Floor Statements

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I commend her for her leadership on a very important issue, the health and well-being of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that is on the floor today and also the underlying bill of which it is a part. The American people are desperate for jobs. They have sent us here to work together to create jobs; and in the 6 weeks of this new majority, not one piece of legislation has come forward to create one job.

Showing the lack of ideas to do so, the Republican majority has chosen, instead, to change the subject, taking up a bill of such consequence without hearings, without really an open process to make amendments to it, with the illusion of open debate. And now they come before us, again without hearings, in amendment form to this bill and say they want to have no funds go to enact provisions of the health care bill which was passed before.

Let's talk about the consequences of your action here today. What would it mean to people in our country if this amendment were to prevail? It may prevail on this floor, which is driving itself into irrelevance with the amendment process that is here, but that's another subject. Let's talk about the subject of this amendment. Let's talk about what this means to America's families. Let's talk about a family that came before a hearing that we had earlier in January.

We heard from Stacie Ritter. She has 12-year-old twins. When those adorable little girls were 4 years old, they were both diagnosed with cancer and faced years of treatment and recovery. Imagine if that happened in your family. Their mother said they were lucky that they did have health insurance, but the additional cost of the care for these children drove their family into bankruptcy. The children got well, thank God, but they had a preexisting medical condition for the rest of their lives--until this bill came along. And now their mother was pleased to testify they are not to be the objects of discrimination because they have a preexisting medical condition. They will not face annual or lifetime caps on the benefits they receive. These healthy young girls now will be able to proceed in a healthy way, not discriminated against.

Or let's talk about Vernal Branch, a woman diagnosed with breast cancer 15 years ago. Ever since, she has struggled to find health insurance because even though she had cancer and for the moment is free of cancer and, God willing, will be forever free of cancer, she had a preexisting medical condition which meant that she would be discriminated against in terms of getting health insurance--until this came along. Vernal Branch told us that the Affordable Care Act represents protection from the uncertainty and fear that came from being diagnosed and being denied health insurance coverage because of a past disease. Passing this amendment would stop the reform and mean that 129 million Americans, like Vernal, 129 million Americans would lose coverage because of a preexisting medical condition.

Do you understand what that means in the lives of these people?

And to our seniors, the subject has been brought up over and over again about our seniors. Claudette Therriault and her husband, Richard, are seniors on Medicare. Richard is a diabetic, and his insulin alone costs nearly $1,000 a month. When they fell into the doughnut hole, they were forced to choose between defaulting on the loan of their home or paying for Richard's health. As Claudette put it, Well, we chose my husband's health. But changes made, that we made in this bill, are starting to change the doughnut hole so families aren't forced to choose between paying their mortgage or paying for their medicine. Passing this amendment would mean that over 2.7 million Medicare beneficiaries would again fall into the doughnut hole, and Medicare would no longer be able to pay for the annual checkup for 44 million seniors in our country.

Mr. Kingston says that his children are old enough that they should be able to take care of themselves, even though they are under 26 years old. Bravo for you. But that's not the way it is for many young people across the country, even if they do have a job. You say they don't have insurance because they don't have a job. It may be news to you, but there are many, many, many working Americans who do not have health insurance. But they will under the Affordable Care Act.

If this amendment were to pass, if it were to become law, immediately all of those children who can now be on their parents' policy, if their parents are willing, would lose their health insurance.

With a job or without a job, these young people coming out of school are idealistic and ambitious. They want to follow their passions and their pursuits. That is what our Founders told them they could do-- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These young people want a healthier life to pursue their happiness, to choose a job not based on the health benefits it may or may not provide, but to choose an occupation which addresses their aspirations--not ours, theirs.

So I just want to repeat back to our colleagues something I heard them say over and over again. They said, we didn't read the bill. Well, we did. But clearly, you did not. And I urge you to read the bill, because if you did, you would see that the bill puts medical decisions in the hands of patients and doctors, not your favorite insurance company. You would see that it brings down the cost of prescription drugs for seniors. You would see that it ends the days of discrimination based on preexisting conditions and lifetime caps on the care of children and families. You would see that under this bill, no longer would being a woman be a preexisting medical condition as it is now as women are discriminated against in terms of price and access to insurance.

You would see that it offers tax credits to millions of small businesses who choose to do right by their employees and offer insurance benefits.

It was for all of these Americans that we acted. It is for them that we stand here today to oppose this amendment.

And if you read the bill, you will see contrary--contrary to misrepresentations that were set forth by those who do the bidding of the health insurance industry in our country, you would see what the bill does. You would see that it is about innovation. It's about prevention. It's about a healthier America, not just health care in America. It's about using the technologies of the future. It's about bringing health care closer to people where they live to lower the cost, to improve the quality and to expand the access.

You would see that it is a bill about the future. Instead of the misrepresentations about this, that, and the other thing which I don't even want to repeat here, you would see that this is transformative for our country because it gives people the liberty, again, to pursue their lives.

So I would like to know how many of you read the bill? We read it over and over again, to each other, drilling down on different parts of it. So we know of what we speak when we come to this floor. And maybe if you knew more about it, you wouldn't be so quick to say--we do not want to allow children to stay on their parents' policies. We do not want to end discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions for our children. We do not want to begin

to close the doughnut hole. We do not want to have preventive medicines without cost and copay for our seniors. And the list goes on and on. So that's what's happening here today.

This is again, yet again, another example of our friends standing up for the insurance companies at the expense of the American people, standing up for the insurance companies at the expense of the health and well-being of our country. It is again an example of Washington, D.C. holding on to the special interest status quo. It is again this Congress saying to the American people, we are here for the special interest, we are not here for the people's interest. To Stacie, we are not here for your two daughters. For Vernal, we are not here for women and having being a woman being a preexisting condition. To Claudette and Richard, to say to them, too bad about your mortgage. If you can't pay your mortgage because you have to pay your medical bills, so be it.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, which is another manifestation of the ``so be it'' attitude of some in Congress at the expense of many in our country.

To our valued, valued, valued friend, Jane Harman, to a proud Californian, to a great leader in our country, I know I speak for everyone in this Congress on this occasion when I say we have been proud to call you colleague and, again, for many of us, to value you as a friend.

