Floor Statements

I thank my friend for yielding and my friends from Pennsylvania and Minnesota for sponsoring this bill.

Tonight, we stand united and strong for the release of Pastor Youcef. Although the legal case for his release is overwhelming, as Mr. Pitts has outlined, we do not rely on the law in our plea. Though our political convictions shared among everyone on both sides of the aisle I believe here are deep, our appeal is not based on politics. Instead, our appeal is based on the ineffable human quality of the loving bond between a parent and his children.

Whether one worships in a mosque, a temple, a church, a synagogue, or some other forum not known to us, whether one chooses not to worship at all, whether one lives on any of the continents of the world, practices any of the political ideologies of the world, is there not a common bond among those who feel the overwhelming love when they first hold their daughter or their son?

Is there not a common bond among those who feel the anxiety of worrying whether a sick child will be healed?

Is there not a common bond of the immense pride that a mother or a father feels when their children achieve some hard-fought goal?

Is there not a common bond of the empty and hurtful feeling that people know that someday they will have to depart from the children they love so dearly?

That day is coming all too soon for Pastor Youcef if those who are mothers and fathers, who are his captors, do not consider that ineffable human bond.

This is a man who tonight sits in prison awaiting execution because he loved his children enough to insist that they be free to worship as he and his family thought they ought to worship. This is labeled as ``apostasy.'' The act of his arrest and impending execution is a monstrous act of inhumanity.

We do not appeal to the law, though it is on our side. We do not deal from political consensus, although I believe it exists in and out of this country. Our appeal is based on the simple, ineffable quality that parents have an innate right to love their children. This man has been deprived of this right. That deprivation should not exist for another hour, another day, another moment.

We will stand strong and united in calling for the humane release of Pastor Youcef, and we pray tonight that that wish will be granted by his captors, who must understand that they have that same ineffable love.

I thank my friend for yielding.

First, let me say I agree with my friend from California that the highest priority in higher education ought to be avoiding that doubling of student loan rates this summer. We should get to work on that.

Second, I rise in support of this bill, and let me tell you why. There is no question that avoiding fraudulent or wrongful credit hours is something we need to do. If someone pays for a credit hour, it ought to really be worth what they're paying for. And certainly, if the Federal taxpayers are paying for this through a Pell Grant or a student loan, it certainly ought to be worth what we're paying for.

The question is, Who is best positioned to make that determination? For years in American higher education, we've had a system where a combination of institutions, their regional accrediting bodies--which are peer accreditors--and to some extent State governments have decided the answer to that question. Without question, there have been some abuses. Without question, there have been some wrong answers. I don't think that those abuses or wrong answers justify adding another layer of decision-making to the system, which would be the Department of Education.

I certainly do think it is worth the attention of the committee, the Congress, and the administration to think

about ways to root out the bad practices that we have seen; but I think yet another level of rulemaking is the wrong way to go.

The other objection that I would make to the rule is that I think that we've fallen into a pattern here, particularly in higher education, where too few decisions are being made in a statutory way by this body and too many decisions are being made by the Department of Education through the regulatory process. As a result of these objections, a broad coalition of educators across the country is in support of this bill, and I am pleased to join that coalition and urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill here today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the beloved Marianne C. Raphaely of Cherry Hill, NJ, who passed away on Sunday, February 5, 2012. With her passing, South Jersey lost one of its most devoted philanthropists. It is today that we remember a loving mother, grandmother, teacher, and tireless contributor to the community.

Born and raised in Trumbull, CT, she graduated from Mary Washington College in 1959 with a bachelor's degree in Psychology and Education. After college, she began teaching grade school in Connecticut and then in California while her husband served as a physician in Vietnam until settling in Cherry Hill with her family in 1968. She served as the Vice President of the Board of the Technical Schools of Camden County from 1999 to 2003 and as a member of the Cherry Hill Board of Education for 9 years.

