Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about an outstanding public servant who will

soon be retiring after nearly forty-eight years of service to our nation.

Robert G. Mahony was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, and attended the University of Notre Dame. When he graduated, in 1961, Bob was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army. He attended law school at Loyola University Chicago and earned his J.D. in 1965. For the following two years, Bob served on active duty, including a combat tour in Vietnam. After returning home, he became a member of the Army Reserves and transferred to the Judge Advocate General Corps.

Service in the military was only the beginning for Bob. In 1967, he began work as a trial attorney for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice here in Washington. After nine years there, he spent a year in private practice and was subsequently appointed as an Administrative Law Judge at the Department of Labor, serving in that capacity for twenty years. Since 1997, Bob has been an Administrative Law Judge at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Throughout his civilian career, Bob remained in the Army Reserves, serving with distinction as the Commander of the 10th Military Law Center and later as Staff Judge Advocate for the 97th Army Reserve Command at Fort Meade. He retired as a Colonel in 1991 and received the Legion of Merit for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. Bob is also a holder of the Vietnam Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal from the former South Vietnamese government.

Bob's commitment to public service extends as well to involvement in the community. He has served for over three decades as an official of the Northern Virginia Swimming League and for over twenty-five years as a basketball coach with the Braddock Road Youth Club, Saint Mary's Academy in Alexandria, the Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Annandale, and the Holy Trinity School in Washington.

Bob and his wife, Margaret, have been married for forty-four years and instilled in their four children a love of public service. I have borne witness to this, since their daughter, Gina, used to work on my staff.

Bob Mahony will retire from government service on January 3 after forty-seven years, eleven months, and twelve days. I join in thanking him for his dedicated service to our country and wishing him all the best in his retirement. Like all of our public servants, he can look back on his career and know he made a real difference in the lives of many Americans and the life of our nation.

Mr. Speaker, next month this House will lose a dedicated public servant. Wilson ``Bill'' Livingood, our Sergeant at Arms, will retire after seventeen years keeping us safe. Since 1995, he has stood watch over the People's House and all of its members, staff, and visitors, overseeing the security of this chamber, the Capitol, and Congressional office buildings.

Under Bill's leadership, the House has adapted its security measures to meet new challenges faced since September 11. He has been a driving force in enhancing screening procedures while ensuring that Americans can still easily visit the Capitol and meet with their representatives.

Bill Livingood's life has been spent in service to our nation and to protecting the institutions of our democracy. Before his long service as Sergeant at Arms, Bill was an agent of the U.S. Secret Service for thirty-three years, placing his life on the line to protect our commander-in-chief.

While I have no doubt that the strong voice with which Bill has welcomed U.S. presidents and foreign dignitaries into the House chamber has become iconic, I believe he will be remembered here most for his warmth and kind-spirit and for his deep love of country. I have been fortunate to call him a friend and can attest to the attention and respect he commands from all who have known him. It has been a pleasure serving with Bill throughout his tenure, and I wish him all the best in his retirement.

I join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in thanking Bill for his long career of distinguished service to the people of the United States and, in particular, to their House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

If I can clarify, and I understand that we are coming up to the end of the year. There is a lot of business which needs to be done in the time remaining, and so I understand his urging to be flexible.

My Members have asked me, I'm sure Your members have as well, Friday the 9th is scheduled on the calendar to be a nonwork day, as a matter of fact, the 8th was the target date. Either side very rarely meets its target. But in your flexibility--clearly we've told our Members the following week, the week of the 12th, that undoubtedly we're going to be here. But can you give them some sort of confidence level with respect to the 9th, or is that not possible?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, thank you for that.

Let me posit a possibility here. Thursday at 3 o'clock we clearly, I don't believe, aren't going to finish the business that we need to finish before we leave. Therefore, my presumption is we will be back in the following week. Therefore, Friday would not be the last day and therefore we could do whatever we have to do on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and we should plan on a five-day week at least for the following week.

Is that correct?

Further on the schedule, just so our Members have pretty clear information, the week of the 19th, which is the following week, can you give me some thought on what you are advising your Members with respect to the week of the 19th?

I yield to my friend.