Jane's contribution to our country is one as a patriot. Not only for her great service in the Congress of the United States, but she and her family, her young Sidney, have been a source of strength to our country, whether it comes to security, our national security, the arts, or the education of the next generation.

We all know that our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe. No one has done more in that regard than Jane Harman, and also in conveying the values of our great Nation throughout the world. The Woodrow Wilson Center is fortunate indeed to have her leadership. It will be a great combination.

And so I say, Jane, we all choke up when we hear you say it's your last statement on the floor. We have all benefited from your wisdom. We congratulate you and send you off with great love, brave mama.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment presented by Congresswoman Eshoo on behalf of the public's interest, the people's interest, free elections, and a healthy, transparent, and open public discourse.

More than one year ago, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending, secret unlimited corporate spending and influence over our campaigns and our public policy debates. In doing so in the Citizens United decision, they dealt a harsh blow to a fundamental principle of our democracy: That voters determine the outcome of elections, not moneyed special interests.

In response, with bipartisan support in this House of Representatives, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act to require corporations to stand by their ads, the same way candidates do, and to keep foreign-owned entities from playing any role in our elections. The measure included a provision to keep government contractors and TARP recipients, beneficiaries of taxpayer support, out of our elections, preventing them from using taxpayer dollars for their own agendas.

In the Senate, the Republicans blocked the DISCLOSE Act. Yet the value it represented, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, must remain a call to action for both parties in both Houses.

Many of the new Members who are here campaigned on the principle that special interests play too big a role in our democracy. The American people have constantly called upon Congress to act in the people's interest, not the special interest.

Today, we have another opportunity, thanks to Congresswoman Eshoo, to answer the public's call to action for transparency, for openness, for true Democratic elections. Thanks to Congresswoman Eshoo, we are highlighting this critical challenge to our democracy through an amendment to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not directed to Federal contractors who refuse to disclose their political expenditures.

No dollars in this act can be used to enter into a contract with any corporation or company which refuses to disclose its political expenditures. They could be using taxpayer dollars to weigh in in a secret unlimited way in campaigns.

I know that some of you may not want to receive this message, but it is a message that the American people have delivered to us over and over again--that they do not want special interests with their secret unlimited expenditures dominating our elections, and therefore dominating public policy in this Congress.

So I am grateful to Congresswoman Eshoo for highlighting this critical challenge to our democracy, again through an amendment to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not directed to Federal contractors who refuse to disclose their political expenditures. With this measure, we could take one step forward in the fight to restore fairness to our political process and preserve the integrity of our elections by disclosing the unlimited, secret, endless flow of corporate dollars into campaigns.

This Republican majority, many of you voted for the DISCLOSE Act as presented by Mr. Van Hollen in the last session. I hope that you will choose again between putting the corporate interest ahead, or choosing the public interest. It should not be a hard choice, but we will find out soon enough where you stand.

I urge all of my colleagues to join Congresswoman Eshoo in continuing the fight for meaningful reform and to advance the cause of accountability in our campaigns. We owe it to the American people, we owe it to our Founders who invested so heavily in this democracy, and we owe it to the future.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to this year's recipients of the Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian honor; to individuals who have made our country stronger, our culture richer, our world more peaceful; to men and women who have helped shape our history and lay the foundation for a better future.

In bestowing this honor, President Obama highlighted leaders of vision and courage. Each hails from a different background. Their fields vary, ranging from public service to civil rights, from the arts to athletics, from poetry to politics, from environmental activism to labor and business. Yet they share a common commitment to bold leadership, principled action, and the common good.

In particular, I rise to recognize three recipients who I am privileged to call respected colleagues and friends.

Congressman John Lewis is the conscience of the Congress, a true hero of our history, and an inspiration to all who serve with him and to every American. From the first Freedom Ride in South Carolina to a ``Bloody Sunday'' in Selma to the well of the House, he stood for his own rights, and extended the blessings of liberty to others. He sought equality for African Americans, and secured justice for all. Through non-violence and courage, he advanced our most basic rights--to vote, to speak, to assemble. John Lewis' story is a triumph for those whose souls cry out for freedom. No one is more deserving of this recognition.

Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith, founder of VSA, carries forward her family's torch of service, offering children and adults with disabilities the freedom to celebrate their artistic talents, and ushering in an era of peace and cooperation as our Nation's envoy to Ireland. For more than 35 years, she has worked to empower all people with disabilities to reach their full potential through the arts. She has long believed in the power of art to inspire and to connect individuals and communities of different backgrounds. Through her passion and her commitment, Jean Kennedy Smith has lived up to her own words: that ``art is central to what makes us fully human.''

John Sweeney has provided more than a strong voice for our middle class; he has fought for the freedom of our workers to organize, support their families, and earn a living wage. In California and nationwide, workers have never had a more resilient, more passionate champion than John Sweeney. His life's work is a tribute to fairness, equality, and opportunity for all. On behalf of working Americans--from the chambers of Sacramento to the halls of Washington, DC--when John Sweeney speaks out, America's leaders listen.

In their lifetimes of service, today's recipients of the Medal of Freedom have played a central role in upholding the promise of a better future for all Americans and for our fellow citizens of the world. To them, I offer congratulations and gratitude.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I join her in opposing this rule and urging our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the previous question, and ``no'' on final passage of the bill.

Voting ``no'' on the previous question will enable us, if it succeeds, to bring to the floor our Build America Bonds legislation. Build America Bonds is supported, outside the Congress, across the board in a nonpartisan way by those who are building America--who are dredging our ports to enhance our trade, who are building our schools to educate our children, who are building our roads and highways and mass transit to get people to work and back, improving the quality of their lives; and in moving people and product again to work and to market, growing our economy.

Creating jobs is the number one priority for Democrats. We have said that we will judge every measure that comes before this House by whether it creates jobs, how it strengthens the middle class and how it reduces the deficit.

Indeed, that is what President Obama's budget released just yesterday will do. It will strengthen our Nation, invest in the future, help create jobs, and grow the economy, while reducing the deficit by $1.1 trillion. It sets us on a path, in President Obama's words, to ``out- educate, out-innovate and out-build the rest of the world.'' That is indeed what we must do.

In terms of innovation and education, the President's budget is a commitment to competitiveness that will keep America number one. In terms of out-building the rest of the world, consider this quote from USA Today:

``Associated General Contractors, a trade group for the construction industry, estimates the plan could create about 5.4 million construction jobs and 10 million more jobs in related industries and the broader economy.''