In addition to her work as a teacher, Marianne volunteered countless hours of her time to many artistic, health care, and educational organizations throughout the Philadelphia area. As the Chairperson of Art in City Hall, she led the effort to place local artists' works throughout Philadelphia's City Hall. Marianne served as a trustee for the Rock School of Dance Education, the Coriell Institute of Medical Research, The Please Touch Museum, and several other charities. She was recognized for her charity work by receiving the Association of Fundraising Professionals' Volunteer of the Year Award for 2005 2006 and the Please Touch Museum's Great Friends to Kids Lifetime Achievement Award.

With a passion for teaching children, natural leadership abilities, a deep sense of responsibility to her community and a love for all things social, she developed close working relationships and friendships with scores of people from all walks of life. She understood the real passion that children have for learning and worked tirelessly to represent that ideal. Although she was so involved, nothing could take away the powerful relationship she had with her family. She and her husband of 50 years raised two sons in Cherry Hill, traveled the world together, and more recently, spent cherished time with their grandchildren.

She is survived by her husband, Dr. Russell of Cherry Hill, NJ, her two sons, Christopher and James, a sister, Kathryn Sirico, and five grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, it is at this time that we remember Marianne Raphaely and keep her family in our hearts and prayers. She was a wonderful woman of remarkable measures who will truly be missed by many.

One hundred sixty days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and put forward a plan to create jobs for our country. One of the ideas that he had to create jobs for our country was to put our construction workers back to work building schools and fixing roads and bridges so they could have money to spend in stores and restaurants and help the country. For 160 days, the majority ignored this idea. Now what they've done is brought this idea to the floor that is doomed for failure and won't work.

In the other body, Republicans and Democrats worked together and 80 Members have voted for a bill that in fact would put construction workers back to work, they're cooperating on it, and I think it has a great chance to pass and be signed by the President. But consistent with their principle that consensus is always to be avoided, the majority over here did something else. The ``something else'' is a bill that will actually kill jobs in the United States, and we should not support it.

But the way they did it I think merits some mention. Many on the other side were outraged when they thought the health care bill was going to be brought up when no one had read it and it wasn't going to be a straight up-or-down vote. What in fact happened was the health care bill was available to the public and the Members for 7 weeks-- every word of it--and there was a direct up-or-down vote.

What we have here is a bill that's 1,000 pages long that almost no one has read and a procedure that avoids having an up-or-down vote on the bill. If you thought it was wrong in March of 2010--and it would have been, which is why we didn't do it--then it's wrong now. We should oppose the rule, oppose the bill, and work together to put Americans back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for this opportunity.

We got some welcome economic news last Friday that companies added about 250,000 private sector jobs. It's long overdue, and we hope and pray that it continues for many, many

months to come. The country is coming back, but we have a very long way to go.

I think one of the reasons why the country is coming back is because at the beginning of 2011, everybody who earned a wage in this country got a fairly substantial tax cut so that they would buy more in the stores and maybe eat a little bit in the restaurants and buy more goods and services. And I think that and some other things started to work.

The worst thing that we could do would be to interrupt that recovery by failing to extend this tax relief for middle class Americans. I'm willing to take at face value that I think almost everyone in this House agrees with that proposition. And I think everyone agrees with the proposition that it would do great harm to our economy not to make this happen.

Here is what I think stands in the way of where we are and where we need to get to: in any negotiation, you can't succeed by negotiation through ultimatum. There are some things that I really think ought to happen. I, frankly, think the way to pay for this is a very small tax surcharge on the very wealthiest Americans. I think that those who make more than $1 million a year, who have gotten, by the way, 90 percent of the pay increases in this country over the last decade, I think asking them to contribute to deficit reduction is a fair and reasonable thing to do. I think it's what we should do. But I don't think we should make it an ultimatum. And I don't think our party is making it an ultimatum.

