women's health, especially eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood. The arguments which the Republicans have put forth sound like the same question of a decade ago, do women think? It's an assault on the judgment of women. It bespeaks a lack of respect for women to determine the size and the timing of their families.

It's clear that Republicans do not support family planning--it's hard to understand, but it's clear that they don't--and have used debate on this bill to spread misinformation about the critical work that Planned Parenthood does on behalf of America's women every day. So let us be clear, Planned Parenthood health centers currently provide preventive services to millions of women in need of health care, including the provision of contraception, cancer screening, breast exams, and HIV testing.

Further, this debate is not about abortion. That is because Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited. That is the law of the land. This debate is about women's health.

Every year, Planned Parenthood health centers provide the following for women's health: Contraception to nearly 2.5 million patients; nearly 1 million pap tests identifying about 93,000 women at risk for developing cervical cancer; 830,000 breast exams, helping alert patients to possible cancers. That is why cutting off Federal funding for Planned Parenthood would have a devastating impact on women's health across the country.

Indeed, more than 90 percent of the health care provided by Planned Parenthood is preventive care. For a majority of the women who use Planned Parenthood health centers, the centers are the primary source of receiving health care services. Elimination of funding means that these women do not have health care of any kind.

Today's legislation--which has no chance of passing the Senate and becoming law, thank God--is just part of the Republican agenda that is the most comprehensive and radical assault on women's health and reproductive freedom in our lifetime. And that's saying something.

Further, I point out that today on the floor of this House, this is the 100th day of the Republicans having the majority, here we are again debating legislation that has nothing to do with the number one priority of the American people: creating jobs. Indeed, after 100 days, the Republicans have not created one job and have not offered a jobs agenda and are instead on the march against women's health and to end Medicare in order to give tax breaks to Big Oil and millionaires.

Some Republicans say that we're here because we did not pass a bill last year. It was shocking to hear even some members of the Appropriations Committee--who should know better--on the Republican side say that. But indeed we did. It was held up by Republicans in the Senate. We passed it in the House without one Republican vote, the omnibus bill, but it was held up by the Republicans in the Senate. And in that bill we cut $41 billion from the President's budget.

So today when I hear our colleagues say we are cutting $78 billion-- $37.5 today. The other $41 billion, which is the largest amount, was cut by the Democrats without one Republican vote at the end of last year.

Today, in this latest partisan maneuver, Republicans are perpetrating an attack on the health of women across the country, and I rise in strong opposition to their efforts. We must all stand strong against that agenda against women's health. We must all continue to work to create a healthier America. And that is why I urge a ``yes'' to women's judgment, a ``yes'' to respect their decision on the size and timing of their families, and a ``no'' for this vote, which is an attack on women's health.

Mr. Speaker, in support of consumer choice, innovation and economic growth, and a free and open Internet, I oppose the repeal of net neutrality rules.

In the wake of extraordinary movements for reform and human rights in the Middle East--organized online, on Facebook and Twitter--the United States must take heed of one of the fundamental facts of our time: that an open Internet is a critical building block of free, prosperous, democratic societies in the 21st century.

Out of this conviction, many of us have fought for net neutrality rules--because neither government nor telecommunications firms should be in charge of our free speech; because the Internet strengthens our democracy, stimulates investment, and bolsters our economy.

As a coalition of small businesses wrote in opposition to today's resolution: ``the open Internet increases opportunities for businesses large and small to compete and grow . . . An open Internet allows us to reach our customers at any place and at any time . . . An open Internet is an engine for economic growth, innovation, and job creation.'' To put it another way: an open Internet enhances consumer choice, supports entrepreneurship, and ensures competition in our economy.

Among those leading the charge are: Ranking Member Henry Waxman, Energy and Commerce Committee; Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications

and Technology; Congressman Ed Markey, Congressman Mike Doyle, and Congresswoman Doris Matsui of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Late last year--after hearing from public interest groups, civil rights organizations, religious leaders, small businesses, unions, and education advocates--the Federal Communications Commission issued long- overdue rules for open access to websites and online services.