President Obama's budget is a tough budget and it makes tough choices. I don't agree with everything that the President cut in the budget, but it is a statement of values that we must support. It makes cuts and tough ones in a responsible way. As President Obama said yesterday, we must live within our means and invest in the future.

That is in stark contrast to the Republican legislation we debate today. With severe and indiscriminate spending cuts, it goes too far. This legislation will destroy American jobs while harming middle class families, young adults, seniors, and, yes, even our veterans. Since coming into office, Republicans have not put forward any initiatives to create jobs. Indeed, with this legislation, they are making matters worse. According to an independent study just released, the domestic cuts in this bill would destroy 800,000 public- and private-sector jobs. Democrats are saying to the Republican majority: Show us the jobs. Show the American people where the jobs are.

Just today, Speaker Boehner said that if jobs are lost as a result of Republican spending cuts, ``So be it.''

So be it? We believe that our budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to us must be included in our budget.

Consider what the Republican legislation we debate today would do to diminish our investments in education, halt innovation, destroy good- paying American jobs and make our neighborhoods less secure. Indeed, not even homeless veterans are spared by the Republicans. Our Federal budget, as I said, must be a statement of our national values. We must ask ourselves, is this Republican legislation a statement of our values?

Is it a statement of our values to undermine our commitment to educate the next generation of leaders and innovators? The Republican proposal cuts $800 per student in the maximum Pell Grant award; thousands of teachers would lose their jobs; and in your neighborhood, class size could increase.

Is it a statement of our values to diminish our efforts to create green jobs and fight disease? This bill cuts $1.3 billion in investments to spur the clean energy economy of the future. It cuts more than $1.3 billion for cancer and other disease research.

In terms of innovation and education, the President's budget is a commitment to competitiveness. This legislation is not.

Is it a statement of our values to destroy jobs and undermine investments in our roads, schools and bridges to rebuild America? Tens of thousands of new construction jobs would be lost and 76 projects to upgrade our roads in your districts and bridges in 40 States would be canceled. I mentioned earlier what the general contractors said about creating millions of jobs in the industry and 10 million more jobs indirectly.

Is it a statement of our values to diminish the public safety of our neighborhoods? There would be up to 3,000 fewer cops on the beat in your neighborhood and 2,400 fewer firefighters on the job in our communities coast-to-coast; 3,000 fewer cops on the beat and 2,400 fewer firefighters in our communities coast-to-coast.

Is it a statement of our values to cut funding for homeless veterans? If there was one example of where this goes too far--think of it: Republicans want to eliminate $75 million from an initiative that offers housing vouchers to our homeless vets. It is a very effective initiative. Republicans want to cut it.

And is it a statement of our values to deprive women of primary care? When it comes to health and education, Republicans put women and children last.

Democrats and Republicans must work together to ensure our Nation lives within its means. That is for sure. We must continue to aggressively attack waste, fraud, and abuse, and we will subject every taxpayer dollar we spend to the toughest scrutiny, ensuring that the American people are getting their money's worth. But Republicans have not presented a responsible plan for addressing the deficit. We believe we can cut the deficit and create jobs. To do so, we must invest in the future.

Democrats do not subscribe to Speaker Boehner's verdict that if jobs are lost in this continuing resolution, so be it. Maybe so be it for him, but not so be it for the people who are losing their jobs. Instead, we support President Obama's budget to out-innovate, out- educate, and out-build the rest of the world.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous

question, no on the rule, and no on the underlying bill. Let's put this aside and get on with the business the people sent us here to do: Creating jobs, reducing the deficit, strengthening the middle class, and protecting the American people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership in calling up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds, later.

Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting to watch this debate because what you see here is that we are talking about jobs. The American people want us to create jobs now. And what you see on the floor of the House now today and tomorrow is a make-work project.

The Republicans have no job initiatives; so they need to fill time, and they're filling time with a resolution that we all recognize the committees have the jurisdiction to do, and some of the committees already have.

We should subject every dollar, every initiative to the harshest scrutiny to make sure it fills its purpose, that we bring common sense to what we are doing. But we don't need to spend 10 hours on the floor of the House because we have no job proposal on the side of the Republicans and make it look as if this is a job creation bill.

This is a make-work product for Republicans who are without an agenda for job creation. However, we hope they will join us in renewing the Build America Bonds to build America to create jobs now.

In every district nationwide, our constituents, many of them struggling without a paycheck, tell the same story. They're waiting for us to create jobs, to focus on jobs and economic growth before we do anything else. Today I rise to echo their call and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to act in the best interest of America's families and put people back to work.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama encouraged us to do what it takes to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. In that statement he continued his job-creating initiative. From day one, President Obama has been a job creator. We had to dig our way out of a deep recession, but, nonetheless, the Recovery Act created or saved over 3 million jobs, and other initiatives like Cash for Clunkers and other initiatives that this Congress took, working with President Obama, spared us an even worse unemployment rate.

Now, that isn't good enough if you don't have a job. And it isn't good enough for us who are responsible for creating them. And that is why the effort that the President started at the beginning of his administration, reiterated in his State of the Union address, starts with creating more jobs here at home, and in this Congress there should be no higher priority. Yet, the Republican leadership has not met that challenge.

Since taking charge of the House more than 1 month ago, they have yet to propose a single jobs bill. They have yet to unveil a concrete plan, and Americans are still waiting.

This week is no different. Instead of focusing on job creation, this Congress is spending 10 hours on the floor, a filler, as concrete evidence of the fact that they have nothing else to fill the time with, directing our committees to conduct oversight, a very appropriate instruction. The committees are already doing that.

These committees don't need a partisan resolution in order to start their work, and this House does not need a long floor debate that only diverts us from our purpose, which is to create jobs.

Instead, we should focus on investments that work, that create jobs, that build America and grow our economy. And that is why we are proudly putting forth the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act. This legislation would leverage public dollars probably 40 to 1: For every public dollar spent, $40 of investment to strengthen the private sector and spur job creation at

home by supporting projects to rebuild schools and transit projects.