I want to tell my friend that there is overwhelming bipartisan unanimity on the gentleman's hope; but for the purposes of my Members, I will say that I would hope our Members would take the flexibility beyond the week ending on the 16th and make sure, at least on the 19th and 20th and 21st, that they're flexible as well. I think none of us want to be meeting that week, but we have a lot of work to do, as the gentleman knows.

The gentleman has announced that we may go to conference next week on the MilCon bill that was passed by the House and the Senate. It is the only bill that, I think, is in that status.

Do you anticipate other bills being added in that conference? Of course, we all know there are nine appropriations bills which still remain unpassed, a number of which have not passed the Senate and some of which have not passed the House, itself.

Will the gentleman clarify the situation that may result or may be effective as it relates to such a conference with respect to the other appropriations bills.

That doesn't clarify it very much, but I understand the gentleman's problem with respect to what is being done. Let me ask the gentleman:

If we can't get agreement, in light of the gentleman's focus on the 16th as the date of adjournment, is the gentleman saying that we might consider a CR for some period of time, either a balance-of-the-year continuing resolution or a continuing resolution for some other time?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

I am pleased to hear that he is going to be sticking with the level of funding that we agreed upon. I think the gentleman's observation is correct: there are many people on my side who believe that is lower than is necessary to meet the responsibilities they would like to see met, and on your side it's too much in terms of the fiscal situation that confronts us; but I am pleased to hear that we're going to be consistent with the 1.043 discretionary number that was set forth in the Budget Control Act.

My friend knows that, in the Budget Control Act, we also provided for some headroom for emergency spending as a result of disasters. The gentleman well knows our region in the Northeast was hit very hard by a hurricane. We've had an earthquake. We've had tornadoes and other natural disasters. That gave $11 billion of headroom.

Will we continue to honor that part of the agreement as well?

I thank the gentleman for that.

I was profoundly disappointed that the so-called supercommittee, or the special committee on deficit reduction, either was unable to reach an agreement on at least a $4 trillion agreement to reduce our deficit or, as I had urged individually, to extend its life for a period of time, 60 to 90 days, which would have allowed us further opportunity to reach such a deal.

I think that it is absolutely essential for our country. I think it would be an extraordinary plus for our economy if we were to reach such an agreement. I think it would raise the confidence of the American people and raise the confidence of the international community and, not inconsequentially, that of the rating agencies as well. We didn't reach an agreement. We didn't extend the life of that commission. I would like to see us set up another process which would give us accelerated consideration of such an agreement.

Having said that, we built into the Budget Control Act a disciplinary consequence of that failure, which was the sequester--a $1.2 trillion across-the-board cut, divided equally between defense and non-defense discretionary spending. The Speaker had said that we are morally bound to accept the defense cuts if the supercommittee failed.

I wonder if you support the Speaker in that commitment.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I appreciate Mr. Panetta's quote. I believe Mr. Panetta's quote is an accurate quote and, I believe, substantively correct.

Let me give the gentleman another quote from the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen. I know the gentleman knows Admiral Mullen, who served so ably as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He said, ``The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.''

He went on to say, ``And the reason I say that is because the ability for our country to resource our military--and I have a pretty good feeling and understanding about what our national security requirements are--is going to be directly proportional--over time, not next year or the year after, but over time--to help our economy.''

So I would agree with the gentleman that we need to reach a bipartisan agreement. I would hope the gentleman would share my view that we need to reach a bipartisan agreement on a big deal. A little deal, as the Speaker and I have discussed, will simply push off until next year a decision and the year after in just doing it incrementally. That will not give confidence to the markets. It will not give confidence to the business community. It will not help our economy either domestically or internationally.

So my concern, I tell my friend, is if we now walk away from the sequester, as we have walked away from too many agreements in the past, we will again remove the discipline, remove the incentive, remove the imperative, as the gentleman points out, for coming to a bipartisan agreement, which is Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin-Domenici, the Gang of Six.

As the 100, the 40 Republicans and 60 Democrats, as the 46 equally divided between Republicans and Democrats have said, we need to reach a balanced deal: a deal which will restrain and cut spending, a deal that will deal with entitlement sustainability over time, and a deal that will provide a revenue stream that will allow us to fund what we believe to be absolutely essential, of which, as the gentleman points out, and he and I agree, national security is one.