These standards were a step in the right direction; but they did not go far enough. Standing alone, the rules are not sufficiently clear, consistent, or firm to effectively protect consumers and innovative freedom. But that's not reason to eliminate them; it's reason to strengthen them.

However, the resolution before us today takes us in the wrong direction. It will revoke basic consumer protections of transparency and choice online; eliminate competition and shut off outlets of innovation. And it betrays the democratic values resting at the core of our history, our success, and our country's prosperity.

We live in an era when the Internet has the potential to transform lives for the better--through job creation and economic development; as a venue to communicate, speak out, and exercise our fundamental right to free expression. Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree that we must tap into this potential for the benefit of all Americans. We must work together to maintain and expand an Internet where innovation can flourish, where consumer choice is protected, where the democratic spirit of our nation remains strong.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership in this debate this afternoon. I have been listening to it very intently. I heard the debate on the rule this morning and then the debate this afternoon.

Some questions have arisen. First, I want to state a fact. The fact is that every single one of us in this body as our first act raises our right hand to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The bill that we have on the floor before us does violence to those provisions in the Constitution that describe how to pass a bill--not by one House deeming it, but, as our distinguished assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn, described his daughter's schoolchildren in her class could tell you that you pass one House, you pass another House, it's signed by the President. But that seems to be missed by the makers of this resolution today.

Again, Mr. Clyburn talked about the constitutional authority to bring this bill to the floor. It's truly a mystery how you can take an oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States, bring a bill to the floor in violence of that, and justify it constitutionally.

I've heard the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, say that we have some visiting parliamentarians here who are watching this debate to see if Congress can get its job done. Please don't pay attention to this. What you see on the floor today is no example of democracy in action. It's silly. The Republican leadership is asking its members to make a silly vote. And it's time for us to stop that silliness and get serious about the creation of jobs, get serious about not shutting down government, abnegating our responsibilities and shutting down government.

I've heard Mr. Hoyer earlier today talk about how we got here in terms of this budget deficit. We all know that we must reduce the deficit. That's why, during the Clinton years, as Mr. Hoyer said, we reversed the first Bush's deficit. We came out in a trajectory of fiscal responsibility, going into surplus. The last five Clinton budgets were in surplus or in balance. But because of tax cuts for the rich, two unpaid-for wars, and a prescription drug bill that gave away the store to the pharmaceutical industry, we came back into deficit-- the biggest swing in fiscal irresponsibility in our country's history. And now we've had to deal with that. And what's the answer that the Bush administration gave us? Tax cuts for the rich. That's how you create jobs. We didn't. That's how you reduce the deficit. We grew it.

I think it's important when we're talking about the deficit--which we all agree must be cut--and we talk about jobs to note that in the first year of the Obama administration more jobs were created in the private sector than in the 8 years of the Bush administration. Tax cuts for the rich did not produce jobs. Cuts in initiatives to educate our people and keep us healthy and safe, those cuts did not create jobs.

So here we are today, at the end of a week, wasting the public's time on a notion--not even an idea; on a notion--that does not rise to the level of a credible idea that one House can deem a bill the law of the land.

I also heard on the floor of the House a call for Senator Reid, the leader in the Senate, to take up H.R. 1. He did. It failed. Not even the Republicans all voted for it in the United States Senate. Three Republican Senators voted against H.R. 1 in the Senate. Perhaps you don't know the date, but it did happen.

It's stunning to hear this debate that talks about visiting parliamentarians seeing an example of good government in action. No. Wrong.

So what could be the explanation for this? Mr. Clyburn suggested it could be April Fool's and at end of this debate the gentleman will withdraw the amendment, apologize for wasting the public's time, and say that this is only an April Fool's joke. Because that's the only thing that it complies with. It does not comply or conform with honoring the Constitution. It does not create jobs. It does not reduce the deficit, and it does not have the support of the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his hard work to help keep the government open.