Last week we had a hearing on this subject following the President's State of the Union address and his pronouncements about innovation, education, infrastructure, et cetera. We had a hearing on infrastructure to which the Build America Bonds directly relates. A representative of the Society of Civil Engineers told us that our country has trillions of dollars of deficits; that our roads and bridges get D's and C minuses in terms of their safety and effectiveness.

In addition, our water projects, some of them are ancient, made of brick and wood, and that's a health problem.

In terms of innovation for the future, our investments in infrastructure such as broadband are also essential to the growth and creation of jobs in our country. And so there's every reason for us to do this in the best of times. But we're not in the best of times. And so in this not good time, as far as jobs are concerned, it's absolutely essential that we make a decision as a Nation to put forth the greatest social initiative ever, job creation.

The initiative to Build America Bonds and leverage dollars for encouraging the private sector has the support of mayors, governors, and local businesses. It is good for taxpayers, using Federal investments, to unleash billions from private businesses in our neighborhoods. That's why Governor Martin O'Malley came to testify for this, and Mayor Nutter of Pennsylvania, giving us their direct experience on what a difference the Build America Bonds initiative, which was in the Recovery Act, makes, and which needs to be renewed.

Most significantly, Build America Bonds keeps our promise to stay focused on jobs, and it helps put Americans back to work.

Both parties agree that we must stay focused on reducing our deficit, and that's exactly what Build America Bonds do. You cannot achieve the goal of deficit reduction unless you invest in growth and job creation. Vigorous oversight is critical to that effort, and Democrats remain committed to doing our part. We are ready to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, and obsolescence in our budget, and we would subject every dollar, taxpayer dollar, to the harshest scrutiny.

We are prepared to make tough decisions to get our fiscal house in order, but we will not sacrifice key investments that are helping our economy grow, our small businesses expand. And we need to make more investments in small business, not less, and help our workers find jobs.

We said from the beginning of this Congress Democrats will measure every effort by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the deficit. The resolution before us today does none of the above.

I think it's interesting just to make a contrast between the first month of this Republican majority and our first days here in the Congress. Most of what we proposed is along the line, some of it signed by President Bush in a bipartisan way.

H.R. 1 enacts the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This is 2007. The 9/11 Commission recommendations had not been enacted by the Republican Congress. We know our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe. H.R. 1, now the law of the land.

Raise the minimum wage. Economic fairness. It hadn't been raised in over a decade of Republican rule, and we raised the minimum wage and it became the law. Making college more affordable, which is now the law of the land. We also had the Energy Independence Act as part of our Six for 06, much of which is signed into law by President Bush at the end of that Congress and his term.

A couple initiatives did not become law. One of them was to remove the subsidies we give to Big Oil to give them an incentive to drill. Big Oil, which has made $1 trillion in profit over the last 10 years, does not need billions of dollars in taxpayer money to have an incentive to drill for oil.

And so on this side, H.R. 1, instead of enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, lowering the minimum wage, making us more energy independent, making college more affordable, H.R. 1: repeal the health care bill. No prospect of success in doing that, no hearings leading up to it; but, nonetheless, a filler for the floor, red meat for those of the health insurance industry, which opposes giving leverage to America's patients and consumers by saying that they will not be deterred from having coverage because they have a preexisting medical condition, or keeping kids on their parents' policies until they are 26 years old. That's what they wanted to repeal. Again, red meat for the industry, for the special interests, no jobs for the American people.

In the weeks ahead, we must renew our focus on job creation. Let's vote on bills that grow our economy through innovation, public-private partnerships, and tackle unemployment head on. Together, we can help Americans create jobs, rebuilding America in a very green way; and the technologies we will develop will make us and keep us number one, investing in transportation and manufacturing and clean energy and new technologies and industries and in small businesses.

As my colleague Mr. Hoyer reminds us every minute: If we make it in America, America's families can make it in America. Let's set our path on doing that, instead of frivolously using 10 hours that are unnecessary, but they are for only one purpose: you have nothing else to offer.

Today, we can keep our recovery on track and put Americans to work. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, not that we don't think we should subject regulation to scrutiny, but because we think we shouldn't waste the public's time on this when it's already being done in committee and we should be having a debate, a lively debate, on what the best approach is to create jobs, grow the economy, reduce the deficit, and strengthen the middle class.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank her and you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this resolution to the floor to name a Federal courthouse in Yuma, Arizona, for John M. Roll. It will be called the ``John M. Roll United States Courthouse.'' How appropriate.

Chief Judge Roll was a dedicated public servant, as our colleagues have referenced, serving as a Federal judge in Arizona, a State judge, and a prosecutor for the city, county, and at the Federal levels. Chief Judge Roll was a proud son of Arizona, moving to Arizona as a little boy, living there for the vast majority of his life, receiving his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of Arizona.

Tragically, Chief Judge Roll was one of the six Americans who were taken from us during the horrific shooting in Tucson. He died while helping to save the life of Ron Barber, as has been mentioned, a staffer for Congresswoman Giffords--protecting him. He had just come from mass. I spoke to his wife, Maureen, the other day, and she said that was his regular routine on Saturday, to go to mass in the morning. He then went from there to see Congresswoman Gabby Giffords at Congress on Your Corner, and you know what happened next. He was going to talk to her about securing resources for the overwhelming court system. This was characteristic, as he dedicated his entire life to ensuring justice. He was known as a scholar of the law and a man of integrity. He is an example of the public servants who are doing serious and significant work in the judiciary every day.

We had the honor, when we went to Tucson with the President to visit Gabby and to meet with some of the families, to also take pride in the fact that Justice Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court came on the trip, and Sandra Day O'Connor, who is from Arizona, was there that evening as well. They were joined by other justices who served with Judge Roll as a tribute to him personally and officially. It was wonderful to hear the beautiful statements that they made in our conversations about Chief Judge Roll, and they all sang the praises of Maureen Roll.

So I hope it is a comfort to Maureen, to their three sons, and five grandchildren that so many people are saddened by their loss. We're praying for them at this very sad time. This courthouse will long stand as a tribute--and an appropriate tribute--to Judge Roll.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for calling this Special Order to give us the opportunity to join in a bipartisan way to celebrate and pay tribute to what would be the 100th birthday of President Ronald Reagan, and to do so with great pride as members of the California delegation.

In August of 2006, the California legislature passed a law in a bipartisan way to have President Reagan representing our State as one of the two statues in the Capitol. Just a year-and-a-half ago, again in a bipartisan way, we celebrated the life of President Reagan by welcoming this statue to the Capitol. So for the last few years we have been building in a tribute to the President.