So I would hope that we would not walk away from that disciplinary incentive to, in fact, have Republicans and Democrats come to an agreement.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I think that both sides have shown some flexibility in some respects. Certainly a number of Republicans and Democrats showed flexibility on the Bowles-Simpson Commission.

Now, none of the House Members on the Republican side showed that flexibility, for reasons that I've heard them articulate. I understand they had reasons. But, unfortunately, we didn't get to the 14 votes in a bipartisan way on the Commission. As you know, I was not on the Commission, but I supported the Commission's report, would have voted for the Commission's report, as did Mr. Durbin, the majority whip in the Senate.

Let me say to the gentleman, with respect to small business, nobody wants to put taxes on small business. As a matter of fact, we want to reduce taxes for small business. We offered that on the floor in the United States Senate yesterday. Every Democrat but one voted for that yesterday. Unfortunately, it did not pass. Your side, as you know, offered an alternative, an alternative which didn't even enjoy the support of the majority of your party.

So we need to get to bipartisan support, but I wish the gentleman would, when we talk about trying to ask some of the wealthiest people in America to pay a little more--not a lot more, but a little more--to meet the obligations so our country is fiscally sound, would not keep putting forth this, what I believe to be, windmill of small business.

We are for small business. This tax cut would reduce substantially taxes on small business. Your party, the majority, voted against it in the United States Senate. It hasn't been brought to the floor.

We would hope that we would extend the tax cut for middle class working people and not restore that tax, and that that would affect both individuals and, as the gentleman knows, small business. So we have a tax cut that we're recommending. The President has gone all over the country and talked about it, but it hasn't been brought to the floor. We think that's regrettable. We would hope you would do that.

Furthermore, frankly, the millionaires' tax, the billionaires' tax is, as you know, a net taxable income level. It's not going to hurt small business at all. It's not going to hurt job creators at all. And, very frankly, I will tell my friend, we continue to follow an agenda which I don't think you can quote me an economist that will tell me that your regulatory bills that we've been spending time on, day after day, week after week--which I know sounds good to your people. We need regulatory reform. We need regulatory simplification. We need to make it in America. One of the ways we need to do so is make it profitable to make it in America. I agree with that 100 percent. But I don't have any economist who has told me that that's going to create jobs. As a matter of fact, Bruce Bartlett, an economist for the Reagan administration and Bush administration, said specifically it will have little, if any, effect.

Do you have an economist who said that that's going to grow jobs?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comment. I take from his comment, however, that he doesn't have an economist who has said that these bills are going to grow jobs. I agree with him that economists certainly believe that over the long term certainty is a good thing. We all agree on that. I hope all of us agree on that, and I would like to accomplish that. That's one of the reasons I'm for a big deal.

But let me give you a quote from Ben Bernanke as it relates to your saying we want to raise taxes. Nobody wants to raise taxes. I will tell my friends, I've been in office now for a long period of time, some 40- plus years. It takes zero courage, zero courage, to spend money and not pay for it. We believe we ought to pay for things. That's the difference.

Taxes are the money we collect to pay for things: taxes that we collect to pay for our national security, taxes we collect to pay for researchers at NIH, taxes we pay for FBI agents to protect us from terrorists, both domestic and foreign. Those are what our taxes are. Taxes are to help our kids get a college education so we can be competitive in the international community. It's paying for things that we're for.

And I will tell my friend, I'm glad to see you come to the point where we're going to pay for things because very frankly, as the gentleman knows, we're collecting revenues at a far lesser rate than your budget asked to spend, than

your budget, the Ryan budget, which, as you well know, did not balance the budget within the next 20 years and was all on the cut side, and the gentleman well knows was not a viable document. It did pass the House of Representatives; it did. I'm not sure it would have passed the Senate even if the Republicans had been in control of the Senate.

But notwithstanding that, let me give you a quote from Ben Bernanke because I agree with you--and you and I have talked about this privately, and we're now talking about it publicly. We ought to come together. We ought to sit down. We ought to reason together. We ought to be courageous together. We ought to have the will to address the extraordinarily dangerous fiscal crisis that confronts us.