While many of us will not agree on the legislation before us today, we know it is necessary for us to proceed. So I don't rise to support or oppose the legislation but, instead, to comment on the situation that we are in.

Again, today, we are in a situation. We are debating a short-term bill to keep the government open on a week-by-week basis. This is not any way to run a government or a business. It certainly is not the way, as the military leadership has told us, to protect the national security of our country--on a week-to-week basis.

Democrats will work with Republicans on legislation that will create jobs, that will strengthen the middle class, and that will reduce the deficit. On all three of these scores, this Republican spending bill fails.

Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top priority of this Congress. We won't go into the history right now, but it's well known that President Clinton took us out of a period of deficit--his last five budgets being in surplus, or in balance. President Bush turned that around immediately when he became President, and now we have to dig ourselves out of the deficit that he has taken us into. Last December, Democrats passed a $41 billion cut in the President's budget. We did so with only one Republican vote, $41 billion. Democrats are in the lead on fiscal soundness.

On the subject of jobs, we are in the 11th week of the Republican majority in the Congress, and we have not seen one bill that will create jobs. In fact, the only bill coming from the Republicans, the only legislation that has come to the floor to create jobs, would be the Democratic initiatives.

One is Build America Bonds: to build the infrastructure of America to keep ahead of the game in terms of innovation. Build America Bonds. Republicans overwhelmingly rejected that. The other bill was a bill to keep our jobs from going overseas by rewarding businesses that sent jobs overseas. Democrats said ``no'' to that idea. Republicans said ``no'' to our legislation. Zero jobs bills in 11 weeks.

It is quite different from the record of President Obama, who came into office 2 years ago with a Democratic Congress. President Obama was a job creator from day one, one week and one day after the President's inaugural address, calling for swift bold action now to create jobs. The House of Representatives passed the recovery bill, which was then passed by the Senate and signed into law in a matter of weeks. That legislation created or saved 3.6 million jobs. This is important in terms of the deficit because it produced jobs. It produced revenue into the Treasury that helped reduce the deficit.

Tax cuts for the wealthy, which has been the job creator that the Republicans put forth in the Bush administration and have put forth since, do not create jobs but increase the deficit.

So we are at the place, again, of 11 weeks. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Republican spending bill would cost not a trivial amount of jobs; Mark Zandi, the Republican economist, said the Republican spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs. Goldman Sachs said the Republican spending bill would reduce U.S. economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percent; 320 economists sent a letter, calling Republican cuts a threat to our economy's long-term economic competitiveness and to the strength of our current economic recovery.

They all agree, to one extent or another, that the Republican agenda is taking us in the wrong direction, and that agenda is manifested in the continuing resolution, H.R. 1, and in the budget approach that they are taking. In fact, in addition to not creating jobs, the Republican initiative is making matters worse.

Many of us have come to the floor to talk about budgets year in and year out. We all say that our national budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to our country should be reflected in the allocation of our resources. We want to have that debate on values rather than just on cuts.

Again, we all agree we have to get rid of waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, obsolescence, and the rest. The GAO has given us a blueprint for that, and we subscribe to that. We all agree that we must reduce the deficit, and the fiscal commission has given us a road map for that. We can agree or disagree with some of it; but the fact is it gives us a blueprint for how to go forward, and we should take heed of that. That blueprint says that we should not be making cuts right now that will be harmful to our recovery. Yet that's exactly what the Republican initiatives do.

So as to this statement of value, when we have this debate, it's not a debate about are we going to cut 6 million or 3 million seniors off of Meals on Wheels. It's about who we are as a country, how do we protect the American people both in our national security and our neighborhoods. It's how we educate our children to make them happy and also how to keep us competitive as innovators internationally. It's how we maintain a healthy America. It's not just about their health care but about their good health: the air they breathe, the water they drink, the safety of the food they eat.

It is about the creation of jobs. I believe we have an obligation as a government to be job creators. Jobs give people the means to find their own happiness and also to bring revenue into the Treasury, if we're just speaking pragmatically and not in terms of values.