It is impossible to talk about President Reagan and the optimism he had for life and the love he had for our country and his patriotism without talking about Mrs. Reagan. They shared one of the great love stories of our time. Mrs. Reagan in recent years has turned that love into action, speaking out powerfully about stem cell research. In doing so, she has saved lives, found cures, and given hope to millions. Today, as we pay tribute to President Reagan, we also honor Mrs. Reagan for her service to our Nation and for her love of her husband.

On what would be his 100 birthday, we remember President Reagan's optimism for our Nation, always believing that America's best days are ahead, and we share his patriotism, his life of service to our country.

To honor him, a Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission has been established, and I am pleased to recognize three House appointments-- two Republican, one Democrat--to the Reagan Centennial Commission and thank them for their service to the legacy of President Reagan: Congressman Gallegly, congratulations to you; Congressman Aaron Schock, one of the newest Members of Congress and youngest; and Congressman Silvestre Reyes, who proudly serves in that capacity.

Again, as a Californian, we take great pride in the fact that Ronald Reagan was not born in California but from California, that his life of service and patriotism is recognized in the Capitol, and that today we send our deepest regards and respect to Mrs. Reagan in celebration of the President's 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 1-year anniversary of the passing of our dear colleague Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. I rise to pay tribute to him. He was a giant of this Chamber, a legislator of unsurpassed talents, a soldier of extraordinary courage, a political servant, a public servant to the end. Those of us who served with him were honored to call him ``colleague.'' Those of us in this body, many of us, were privileged to call him ``friend.'' Colleague and friend.

The outpouring of accolades that came forward at his passing was something quite remarkable, and I hope that it was a comfort and has been a comfort to his family. Certainly to those of us who worked with him, who knew his love of his district, who remember the way he held court in the Pennsylvania corner and gave out his blessing and his advice, Jack Murtha's wisdom, counsel, and knowledge will continue to inspire us all.

To watch Jack Murtha legislate was to see a master at work. But more indicative of his character was to watch him communicate with our men and women in uniform, whether near the battlefield or at their bedside. He thanked them for their courage and listened to their concerns. He always answered their needs, responding to their calls for body armor, up-armored vehicles, and reliable radios, among other things. In those moments, he bonded with them based on his own personal military experiences. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart himself.

I will never forget the sparkle in Jack's eye when he would visit a wounded warrior, proudly standing by his bedside wearing a Steelers jersey, saluting him.

The Nation saw Jack's courage on the battlefield and in Congress as he spoke out against the war in Iraq. And in doing so, he made the distinction between the war and the warrior.

Always committed to our national defense, forever bound to the cause of our national security, Jack Murtha measured the strength of our country not only by the might of our military; he also measured it by the strength and well-being of our people.

A much-decorated champion on the battlefield, he was a hero in advancing scientific research to fight against breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, as well as HIV and AIDS, to name a few.

Today we remember him, always thinking of ``Semper Fi,'' the motto of the Marine Corps where Jack served proudly for 37 years, the motto of his life. To the end, he remained ``always faithful'' to God and country, to his hometown of Johnstown, and most of all to his wife, Joyce, his children, and his grandchildren.

Patriot. Champion. Hero. Giant. Jack Murtha. We will never see his likes again. Again, I hope it is a comfort to his family that this 1 year later so many of us remember Jack Murtha and pray for his family.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Thank you for your leadership, Mr. Brady, and participating in this important discussion, as fundamental as our democracy, on the floor today.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge this Congress to focus on our number one priority, the creation of jobs. This is a priority for the American people and for this Congress. We should be focusing on it. That was the message we heard last night from President Obama on this floor, who called on us to out-educate, out-innovate, and out-build the rest of the world.

But instead of talking about job creation, this legislation we debate today will not create jobs, will not reduce the deficit, and will not strengthen the middle class. And those are the standards we should apply to any legislation that comes to the floor. Instead, it will put American elections more squarely into the hands of special interests.

One year ago, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates to unlimited, uninhibited, undisclosed special interest spending in our elections and unlimited special interest influence over our public policy debate. In response to the Citizens United ruling, Democrats worked to restore transparency, fairness, and accountability to our political process. Last Congress, with bipartisan support, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act to require corporations and donors to stand by your ad. Why are you running and hiding? And to keep foreign- owned entities from participating in our elections.

But Senate Republicans blocked DISCLOSE. Even though it came out of the

House with bipartisan support, Senate Republicans blocked DISCLOSE from even receiving an up-or-down vote, and now House Republicans are perpetuating a sneak attack on campaign finance reform.

The result was clear in the last election. Special interest groups spent tens of millions of dollars more in the 2010 election than ever before. Again, undisclosed, without identification. There is a reason they don't want it disclosed. First of all, if the public knew who was paying for those ads, they would realize that their own personal interests were not being served, but the special interests. That's our experience in California, where we had a special interest initiative placed on the ballot by outside oil companies. And the strongest statement against the initiative was to see the disclosure at the bottom of the ad as to who was funding it. That spoke more eloquently to the fact that it was not in the people's interest. And the initiative was defeated.

Eliminating the Presidential Election Fund, as this election would do, opens the door for foreign-owned entities and large corporations to enjoy an even greater role in the funding of political campaigns.

In the past, Members from both sides of the aisle have supported legislation to reform, not eliminate, the public financing system. We should come together to ensure that the American people are heard and that they are not drowned out by special interest dollars.

In our democracy--and God bless our Founders for establishing it-- voters determine the outcome of our elections. That's the way it should be. Special interests should not be determining the outcome of our elections. One year after the Supreme Court's decision undermined that fundamental American value, let's come together to fight on behalf of the public interest, to preserve the integrity of our political campaigns; and, therefore, to strengthen our democracy. And maybe we could, instead of undermining it here today, strengthen our country by creating jobs, by reducing the deficit, by strengthening the middle class, none of which is being done by this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort to further empower the special interests over the people's interest.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, today a bill has come to the floor to repeal patients' rights, to put insurance companies back in charge of the health of the American people, and to balloon the deficit. Yesterday, in the one and only hearing on this very important bill, the repeal of patients' rights, Democrats heard from Americans benefiting from the health care reform. Nothing speaks more eloquently to the success of health care reform than their own personal stories.