Ben Bernanke said this: We aim to push our elected leaders to face the Nation's long-term fiscal challenges with civility, honesty, and a willingness to sacrifice their own reelection. This means not kicking the can anymore. That's why, if we abandon the sequester, that will be kicking the can. If we abandon trying to get a big deal, that will be kicking the can. This means--as he said--means reaching a deal on debt, revenue, and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall. Well, it came and it went and we failed. It means considering all options from entitlement programs, and the gentleman knows I've given a number of speeches on having to deal with the entitlement programs. We need to do that, but we also need to deal with taxes and revenues so we pay for what we buy, and we ought to tell the American people we can't buy that if you don't want to pay for it.

Now, very frankly, I think in the short term, given the economic crisis, lack of jobs, and the struggling economy, raising additional revenues in that timeframe, as Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin both said, is not good policy, and they would not propose that, and it has not been proposed, as the gentleman knows. But I would tell my friend that paying for things--and as the gentleman knows, one of the reasons we've gotten into this problem was we didn't pay for things in the last decade. We have bought a lot of stuff, and we didn't pay for it. We asked our children to pay for it because it's a delayed effect.

We didn't pay for the wars, and we didn't pay for the prescription bill, and we didn't pay for the tax cuts. Simply giving up revenue, voting for tax cuts, and continuing to buy things is, frankly, I think not only not courageous but it is a disservice to this generation and generations yet to come

And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comment, and I agree with it. Some progress is progress, however you describe it.

Let me clarify, because I want to make sure in terms of coming together and reaching some progress; you mentioned the--I'm not sure that every Republican agreed to it, maybe the gentleman knows, but there was--Mr. Toomey put a proposal on the table which offered $300 billion in additional revenues. Of course, that was offset by an $800 billion increase next year in tax cuts or a net reduction of $500 billion in revenues for next year, excuse me, for January 2013.

Let me ask the gentleman, in reaching that, the gentleman mentioned entitlements. I agreed with him on entitlements, but the gentleman then said he's not for any increased revenues. All three of the bipartisan commissions, the two commissions and the Gang of Six, all three have said that revenues must be part of that picture. That's taxes--a fancy word for taxes. Does the gentleman agree with that, because that certainly was the basis for bipartisanship in all of three of those fora?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. I didn't get an answer to my question, however. He's gotten an answer to his ``solve the problem'' issue. And what he means by solving the problem is we have to deal with the sustainability of entitlement programs. I've adopted that premise myself in speeches that I've given on numerous occasions on this floor and in other fora around the country.

What I'm asking him is, does he also agree--that proposition was adopted by all three of the fora that we have discussed--does he also agree, as Mr. Bernanke points out, that revenues, or taxes, however you want to call it, resources to pay for what we believe are priorities-- for instance, the gentleman correctly believes we need to invest in our national security. I feel very strongly about that.

For 30 years I have voted on behalf of the national security of this Nation--to pay for it and to pursue weapons systems, personnel levels, strategies to assure our national security. So I have no qualms with saying that is a priority. If it is a priority, if it is important, it is important to pay for it. Paying for it is through revenues. If we don't pay for it, if we borrow--we're going to borrow over a trillion dollars to protect our country in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the

world, but particularly those two. That's important. That's important to do. He and I agree. But I think it's important to pay for it and not have my children and grandchildren pay for it, who are going to have to pay for their security in their time. And if we leave them only a legacy of deep debt, they will not be able to do so. That is an immoral policy, in my opinion, as well as a fiscally irresponsible policy.

So I ask my friend, I understand we've got to fix the problem. What you're talking about is make sustainable demographics of change, costs of change. We have to make sustainable entitlements. But does the gentleman agree that a component of the solution has to be dealing with revenues as well?

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

We ought to come together on jobs. I would urge the gentleman to bring the President's jobs bill to the floor with such amendments, such changes, such improvements, such deletions as the gentleman feels necessary.

The President put out a jobs bill which every economist has said will grow the economy, will grow jobs; and it has been languishing in this House since September while people are losing jobs.

Now, the good news is we had some improvement in the economy. By the way, the Recovery Act worked, as the gentleman knows. I want to comment on his going into deficits as a result of the Recovery Act. As the gentleman knows--and he voted for--George Bush suggested $700 billion in unpaid spending to staunch the financial crisis brought on by the meltdown on Wall Street in September of 2008, when President Bush was President. He offered a bill. He didn't offer to pay for that. And we didn't pay for it.