I don't believe it's just about the dollars. It's because of the values that we have to have this debate. Unfortunately, the bills that we are being presented with, like H.R. 1, are like a balloon. You squeeze it here and it pops out there. It doesn't change anything for the better. In fact, as has been indicated, it makes matters worse.

So as we consider our budgetary decisions as a discussion, as a statement of our national values, we have to remember that the greatness of our country depends on the strengthening of our middle class. We have to do that by creating jobs, and we certainly must reduce the deficit.

Now we are waiting at the negotiating table for the Republicans to show that they are willing to work together--we cut $41 billion with one Republican vote--and that they are willing to work together to reach an agreement that is a statement of our values. I think we can do that. Many of us have worked together on the Appropriations Committee over the years.

I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in our efforts to create jobs, to strengthen the middle class, and to reduce the deficit--and to do so in the interest of the American people.

That's why I think, on this vote today, people will vote however they view their own statements about it. The big vote that is coming up is the vote on the continuing resolution, on the long-term basis to keep the government open and functioning for people--again, in a way that is a statement of values for our great country.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the Speaker of the House to honor a committed public servant, a woman of this House, a key thread in the fabric of the congressional staff, who retires today after 54 years of service: Pat Kelly. Fifty-four years of service.

Since arriving as a committee staffer in 1957, Pat Kelly has worked behind the scenes on behalf of the American people--never asking for recognition, never looking for the limelight.

The daughter of Congresswoman Edna Kelly, Pat said she came to Washington because, in her words, ``I just felt the urge to do something.'' And for more than half a century, she did far more than her fair share.

Pat Kelly has served in many roles on Capitol Hill. In all, she helped Members to do their jobs and worked tirelessly on issues important to her and critical to our country's future.

Few issues played a larger role for her than the fight for women's rights. In 1962, she helped her mother pass the first equal pay bill and watched with pride as President John F. Kennedy signed it into law.

As a legislative aide to former Congresswoman Martha Griffiths, Pat fought for the Equal Rights Amendment--continuing the march for equality, advancing the cause of justice for all women. Thank you, Pat. We're all in your debt.

Through it all, whether the legislation succeeded or failed, she stood by a simple mantra: ``It's important for women to be involved.''

For the past 22 years she has served as editor of the House Daily Digest, tracking committee activities and getting the word out on what's happening on Capitol Hill. In that role she has noted, ``I've been through the turnover to Republicans and back to Democrats, and tried to help each and every one of them do their jobs.''

Helping others do their jobs, working in a bipartisan way--this was the essence of Pat Kelly's career and service.

Pat Kelly's 54 years serving the House of Representatives is a reflection of her own dedication to Congress and the country, and represents the commitment, devotion to duty, and passion for service of all of our congressional staffers.

Thank you, Pat, for giving so much to the House, for all of your work, and for fulfilling your promise to ``do something'' for all Americans.

Yes, I join the Speaker in saying you will be missed. We are sorry that you are leaving. We wish you much success and, with deep gratitude, send you our love and best wishes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time and for presenting the Dicks substitute, which was not allowed to come to the floor, but nonetheless I salute him for his leadership in that regard.

Madam Speaker, Members of Congress agree, I think, on two things today: that we must move this process forward so that government does not shut down, and that we must reduce the deficit. As we do that, we must create jobs and strengthen the middle class. That is someplace where we may have some separation, because as the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Dicks, has said earlier, in December of 2010, congressional Democrats and the President of the United States cut spending by $41 billion--$41 billion. On that day in December, only one Republican voted for those cuts--only one.

February, 2 months later, Republicans passed a spending bill that does not create jobs but, in fact, has been said to destroy 700,000 jobs. That's approximately 100,000 jobs a week since we passed our ``cut it'' bill.

February 2011, Republicans passed the same spending bill that reduces U.S. economic growth by 1\1/2\ to 2 percent. Now some have questioned, Is it really as much as 700,000 jobs? Is it really as much as 1\1/2\ to 2 percent? But no one questions whether there will be job loss or whether there will be a slowing down of our economic growth among serious economists.