After hearing from seven of them yesterday, I said I wished the entire Congress could hear your stories. I wish our Republican colleagues would have had a hearing so they could hear from you the difference this has made in your lives and the difference it's making in the lives of millions of Americans. So I told them that I would share their stories with you.

First, we heard from a young woman, Vernal Branch, who was diagnosed with breast cancer 15 years ago. The good news is that Vernal survived breast cancer. The not so good news is that she has a preexisting medical condition for the rest of her life. As she told us yesterday, the Affordable Care Act changed all that. What she said was the Affordable Care Act, ``represents protection from the uncertainty and fear that came with being denied health insurance coverage because of my past disease.'' She said, ``It represents freedom for my husband and me to make important choices about our lives and careers.''

Repeal of the patients' rights that is being proposed today would mean that 129 million Americans under the age of 65 like Vernal would lose their health insurance because they have preexisting medical conditions.

Next we heard from a mom, Lori Bresnan. She has a 22-year-old son suffering from celiac disease. Still a student, he was facing the prospect of finishing school and entering the workforce without insurance but with a preexisting medical condition. Because of the law, Lori said, ``We are thrilled we have the option to keep him on our insurance in this interim when families so often struggle to keep their kids covered.''

In a similar vein, Alexander Lataille, a new graduate, struggling to find work in this economy even though he has two degrees, one in atmospheric science and one in social science--he wants to be a meteorologist--said that if he lost his ability to stay on his parents' insurance plan until age 26, he would be faced with a choice, ``either to pay my student loans or to get health insurance.'' He actually said, ``I would have little choice in the matter. I would need to pay down my college loans first and go uninsured.''

Repeal, as being suggested by our Republican colleagues, would mean that over 1.2 million young Americans like Lori's son and Alexander would lose their insurance coverage that they received through their parents' plans.

We next heard from Ed Burke, who has testified before. He told me he had testified at the invitation of Speaker Gingrich years ago. For much of his life, Ed Burke has suffered from hemophilia. Two of his brothers do too. They have three brothers with hemophilia. Though he has health insurance, he has faced the constant worry that his treatments could surpass the plan's lifetime cap. Repealing patients' rights has a clear impact for Ed. As he said, ``I will lose the freedom to keep my job if efforts to repeal my protections are successful.''

Repeal, as is being suggested today, would mean that over 165 million Americans with private insurance coverage like Ed would again find themselves subject to lifetime limits on how much insurance companies will spend on their health care.

Next we heard from a small businesswoman, a doctor. Dr. Odette Cohen is a small business owner from Willingboro, New Jersey. She said she will be better able to afford to give her employees health care coverage because of the reform. But she also told us a very personal story, it was very powerful, about her two cousins, Rhonda and Roger. Both of them were diagnosed with cancer about the same time. Rhonda worked for a large corporation. She had health care. She had an early intervention. And she received aggressive care and life-giving care. Roger, however, received only pain treatment in the emergency room. He worked for a small business that didn't have health insurance. So he couldn't have that early intervention. Rhonda is alive and well. Roger died.

As Dr. Cohen said, ``The choice to work for a small business versus a large company should not be a choice between life and death in the United States. But it was the choice for my cousin.'' Repeal, as is being suggested today, would mean that more than four million small businesses like Odette's, Dr. Cohen's, would lose the opportunity to receive tax credits to provide health insurance to their employees. As we know, small businesses are the engine of job creation in our country. Odette told us that she wanted to attract the best talent, and she wanted to have health insurance for them in order to do that.

We next heard from Claudette Therriault. She and her husband, Richard, are seniors on Medicare. Richard is a diabetic, and his insulin alone costs $1,000 a month. When Claudette and Richard fell into the doughnut hole, she said, ``We had to choose between defaulting on our loan for our home or my husband's health. Well, we chose my husband's health,'' she said. ``But changes made are starting to end the doughnut hole, so families like ours aren't forced to choose between staying healthy and paying the mortgage.''

Repeal would mean that over 2.7 million Medicare beneficiaries would again fall into the doughnut hole, and Medicare would no longer pay for an annual checkup for 44.1 million seniors.

One of the most powerful testimonials--I say this as a mother and a grandmother--was from Stacie Ritter. Stacie has 12-year-old twin daughters, Hannah and Madeleine. Well, they are 11, almost 12. Can you imagine having these beautiful daughters, Hannah and Madeleine? They are 12 now. When they were 4 years old they were both diagnosed with cancer. Both of them, the twins.

At 4 years old, diagnosed with leukemia, Hannah and Madeline faced stem cell transplants, chemotherapy and total body irradiation. But as their mother, Stacie, said, ``We were very fortunate at the time. My husband had full coverage through his employer.'' But because of the additional cost of health care, ``We ended up bankrupt, even with full insurance coverage.''

She told the stories about how the insurance company refused to do this, that and the other thing. But in any event, today Hannah and Madeline are healthy, happy 12-year-olds; but they still have a preexisting condition. According to Stacie, ``My children now have protections from insurance discrimination based on their preexisting cancer condition. They will never have to fear the rescission of their insurance policy if they get sick. They can look forward to lower health insurance costs and preventive care.''

The repeal suggested today would mean that 17 million American children with a preexisting medical condition could lose their health insurance because they have preexisting conditions. It would change everything for Hannah and for Madeline.

In Congress, on behalf of these Americans, Democrats have made a firm commitment that we will judge every proposal that comes to the floor by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the deficit.

The repeal of patients' rights fails on all three counts. In fact, consider the cost to our Federal budget. According

to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, repeal would add $230 billion to the deficit over the next decade.

Just less than a year ago on this floor I quoted the late Senator Kennedy, many of us did, our inspiration in all of this, calling health care reform ``the great unfinished business of our society.'' By completing that great unfinished business of our society, now patients and their doctors are in charge of their health, not insurance companies.

Because of the wonderful testimony that we had yesterday, which was representative of what Members of Congress have told the Rules Committee, told our colleagues and told us from our districts across the country, because of their stories of success of this bill only being in force for a few months--these provisions, most of them, only went into effect since September--because of them, because of Hannah and Madeline, because repeal would be devastating to so many Americans, I am pleased to join a broad coalition in opposing it, every organization from the AARP to the UAW and everything in between, the Catholic Health Association, Easter Seals and the NAACP.