The problem here, as I see it, is that the last time we went around in this 1-year extension, we heard from the other side two very important matters that I think are rather extraneous to solving this problem. The first had the functional effect of a cut in unemployment benefits. Now, at a time when there are four unemployed Americans for every one open job, I think to presume that the unemployed are lazy or are not working hard to find a job is really just factually incorrect and, frankly, indefensible. So we don't agree with extending this recovery by cutting the unemployment benefits of people out there looking for work. We just don't think that's a good idea. Then the other ultimatum came on the issue of the pipeline. And there are all different views on the pipeline--some pro, some con--within both parties.

I hope that what we're able to do is to stop the negotiation by ultimatum and extend this for the rest of the year. And the purpose of Mr. Bishop's amendment needs to be looked at. There is no good reason why this can't be done by the 17th of February. Frankly, it should have been done by the 17th of January. And we all made this decision at the end of December. There was no reason why this couldn't have been done in the month of January, but here we are.

When the American people have a dispute in their family, in their business, at the labor negotiations table, at their school board, no matter where they are, they do not negotiate by ultimatum. Neither should the Congress. And, frankly, when I heard from the other side in December that we must do the pipeline or no extension of the tax cut, you know, we must cut unemployment benefits or no extension of the tax cut, that's no way to run the country. And that's not what we ought to do.

Will the gentleman yield?

Is the gentleman asserting that the Senate was in recess until January 24?

That means that the gentleman must support President Obama's appointments to the Labor Board?

I thank my friend for yielding the time.

The month the President took office, the U.S. economy was in the midst of a horrible collapse into oblivion for a lot of American families. The economy lost 700,000 jobs the month the President took office.

Last Friday, we had the news that the economy gained over a quarter of a million private sector jobs. This is welcome news, but we have a lot of work to do. This is not nearly sufficient to restore the American Dream to America's middle class and really fuel the kind of recovery that we need.

Now, the President came to this floor 152 days ago with specific ideas that both parties had agreed to over the years, to try to fuel the small businesses and entrepreneurs who are the fuel of the American economy. And he came to the floor with four ideas. The first was to cut taxes for small businesses that hire people, something people on both sides say they're for. We've never taken a vote on that idea, never since then.

Second, he came to the floor with an idea that, as teachers are being laid off from the classroom, and firefighters are being laid off from our first responders, and police officers are being taken off the street, why don't we help the cities and towns and States to keep some of those people on the job, not only so they can do their job, but so they can spend money in the stores and the restaurants and help small businesses. We have never taken a vote on that idea in those 152 days.

The third thing the President said is, let's put construction workers back to work building libraries of the future for our schools, repairing the crumbling roads and bridges of the country, making sure rural America's wired for the Internet. And those construction workers would then become the customers of the small stores and the restaurants, the appliance stores that make America go. We have never taken a vote on that idea in the last 152 days.

And finally, the President said, let's avoid a massive tax increase on the middle class people of this country that was scheduled to go into effect on January 1 of this year. Well, we sort of took a vote on that and were able to dredge out of that process a 2-month extension to avoid that massive tax increase. That extension ends 22 days from today. In the 2 months since then, there's not been one proposal on the floor to fix that problem.

What we have on the floor today is a very interesting bill, and I, frankly, commend the seriousness of it. The bill essentially says we should re-examine the method by which we value guarantees issued by the Federal Government when we account for them in our budgets. In other words, if you cosign a note

for someone, how should that show up on your balance sheet? That's essentially what this bill is about.

Now, this is a serious question. But I think the unemployed carpenter and the small business owner about to close her store and the police officer who got his pink slip last week thinks it's a pretty irrelevant question. And what they would rather have us do is vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on cutting taxes for small businesses that create jobs. We vote ``yes.''

``Yes'' or ``no'' on putting police officers, firefighters, teachers back to work. We vote ``yes.''

``Yes'' or ``no'' on helping the middle class by avoiding a massive tax increase on the American people. ``Yes'' or ``no.''