We are going in the wrong direction. How fast may be the question. But we are going in the wrong direction. That is why it's very important for us to proceed with great care and great caution here because, again, we have the opportunity to create jobs, to strengthen the middle class, and to do so in a way that is fiscally sound.

When I hear our colleagues talk about the deficit and the immorality of a big deficit--and I completely agree that we owe it to our children and our grandchildren not to leave them a debt--but all this talk about deficit is what we have, as Democrats, taken the lead on for decades.

Do you remember--because many of you were here at the time--that when President Clinton became President he inherited an enormous debt? He instituted pay-as-you-go, we had an economic agreement that was passed in the Congress, and the deficit began to reduce to a path of $5.6 trillion in surplus. Another President Bush took office; pay-as-you-go went out the window; and, again, the turnaround into growing deficits.

So for all of this talk about the immorality of deficits, where were you when those deficits were instituted in the late eighties? Some of you were here. In the 2000s, many of you were here. And, again, we have to take our country on a path of deficit reduction. Many of you were here when the tax cuts for the high end were implemented, creating no jobs, except increasing our deficit, sending the bill to our children and the credit to the Chinese Government.

How about when we did the prescription drug bill, giving away the store to the pharmaceutical industry and the price tag to our children by increasing the deficit? How about two wars, unpaid-for wars? God knows we will do anything to protect and defend our people. And I would hope that everybody subscribes to that. Why would we have tax cuts for people at the highest end? Why wouldn't they pay their fair share of protecting the American people and American interests and their interest wherever they may exist in the world?

And so we had in the 8 years of President Bush's administration a complete reversal, an $11 trillion swing, $5.6 trillion in surplus to nearly $5 trillion in debt.

And now people are saying it is an immorality to have national debt and to have these deficits. We thoroughly agree. And that's why, once again, we must take our country down a path of deficit reduction, but to do so in a way that is job creating and strengthening of the middle class.

As I said, in December 2010 Democrats cut $41 billion in spending. Only one Republican voted for that. February 2011, Republicans passed a spending bill that could destroy 700,000 jobs and reduce and slow down our GDP, our gross domestic product, by 1.5 to 2 percent. If you want to say it's going to slow down less than that, it's still going in the wrong direction.

I commented on Mr. Dicks' proposal because in the bill that we have before us, we have a situation where the Republicans have stripped the bill of important initiatives to the education of our children. In fact, President Obama made some of those cuts, too; but he didn't do it in a way that hurt the children.

What we debate today undermines our future by stripping support for some pressing educational challenges without redirecting those critical resources to meet the educational needs of our children. What Mr. Dicks proposed would have reversed that. He would have eliminated those educational programs in a way, as did the President, in the context of a comprehensive budget that also redirected funds to other initiatives addressing these needs.

If we do not, as a Congress, understand that education is essential, is key to all of our success--key to all of our success--then, frankly, the American people are way ahead of us on that. That's why I asked when we debated the bill before the break to see a quarter of a million children thrown off Head Start and many teachers fired alongside that, is that a smart cut? Sure, we have to tighten our belt. But let's do it, again, in a very smart way.

I just want to know where everybody was in the days when this deficit grew in the 8 years of the Bush administration. That's why we're in the situation we are in today. That's why we must, again, make some very difficult decisions.

So what is before us today is for the short term. It is saying, let's just keep the government open 2 weeks so we use that time to do the right thing and so we use that time to have a reality check--a reality check--on how we got these deficits in the first place. Tax cuts at the highest end do not create jobs but increase the deficit and are not the appropriate path to deficit reduction. Cutting education and therefore the innovation that goes with it and the strength of our children and affecting our economy is not the way to do it.

Many people here have met much experience on the way to do it, and they sit on both sides of the aisle. So let's get through this today, recognizing the challenge that we have, understanding that this bill before us is not a good one, but it's not final.