You and I both voted for it because we thought it was the responsible thing to do to stabilize the financial structure of this country. I believed we were absolutely right at that point in time. It was a very unpopular bill but, nevertheless, I think absolutely essential.

So in terms of some 5 months later, confronted with the deepest economic crisis since Herbert Hoover, we acted. We acted with the Recovery Act. And the Recovery Act has worked. It was not as big as some asked it to be, but it created some 2 million jobs over the last 36 months. It has not been as robust because we lost 8 million jobs. So if you add 3 million back, you lose 8 million, you haven't gotten to where you need to be.

But I tell my friend that we ought to come together. We ought to reach agreement. We ought to reach a balanced agreement. Your side thinks when we talk about balance, we're talking about revenues. He's right. But when we talk about balance, we're also talking about fixing the problem the gentleman talks about. We're talking about a balanced deal.

I would urge my friend in these coming few days that we have left, where we're apparently going to do either a CR or an omnibus appropriation bill--and we were criticized greatly for not doing every appropriation bill individually. You have an appropriation bill, as the gentleman knows, that hasn't even passed subcommittee much less full committee or the floor of the House. But we need to get those bills done because it will give certainty and confidence to the American people that we can work together. I'm hopeful that over the next few days that we can, in fact, do that.

I would urge my friend to let us keep the discipline of the sequester in everybody's mind because we don't want that alternative. But we want to have that as the alternative to people so that we can give incentives to work together to summon the courage, to summon the judgment to reach an agreement which will get our country on the right track and give our citizens the confidence in their government that we wish they would have.

But they will only have it if we do, as the gentleman suggests, come together and work constructively toward a balanced package not only in terms of a fiscal package, but appropriations.

Let me say as well on appropriations, this side of the aisle did what your side of the aisle didn't do over the last 4 years when we were in charge. We made sure those bills passed. Your bills had your levels that we agreed on. And we congratulate you on sticking with the agreement we reached. I will tell my friend we will do so again if you do not put in the riders that Mr. Boehner and your Pledge to America said ought not to be in must-pass bills.

You will recall, I'm sure, that Mr. Boehner said we ought not to have extraneous controversial items which are not germane in bills that must pass. We ought to consider those on their merits. And I will tell my friend that if you do that, as the whip, as I have done on the two CRs we passed, on the debt limit extension we passed, and on the omnibus, or the ``minibus'' that we just passed, I will help you get those through. We will work together, and America will have greater confidence in us if we do that.

I yield to my friend.

I will assure the majority leader that we will maintain our flexibility on schedule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn for the year, there are a number of important items that we must address. The most pressing is the expiration of unemployment benefits at the end of December.

Should Congress fail to act, millions of Americans who rely on emergency unemployment compensation will begin to see their payments disappear starting in January. 2.1 million of our fellow Americans will have lost their benefits by the middle of February, and over 6 million by the end of 2012. However, we have the power to prevent that from happening by extending those benefits.

These emergency benefits were put in place at the start of the recession in December of '07; and with so many Americans still out of work, now is certainly not the time to let them come to an end.

The number one challenge we must address in the Congress remains job creation. Americans out of work have been doing their part to find jobs. Congress must do its part as well. Some Republicans have unfairly and incorrectly blamed those who have been laid off for their continued difficulty in finding jobs. However, there are over four people looking for every one job that is available. At the same time, there are nearly 7 million fewer jobs today than there were in 2007.

Instead of blaming the victims, we ought to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to find solutions. Congress has never allowed emergency unemployment benefits to lapse with our jobless rate anywhere close to where it is today. If it did, over 17,000 people in my State of Maryland would see their lifeline cut off by February. In Ohio, Speaker Boehner's State, 80,000 people are at risk.

Among African Americans, Latinos and other minorities, a disproportionate number have been affected by long-term unemployment and are especially vulnerable if these benefits were to end. Every State would see more Americans who are out of work slip into poverty. Local communities would be affected, too, with residual job losses. The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that allowing these benefits to expire would cost us another 500,000 jobs--a half a million.

I sincerely hope that Republicans will work with us to prevent so many Americans from being left out in the cold as they continue to seek jobs but can't find them. It's long past the time that they start working with us to pass a real jobs plan to get Americans back to work and grow our economy.