What we ought to be doing is bringing those questions to the floor, those questions to the floor, and having a debate. Instead, we're having a debate that's serious, but it really belongs at the American Society of CPAs, not the House of Representatives.

Let's get to work on the questions we're hearing at home, ``yes'' or ``no.'' We say ``yes'' to fueling the middle class job creators, the small businesses of this country. The majority responds with silence.

I thank my friend for yielding.

For a long time, Americans have believed if you work hard every day and play by the rules, you'll be able to earn enough to own a home and educate your children and retire with some dignity. It's the American Dream.

Precious numbers, or large numbers of people, rather, are now disbelieving in that because it's not really happening in their lives. They're working as hard as they can, but they seem to go backwards, not forward, and they work so hard.

You can't reignite the American Dream unless you reignite the middle class, and you can't reignite the middle class unless you reignite small business. Small businesses in this country create about two out of every three jobs created in the country. In the last 20 years, 80 percent of the new jobs have been created by businesses that are younger than a year old. So new small businesses are the key to getting things done.

Now, if you talk to small business people around the country, as we have in our districts, here's what they'll tell you: Their number one concern these days is they don't have enough customers. There's not enough people eating in their restaurants or buying goods in their stores or buying the manufactured goods that they do or buying the software code that they write. They need more customers.

So 147 days ago, 147 days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and said we ought to do four things to stimulate customers for those small businesses and grow the middle class:

First, he said, we should repair our Nation's aging bridges and railroads and highways and put construction workers back to work, and building schools in the process. The Congress has never voted on that proposal.

The second thing the President said is, when a small business hires people, their taxes should be cut, so a tax cut for small businesses that hire Americans. The Congress has never voted on that proposal.

The third thing that he said is, because of the economic distress of our country, cities, counties, and States are laying off police officers, firefighters, teachers, which hurts public safety and hurts education. But it also hurts businesses, because police officers and firefighters and teachers, without a paycheck, aren't going to be buying things in the stores or eating in the restaurants or spending their money. The President said let's take some money and help States and localities rehire and put those teachers back in the classroom and put those firefighters back on the apparatus and put those cops back on the beat. We've never voted on that proposal.

And finally, the President said, look, we cut Social Security taxes, we cut the payroll tax for really all working Americans in 2010, at the end of 2010, and that tax cut is about to expire; and if we let it expire, it will be about a $1,000 tax increase for middle class Americans, which will not only hurt those families, but it will hurt the economy by draining their purchasing power from the economy, so let's extend that Tax Code. We did manage to do that for 2 months, and that's about to expire, now, in 27 days. We'll be back at that by the end of the month.

Now, if that's the urgent agenda for the country, what are we doing today? What we're doing today is passing a change in budget rules that essentially says the following: If you're really optimistic about what a tax cut might do to the economy, you can assume that optimism for the purposes of keeping score in the budget. This is like a family sitting down and planning its budget at the beginning of the year and saying, I think we're both going to get a raise this year. You're a teacher. I'm a truck driver. I think we're both going to get about a 5 or 10 percent raise, so let's plan the family budget based on that. I think scarcely any of the constituents who send us here would ever draft their family budget in that way. If this rule goes through, that's the way we'll draft the Federal budget.

It has become an article of faith, religious orthodoxy on the Republican side that tax cuts produce higher revenues. At best, the evidence is ambiguous. Most the time it doesn't. Maybe sometimes it does, but I don't think--I think we should respect the establishment clause of the Constitution and separate church and State. If the Republican religion is the tax cuts always produce more revenue, I don't think we should write that religion into the law of the country because it's not always right.

Now, beyond that, if we go home to our constituents, our middle class families, our businesses, and they ask: What did you do this week?

They ask: What did you do this week? Did you get any bills that would bring more customers in? Did you help me grow more jobs?

Now, here's what we did: We adjusted the CBO baseline for the consideration of future revenue policies of the United States.

This is a very interesting graduate school debate. Maybe some day if we're flush with cash again it would be a good policy debate. It is the wrong bill at the wrong time, and it shouldn't be on the House floor.