And when we come together, we need to meet the three criteria: Does it create jobs? Does it strengthen the middle class? Does it reduce the deficit? Because all of those who say that it is immoral for us to grow the deficit and pass those bills on to our children and grandchildren are right. I just don't want them to ignore the fact that we got here a certain way, and please do not ask us to go down that path again with the sanctimonious attitude that it is a morality for us to do exactly the same thing again, ignoring again the tremendous, tremendous suffering of the American people and their need for jobs, ignoring the aspirations of our children and their need for education by making the cuts that are in here without them rechanneling to a better place.

This is as serious a debate that we can have in the Congress of the United States because it affects our children and their future, because the deficits have gotten so far out of hand.

I am very proud of the fact that 30 years ago--in 1982, 29 years ago--when Democrats gathered in Philadelphia for a midterm conference, pay-as-you-go was placed on the agenda, passed as a resolution, and became part of the Democratic platform. Fiscal responsibility is a part of who we are. Our Blue Dog Coalition has had this as their mantra: pay as you go. Do not add to the deficit. If we all share that view, we should all be able to come together because the numbers will add up or they will not add up, and the bill for sure will be sent to our children and grandchildren.

Some of you have children; some of you have children and grandchildren. Would you ever dream of sending them a bill for a personal expense? If you were to leave them anything, would you leave them a bill? We cannot leave the children of America with any bills for any fiscal deficit either. It wouldn't be the right thing to do. But in order for us to do the right thing, it is time for a serious reality check, and that is the opportunity Mr. Dicks was giving us today. The Rules Committee rejected that. I hope that in the weeks ahead, depending on what happens here today, we can move on with it so we can spend whatever time it takes to do it right. Nothing less is at stake than the economic security of our country, the well-being of our children, the well-being of our children and the confidence that the American people have in what we are sent here to do for them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of James J. Haggerty, known affectionately to many of us as ``The Big Fella.'' He was the beloved husband to his cherished Cecelia and proud father of seven: Jeanie, Mauri, James Jr., Matthew, Cecelia, Daniel, and Katie. And he was the doting grandfather to 18.

Jim's life motto was ``to those whom much is given, much is expected.'' He believed strongly in public service, through which he knew he could help people. When his close and dear friend, Bob Casey, became Governor of Pennsylvania, Jim served in his cabinet as Secretary of the Commonwealth and later as his General Counsel.

Jim's life was made full by his big family and many friends. He adored his wife, and he died just 11 days before their 45th wedding anniversary. He was strengthened by his abiding Catholic faith, loved his Irish heritage, and was a loyal Dunmorean.

Jim supported many worthy causes, serving as chairman of the board of the University of Scranton, a member of the board of Scranton Preparatory School, and a staunch champion of the United Way of Lackawanna County. His good works strengthened northeast Pennsylvania.

At his funeral mass, Monsignor Joseph Quinn said of Jim to an overflowing and loving crowd: ``God used him to build many bridges along the way, bridges that connect lives.''

His grandson, James, called him a man of courage and generosity, saying: ``He has taught me the importance of giving back.''

As the Scranton Times-Tribune reported, James Jr. said his father epitomized ``honesty, integrity, and love'' to his family. And he closed with a poem read by Robert F. Kennedy in Lackawanna County in 1964, about Irish freedom fighter Owen Roe O'Neill:

``We're sheep without a shepherd, when the snow shuts out the sky. Oh! Why did you leave us, Owen? Why did you die?''

My husband Paul and I were proud to call the Haggertys our friends for nearly 50 years, and are deeply saddened by Jim's passing. It is a source of great happiness to us that our children and grandchildren are loving friends.

Indeed, so many were proud to call Jim their friend: last Sunday, in Scranton, a line of those who had come to pay their respects to Jim stretched for blocks. As they waited in line for hours, they shared their stories of how Jim Haggerty helped them.

I hope it is a comfort to the Haggerty family, to Celia and to their children and grandchildren, that so many grieve their loss and are praying for them in this sad time.