I think we should send a strong message today with a great vote against this repeal, which is so harmful to the health of the American people, which is so damaging to our fiscal health as well, and to have people know that we want to have what is best for them.

We all want them to think that in order for them to have the same kind of access to health care that we do, we should say to them, ``Run for Congress.'' We want them to have it because Congress has acted upon their needs, their strengths and the strength of our country.

I urge a ``no'' on the repeal.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and extend my condolences to him, Mr. Pastor, the senior member of the Arizona delegation, and to all of the members of the Arizona delegation.

Madam Speaker, I am saddened, greatly saddened, to join the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, in coming together in sadness today to share our prayers and indeed our hopes for those who have lost so much because of the tragedy in Arizona involving our colleague, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, her staff, and innocent bystanders.

Words are inadequate at a time like this, but I hope it is a comfort to those who have lost loved ones or who were injured on Saturday that so many people mourn the losses but also pray for the survivors and care for them at this very difficult time.

I think the resolution in its description of what happened and the context with which it happened is an excellent resolution; and I hope people will read it, pray over it, and be grateful that we have this opportunity to comment on it.

Today, we will say many prayers for our country and for the victims of this horrific event. We think of our colleague, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, fighting to recover, and the 14 others who were injured and remember the six who were killed. Their names are mentioned, and they are described in the resolution. The Speaker has mentioned their names, but I think acknowledging them bears repetition.

How do you explain the death of 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green who had recently been elected to the student council in her school, Mesa Verde Elementary School, and the unbearable grief of John and Roxanna Green? Again, we pray for them and will carry Christina as an inspiration in our hearts.

Dorothy Morris was married for more than 50 years to her high school sweetheart and was the mother of two.

Federal Judge John Roll had just come from mass, which he attended every day.

Phyllis Schneck, mother of three, grandmother of seven, and a great- grandmother. And I know that the New Yorkers like to hear she was a Giants fan, snowbird in Arizona carrying that dedication west.

Dorwan Stoddard died shielding his wife, Mavy. Shielding his wife, Mavy.

And as has been mentioned in the resolution, and we have mourned, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' director of community outreach, Gabriel Matthew Zimmerman. One of his colleagues, his coworker, said: ``Gabe helped people for a living.''

As we honor the heroes who risked their lives to protect others, among them some who were injured, Patricia Maisch, for one, who grabbed the full magazine of ammunition from the killer as he attempted to reload. Just think of how many more we could have lost.

Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zimudio tackled and subdued the suspect. Imagine the courage.

And Daniel Hernandez, Jr., 20 years old--an intern who had just been on the job for 4 days. When he heard gunshots, he ran toward them--he ran toward them--and attended to Congresswoman Giffords, helping to staunch her bleeding with his own hands.

We pray for the recovery of other members of Congresswoman Giffords' staff--Ron Barber, Pam Simon. We commend Pia Carusone and the entire Giffords staff for carrying on.

Those heroes at the scene were joined by first responders from county and municipalities, arriving just 3 minutes after the first 911 call, who performed excellently, and in doing so, saved lives. We also pay tribute to the skilled professionals at Arizona's University Medical Center, whose role is ongoing in healing the victims of this tragedy.

Tonight, the University of Arizona community joins with Tucson, the State of Arizona and, indeed, the entire Nation to acknowledge together Saturday's tragedy. Appropriately, this remembrance is called ``Together we thrive: Tucson and America.''

``Together we thrive: Tucson and America'' will be an opportunity to grieve, and it will be a demonstration of our strength: a strength in community--a strength in community that was demonstrated last Saturday, a strength in community there that is ongoing. Tucson demonstrated its strength on Saturday when the city was full of heroes--ordinary citizens, victims, first responders--coming together in the spirit of community.

Madam Speaker, our colleague Congresswoman Giffords was the primary target of this cowardly act; and as she recovers, we honor her as a brilliant and courageous Member of Congress. She has brought to Congress an invigoration--the thinking of a new generation of national leaders. As a businesswoman and State legislator, she came to Congress full of ideas, and we will long continue to be blessed by them. I look forward to when she is present with us on the floor. She has spoken out courageously and led boldly when the times have demanded it.

It is especially tragic that those who lost their lives and those who were wounded had come together, as the resolution presents, to participate in an activity that reflects the best of our democratic tradition--a Representative of the people, of Gabby Giffords and her staff hearing directly from the men and women she represents.

American democracy is founded on our commitment to a contest of ideas, not violence. Political disagreement and dissent must never violate our Nation's values, as expressed in the Constitution, of free expression, speech and peaceful assembly. Gabby spoke to that right here from the floor last week.

In this hour of anguish, we seek a renewed commitment to hope, to civility, to peace among the American people. In many of our churches, we sing on Sunday and on other days of the week: let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin, not just with us but with me--with each of us, within each of us.

In speaking as one House today, coming together in peace, we offer our thoughts and support, our prayers for the health of our colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and for all of the injured. We share the stories of the heroes of this tragedy and mourn those who perished. Let their actions and their memories be a blessing to our country.

We don't know why God saw this to be necessary, but let this be something that we cherish as an opportunity as we mourn the heartbreaking horror of

it all. This resolution is a fitting tribute. It is a great resolution. Please read it again and again. Carry those names in your heart. Remember each of these people because, again, a tragic accident took lives and wounded people in the free expression of ideas. May this resolution remind us of the urgent need to uphold our democratic values, to treat one another with courtesy and with respect, and to act as Congresswoman Giffords has always done and always will do--in a manner that reflects the best of American leadership.

As our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of all who were affected, I want to call special attention to Commander, Navy Captain Mark Kelly, Gabby's husband, who has been a source of strength to all of us in this difficult time. We pray for him. We thank him for his and Gabby's service to our country. God truly blessed America with their leadership, with their service, and with their love for each other.

``Article I, section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''

It is a high honor to welcome all Members of Congress and their families to the House of Representatives.

To the new Members and their families, a special congratulations and welcome to you. We all wish you great success. Congratulations to you.

We all come here to represent our constituents. Our respect for each other is founded in our respect for the people that we represent.

This month, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of John F. Kennedy as President of the United States.