Let's at least put up for a vote the four specific ideas brought to this Chamber by the President of the United States to regrow the middle class and put Americans back to work. And when we've done the real job that we're sent here to do, then we can get to the graduate school seminar on congressional budgeting.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his friendship and his compliment, and it's a pleasure to serve with him. I would just ask him on the specifics: Do you favor a tax cut for small businesses that hire people?

Will the gentleman yield?

I'm familiar with his FAIR Tax. I respectfully disagree because I think it imposes a national sales tax, which I don't support. But let me ask two further questions, and I thank him for his time.

Do you think that we should put up for a vote the idea of cutting taxes for small businesses that hire people, and if so, how would you vote on it?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 13 recipients of the Camden County Freedom Medal. In 2001, this high honor was created to pay tribute to those who reflect the ideals and beliefs held by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The honorees of this esteemed award are exemplary citizens who have made momentous contributions to their community in a variety of ways. These individuals have not only dedicated themselves to bettering their community, but have also worked selflessly to bring together people of different backgrounds, cultures, and creeds.

This award is unique in that it does not honor people only in one area of service, but rather highlights individuals who have made significant contributions to society, each in their own way. Recipients of this year's award have done everything from establishing a college preparatory program for minority students, to founding an environmental program, to creating a 5K race in honor of a fellow Marine killed in action, to providing free health and education classes, among many other accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I congratulate all of the recipients of this year's Freedom Medal: Atnre Alleyne, Nasim Badat, Roger W. Barker, Lori Braunstein, Sister Helen Cole, Hardon H. Durrani, James E. Hannold, Linda Holscher, Melinda Kane, Mary Lamielle, Thelma Lenore Long, Robert Morrell, and Larry and Trudy Painter. I join the county in paying tribute to these 13 individuals and I thank them for helping carry out Dr. King's legacy with tireless dedication.

Mr. Speaker, we hear that there is agreement over some basic principles here. Just about everyone thinks we should extend the middle class tax cut for the rest of this year. Just about everyone thinks we should make sure that doctors don't see a nearly 30 percent cut in the payments that they receive to take care of our seniors and disabled persons under Medicare. Most of us think that unemployment benefits should be extended at a time when there are four people unemployed for every one job opening in the country.

Most people believe that most if not all of this should be paid for; that is to say that we shouldn't borrow the money to do these things. The amount of money that's needed to do that is about $3 out of every $1,000 that we're going to spend here. It's significant money, but it's about $3 out of every $1,000 that we spend.

So here's the idea behind this motion. Since there is such broad agreement that this middle class tax cut and the other provisions need to happen, since there is such broad agreement that it ought to be offset in part, if not fully, and since it's such a relatively small amount of money, $3 for every $1,000 we're going to spend, let's not wait until the very last minute to do it.

The history of 2011 is littered with the majority waiting until the eleventh hour. And it was more than just an inconvenience for the legislative process. In August when the markets melted down, it turned out to be a crisis for the country and the global economy. Let's not take that chance again.

So if everybody is so much in agreement, vote for this motion. What it says is let's not wait until February 29. They gave us a leap year this year, so let's not stretch it. Let's not wait until February 29 at midnight. Let's get this done no later than February 17 to get this done in an orderly fashion.

The American people are tired of a Congress that has the study habits of a student who parties all semester and crams for the finals. Let's get serious, let's grow up, and let's vote for this motion.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, as the Congress meets for the first time in 2012, the people of the country are burdened by a deficit of jobs, a deficit in our Federal budget, and a deficit of hope that things could get better.

It is our responsibility to work together to try to make them better. Now, to reduce the deficit of the country, yes, you should restrain spending. The parties came together in August and passed--with about half of each party voting for it--a deficit-reduction

plan that cut spending in our departments by about 5 percent each, made reasonable reductions in defense spending and some reasonable reductions in social problems. We should keep those reductions on the books.