The President put a jobs bill on our desk in September. It is now December. We've yet to see that bill or any other jobs bill put on this House floor by the Republican leadership. Democrats have multiple jobs plans on the table--the President's American Jobs Act and the House Democrats' Make It in America plan. Both will help create jobs right away and invest in long-term economic competitiveness.

If Republicans continue to be unwilling to work with us on a plan to create jobs, I hope they will at least work with us to pass a measure that will prevent further losses as a result of expiring unemployment benefits. I strongly urge my Republican friends to help us stop the looming and entirely preventable disaster of millions having no support. It is the responsibility we have to our constituents and to those looking to us for leadership during this challenging time.

Let us not go home. Let us not celebrate Christmas or other holidays without ensuring the extension of unemployment benefits for those Americans who cannot find jobs, notwithstanding the fact they are looking for jobs. They're counting on us. Let's be sure that their reliance was well placed.

First of all, we ought to be talking about jobs. The contention that this bill funds bills that are about jobs is spurious, in my opinion; and no economist, in my opinion, will assert that that is the fact. We ought to be dealing with jobs.

But what are we dealing with?

Now, I know of what I speak, I tell the gentleman from Georgia. I understand. I was a Member of the House Administration Committee for, I think, some 15 years. I, along with Bob Ney, was the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act, which created the Election Assistance Commission. So I know something about the Election Assistance Commission.

It was created because in the year 2000 we had a disastrous election which was resolved finally but not very acceptably by most people, whether your candidate won or lost. So the Election Assistance Commission was created for the purpose, for the first time in history, of having some Federal presence in the oversight of Federal elections. Not mandatory, but advisory.

Now, what we see, frankly, throughout America in Republican- controlled legislatures in many, many States is an effort to make voting more difficult to, in my opinion, suppress the vote, to require more and more documentation of people who have already registered to vote and claiming problems that exist that do not exist.

Now, if you want to obfuscate the election process, if you want to suppress the vote, if you want to make it more difficult, what is one of the things you want to do?

Eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, whose responsibility it is to advise and counsel on best practices to assure that every American not only has the right to vote but is facilitated in casting that vote and in making sure that that vote is counted. That's what the Election Assistance Commission does.

And what do they want to do with the Election Assistance Commission's responsibility? Transfer it to the Federal Election Commission, whose sole responsibility is to oversee the flow of money into elections. They neither have the expertise nor, frankly, do they have the time. They hardly have the time to do what they're supposed to do right now.

Now, the Bush administration did not fund the Election Assistance Commission very robustly. Like every agency, it requires and should have proper oversight, and should, in my view, be more vigorous in the carrying out of its responsibilities. That is not, however, a reason for eliminating it. The only reason for eliminating it is to make voting more obscure, with less oversight and less assurance to our citizens that they not only have the right to vote but that a vote will be cast and counted correctly.

Mr. Speaker, while the Republican sponsors of the two bills before us contend they will create jobs, their claim is spurious. Economists have told us again and again that easing regulations has a negligible effect on job creation. The only thing these bills will do is make it harder for federal agencies to protect Americans through safety standards and environmental protections.

One of the bills adds 35 pages to what is currently a 45 page law, and is likely to add 21 to 39 months to the rulemaking process. Agencies will be tied in knots and leave businesses without the certainty they need.

To pay for this expansion of the federal regulatory process, Republicans would have us eliminate the Election Assistance Commission.

I was proud to be one of the authors of the Help America Vote Act, which established the EAC in order to fix the flawed system that led to the electoral debacle of 2000. It passed with a strong bipartisan vote of 357-48. The Commission's sole purpose is to provide states with the resources they need to ensure everyone eligible to vote can cast their ballots and have them counted. We cannot risk having our elections determined by ``hanging chads.''

Instead of trying to erode our ability to protect voters, and instead of promoting regulatory bills that will not put Americans back to work, Republicans should join with Democrats to pass real jobs legislation. Democrats have two plans on the table to create jobs and grow our economy--the President's American Jobs Act and our Make It In America plan. We should be debating and voting on those.

I strongly urge the defeat of these bills and hope Republicans will finally set partisanship aside and work with us to help businesses hire workers and to invest in our economy's future.

Mr. Speaker, a number of us have come to the floor today to remember a great American who passed away earlier this month. Hal Bruno made a real difference in people's lives, both by keeping them informed about our world and by serving as an advocate for firefighters and their families.