As a student, I was there in the freezing cold. For some of you, you have read about it in the history books, but to Bob and me, it was our youth.

Right, Bob?

I was there in the freezing cold and heard the stirring address that inspired generations of Americans to public service.

In his 1962 State of the Union Address, right from here, from this dais, President Kennedy said to the Congress: the Constitution makes us all trustees of the American people, custodians of the American heritage.

Today, as we take the oath of office to support and defend our Constitution, we do so as trustees of America's best hopes and as custodians of America's highest values. However we may differ, let us never lose sight of our common laws for this exceptional Nation and our shared obligation to the way forward.

I started off by acknowledging and welcoming and congratulating the Members and their families. Our families have always helped light the way forward for all of us. With a full and grateful heart, I want to thank my family: my husband of 47 years, Paul Pelosi; my children, Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul, and Alexandra; and my grandchildren. I am proud, too, to be from a large family--the youngest of seven--and to acknowledge my brother, Thomas D'Alesandro III, the former mayor of Baltimore, Maryland.

Welcome, Thomas.

Let me thank my constituents in San Francisco, whom I am proud to represent in the spirit of the anthem of our city of Saint Francis--the song of Saint Francis--and I am so pleased that that was recited by all of us at the interdenominational service this morning.

I am grateful to my colleagues for their commitment to equality, which is both our heritage and our hope, giving me the historic honor of being the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives. Now more doors are wide open for all of America's daughters and granddaughters.

I am also honored to be the first Italian-American Speaker. Like many Americans, our heritage is a source of great pride and of deeply ingrained patriotism which summons us to build a stronger Nation. We recognize that the proudest title we will ever hold is not accorded on this floor. It is the simple dignity of the title ``American''--part of our great democracy that continues to be the greatest hope of liberty and progress for the entire world.

When I was first elected Speaker, I called the House to order on behalf of America's children; and now, as I prepare to hand the gavel over to Speaker Boehner, I know one thing above all else: Thanks to you, we have stood with those children and for their families--for their health, their education, the safety of the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat.

Thanks to you, for those children and their families, we have made the largest ever commitment to making college more affordable, enacted Wall Street reform with the greatest consumer protections in history, and passed a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. It means that children with preexisting conditions can get care; young people can stay on their parents' policies until they are 26; pregnant women and breast and prostate cancer patients can no longer be thrown off their insurance; our seniors are paying less for their medical prescriptions. Taken together, it will save taxpayers $1.3 trillion.

Thanks to you, thanks to all of us, we advanced the defining American cause of ``equality for all'' from the first days of the Congress with the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to the last days with the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

And thanks to you, we achieved more for America's veterans than at any time since the passage of the GI Bill of Rights in 1944. Because of our courageous troops and our veterans, we will always be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Let us now salute our men and women in uniform.

To honor them, we must build a future worthy of their sacrifice, which includes good-paying jobs when they come home. It is not enough that we staved off a depression. Much more needs to be done to open up the American Dream and lift up the American economy. The only acceptable outcome is to fully and finally restore fair prosperity that good-paying jobs provide.

Our most important job is to fight for American jobs, to make it in America--Steny--and so Democrats will judge what comes before Congress, from either side of the aisle, as to whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the deficit, not burdening future generations. When the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and the new Republican majority--and congratulations, again--come forward with solutions that will address these American challenges, you will find us a willing partner.

As we congratulate Speaker Boehner and our Republican colleagues, as we wish them success, we must stand ready to find common ground, to solve problems, and to build a more secure future for all Americans.

And as we take the oath of office today to support and defend the Constitution, we must be ever mindful that it makes us trustees for the American people, with an obligation to do what is right for them, and custodian of the American heritage--our great values.

Thank you, my colleagues, for the honor of serving in that tradition as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I thank you, my colleagues.

Again, I want to congratulate all of the new Members of Congress, all of you who have been reelected, but especially the new majority and the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner.

Now, the House will be led by a proud son of Ohio, a man of conviction, a public servant of resolve, and a legislative leader of skill. Speaker Boehner is a leader who has earned the confidence of his conference and the respect of his colleagues in the Congress. He is a man of faith: faith in God, faith in our country, and faith in his family.

It is very important for us, in acknowledging that, for us to acknowledge his family, his wife, Mrs. Boehner. As we congratulate him, we congratulate and thank Debbie for sharing him with us and Lindsay and Trisha and, indeed, the entire Boehner family. Thank you and congratulations to all of you.

Now, recognizing our roles under the Constitution, united in our love of our country, we now engage in a strong symbol of American democracy, the peaceful and respectful exchange of power. I now pass this gavel, which is larger than most gavels here, but the gavel of choice of Speaker Boehner--I now pass this gavel and the sacred trust that goes with it to the new Speaker. God bless you, Speaker Boehner. God bless this Congress and God bless America.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to briefly congratulate and thank the Members of the New York delegation and others who helped bring this legislation to the floor in a strong bipartisan way: Congresswoman Maloney, Congressman Nadler, Congressman King. Thank you. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to say ``thank you'' in a real way to our first responders, to our firefighters, to those who rushed in without question to rescue their fellow Americans, and people from all over the country as a matter of fact.

There is an exhilaration, Madam Speaker, that you see in the Chamber, because right now we know that any discussion we have ever had about 9/ 11 has been a discussion where we have entered holy and sacred ground, where people lost their lives. Fewer did because others were willing to risk theirs. For over 9 years we have been

trying to redress the grievance that we have of people not having the health benefits and the recognition of their service, their sacrifice, and their courage.

Today Mr. King, Congresswoman Maloney, Congressman Nadler--I should say Congressman King, Chairman King to be--and the leadership of this House and of the United States Senate, and I thank Senator Gillibrand and Senator Schumer as well as Senator Reid and the Republican leadership in the Senate for affording us this opportunity to extend our patriotic appreciation to those whose love of our country, whose care and commitment to their fellow person, who unquestionably made sacrifices, and now, almost 9\1/2\ years later, more than 9 years later we finally are doing the right thing for them.

Every day our firefighters, our police officers, our first responders leave their homes, willing to risk their lives. Little did they know on that day many of them would not return home. How can we ever repay their sacrifice and their courage?

So, today we do so, certainly not enough, but as a token of our appreciation for what they have done to strengthen our country.

Again, I thank all of those who made this important legislation possible.