We think that in reducing the deficit, that the very wealthiest and most successful in American society should have to pay a little bit more of their fair share. Not everyone agrees with that, but we think that is an important part of reducing the deficit. But by far the best way to reduce the deficit is to create jobs for the people of this country. You have a hard time creating jobs when there is a deficit, but you have an impossible time of reducing the deficit when there are no jobs.

132 days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and put forward four good ideas to create jobs in this country. First, he said that we should cut taxes for middle class and working Americans. Well, we managed to eke out a 2-month agreement to do that. Let's get to work today in extending that middle class tax cut for at least the rest of the year.

The President then said that we should put people back to work, building science labs in our schools and fixing bridges and roads that need to be repaired. The Congress hasn't acted on that proposal at all in this House.

The President said that we should cut taxes for small business people who hire people, who create jobs. This House has not acted at all on that proposal since September 8. The President took due note that as private sector jobs have risen, police officers and teachers and firefighters have lost their jobs in the public sector. And he said to help our States and cities keep police officers on the beat, keep firefighters in the apparatus, keep teachers in the classroom, let's give some aid to those States and cities to keep those people working. The House has not acted at all on that proposal.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House and Mr. Speaker, rather than going through an exercise here where people can pontificate about how much they deeply care about the deficit, let's do something about it. Let's put on the floor of this House each of the President's proposals to create jobs and let's take a vote.

And to those who say they have better ideas, let's put their ideas on the floor. The American people did not take the month of January off; neither should we. Let's put these job-creating proposals on the floor, put them to a vote and do our job to help put the American people back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the centennial anniversary of the Barrington Band and commemorate its many contributions to the cultural community of South New Jersey. This community band comprised of approximately thirty members ranging from teenagers to seniors has delighted audiences with their patriotic and seasonal repertoire for one hundred years, and today we thank them for the joy they have brought to their many listeners this past century.

The Barrington Band formed on January 1, 1912 when four townsmen rang in the New Year parading through the streets with cowbells, whistles, a clarinet and drum. They had such fun that they decided to form a community band. Recruitment proved to be easy, as many members of the Barrington Improvement Association were eager to join despite a lack of musical knowledge. This was soon remedied as local musicians were hired to teach the new band, and this day July 4, 1912 the band held their first performance at the flag-raising of the Barrington Fire Company.

Since that day, the Barrington Band has been marching and playing at all sorts of community building events including 17 Philadelphia Mummers Day Parades, the inauguration of New Jersey Governor Harold Hoffman in 1935, on the way to the shore on the Wildwood Boardwalk, and at the annual Concert at the Gazebo in Cape May.

Through decades of excellent musicianship, the Barrington Band has built an unparalleled reputation for providing a fun and entertaining show comprised of marches, patriotic and Broadway songs. Beyond being a staple at Barrington civic events and nursing homes, the band has established the Harold Houck Award for musicianship and academic achievement, to be given to a member of the Woodland School eighth grade graduating class. The award was named after Harold Houck, son of the original band director, who played with the band from fourteen to eighty-nine years old. He started a tradition of lifelong participation that continues to this day, a unique legacy for this talented band.

Mr. Speaker, the Barrington Band has been an integral part of the South Jersey community for one hundred years, bringing people together through the shared joy of music. I join the township and all of South Jersey in paying tribute to this exceptional band on its one-hundredth anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the beloved Maurice J. ``Bud'' Maley, one of the great pillars of the Mount Laurel, New Jersey community. Let us remember him, today and always, for both his benevolence and his endless drive to work toward the betterment of society.

Always a venerable man of action, Bud never shied away from helping a community in need. After graduation from Northeast Catholic High School in Philadelphia, he recognized that need in his country and gallantly enlisted in the United States Army. It was decisions such as this one that truly separate Bud from the rest; he was always willing to serve.

After his time in the military, Bud moved to New Jersey to share his talents and kindhearted spirit with the Cinnaminson and Mount Laurel communities. Until his retirement in 1989, Bud worked in communications sales for Western Electric and Alcatel-Lucent, surely with the same enthusiasm and dedication that he came to be known for.

There is no doubt that Bud loved his community, but he took it a step further: he worked to better it. He was an avid member of the Saint Bernard's Home and School Finance Committee, the Knights of Columbus, the Western Tip and Ringers, and more. His work with these organizations undoubtedly touched many lives and helped the area prosper. Communities are able to stand strong because of people like Bud Maley.

As for his passions, Bud had several great loves. He was a devoted and caring husband to his wife, Mary Lou, and a dedicated father to his three children, Jim, Maureen, and Marianne. Outside of his family life, Bud fell in love with videography and photography. His artwork was able to capture glimpses of his life that can now be cherished in his memory.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Maley's extraordinary actions and character are qualities to be emulated by future generations. His friends and family are in my thoughts and prayers during this time. He will always be remembered as a man of truly remarkable measures.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Specialist Four Charles Rouse, a courageous and gallant American veteran. Not only did he risk his life to defend America's ideals in Vietnam, but he served with such heroism that he was awarded two of the most distinguished military honors one can receive, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star. Mr. Rouse's patriotism and allegiance to his country are nothing short of astounding, and we all owe our livelihoods to individuals like him who make similar sacrifices and bold choices every day.

Like so many others who were drafted to serve in Vietnam, Mr. Rouse had the task of carrying out necessary missions and protecting the lives of his fellow soldiers. Mr. Rouse not only performed those responsibilities with utmost dedication, he chose to go above and beyond the call of duty. The Silver and Bronze Stars are only given to those few individuals who exhibit extraordinary valor and courage in the face of the enemy. To receive even one of them is an extremely high honor. Mr. Rouse was one of those very few who received not only one of these prestigious awards, but both of them. We are so fortunate and so proud that he wore a U.S. uniform.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rouse's unfaltering love for this country and its people is truly remarkable and should not go unrecognized. To his family and friends whom he holds dear, you certainly do not have to be told of his magnificent character. While serving his country, Mr. Rouse exhibited the extraordinary courage that is required to do what most of us cannot even imagine. It is for these reasons that we honor him today and why his legacy will live on forever.

Mr. Speaker, in just over 2 weeks, Americans who are fortunate enough to have work will get their first paycheck of 2012, and the paycheck will be lower because there's a tax increase. The question before the country today is: Should we stop that, yes or no?

In 11 or 12 days, a senior will go to see her doctor, and there's a very high risk that the doctor will not see that Medicare patient because the doctor has seen a 27 percent cut in what the doctor has been paid.

The question before the country is: Should we stop that, yes or no? In just over 11 days, over 2 million Americans will see their unemployment benefits expire and they will have virtually no income to pay any of their bills. The answer is: Should we stop that, yes or no?

Now, the other body has taken up a bill that gives us the answer. The taxes would not go up on the middle class, the senior would be able to see their doctor, and the unemployment benefits would not expire. Eighty-nine Members of the Senate voted for this. The President of the United States said he'd sign this. Virtually every Member of the Democratic side of the House is prepared to vote for this. But this is not on the House floor today. Now it's just fine for a Member to say, yes, I support this compromise or, no, I don't support this compromise, but it is an abrogation of the basic duty of this House not to take a vote on it.

The choices ought to be, yes, we support the bill, or, no, we don't support the bill. It shouldn't be we don't want to take a vote on the bill; we want to duck the question. We are compensated to cast votes and explain our votes to the American people. By refusing to let this bill come to the floor today, the majority is abrogating its responsibility to the country. We should oppose this rule.

Mr. Speaker, due to a personal family matter on December 15, 2011, I was absent from votes. As such, I am submitting these remarks to indicate how I would have voted if I were here: I would have voted No on the Journal Vote, and Yes on H.R. 886, H.R. 2719, and H.R. 443.