Hal was ABC News Political Director through the 1980's and 1990's, covering major national events and keeping Americans engaged with their government. He skillfully moderated the vice-presidential debate in 1992 after having covered presidential campaigns since Kennedy ran against Nixon. He had the respect and admiration of leaders from both parties.

As a journalist, Hal made a reputation for himself as a truth-teller, even when the truth was difficult. That began in Chicago, when as a young reporter he uncovered how poor safety standards in the building code had contributed to a fire that claimed 95 lives. He became a respected voice for fire safety, and that experience led him to become a volunteer firefighter himself, which he continued to do for decades.

After retiring from ABC News in 1999, Hal dedicated himself to serving our communities' firefighters and their families. He chaired the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation at a time when we lost so many brave first responders in the September 11 attacks. Hal was a champion for the families of firefighters who lost their lives in service to their communities, and he fought for and won the passage of legislation to provide them survivor benefits.

I know that Hal will be both dearly missed and dearly remembered by many in government, those who turned to him for their news for so many years, and by the families of firefighters on whose behalf he worked so tirelessly.

I join in remembering Hal and celebrating his life. I offer my condolences to his wife Meg and their children and grandchildren.

I thank my friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of Gabby Giffords' closest friends. I acknowledge the presence of Gabby Giffords' extraordinary staffer and extraordinary leader on her staff, who herself lost a valued member of her staff and Gabby's staff.

Madam Speaker, all of us who serve in this House know that we could not do the work we do without the help of our extraordinarily able and highly motivated staffs. They work long hours with pay below their counterparts in the executive branch and in the private sector. Many are young, in their twenties and thirties, with an energy and a passion for public service that give us all great hope for the future.

Gabe Zimmerman was one of those passionate and dedicated staffers who loved his job, who loved his fellow staffers, and who loved his Congresswoman. He was working for a beloved friend and colleague of all of ours, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

Gabe Zimmerman was a bridge between the Congresswoman and individuals and constituent groups in her district, fostering and expanding each day

the most important relationships Members of Congress maintain: those with their constituents, with the people who have entrusted them with the responsibility of representing them in this great body. Gabe Zimmerman was the first congressional staffer in history, as has been said a number of times, to lose his life in the line of duty, in the 222 years of the history of this body. He lost his life protecting, promoting, and defending democracy.

Gabe Zimmerman, along with six others, was not the object of attack, but a victim of a domestic terrorist intent on assassinating Congresswoman Giffords and intent on randomly killing people participating in one of democracy's most basic activities--the discussion between constituents and their Representatives. Members of my own staff--and I'm sure the members of the staffs of every Member here--were profoundly shaken by this event, realizing that it could have been them or, indeed, any staffer, participating with their Members in any public or even private event.

It is entirely fitting, therefore, that we rename in his memory a room where, every day, Members and our staffs come together to further the representation of the American people. Every day, when we enter that room, we will remember Gabe Zimmerman. Gabe Zimmerman died while serving his country, and we honor him for that service.

But let me say to every staffer who serves with us that, by doing so, we honor you as well--your contributions and the contributions of all staffs--who, like Gabe, strive to make this country a better one for all Americans.

We send to Gabe's parents our deepest sympathy for a loss that cannot be compensated, but tell them that we share their extraordinary pride in this American hero.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this misnamed bill, which would promote neither democracy nor fairness in the workplace. Now, I have just been on this floor a few minutes, but it is ironic that I have heard speaker after speaker in favor of this bill but who vote consistently against working men and women's right to organize and bargain collectively.

Ironic, perhaps, the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively for better and fairer conditions has been protected by our laws since the era of the New Deal, which was opposed by so many.

This legislation is part of an agenda, frankly, that the Republican Party continues to pursue, which no economist believes creates jobs in the coming year. This bill before us won't do anything to help the economy or create jobs, period; and it places obstacles in front of workers seeking to exercise their right to organize.

I want to point out to my friends that interestingly enough, in terms of trying to protect elections, there's all about you can't have an election before, but there's nothing in this legislation you have to have an election by. That would perhaps be more credible, if it said not sooner than this, but not later than this.

That would show that you really wanted to pursue elections for working men and women so they could organize and bargain collectively for pay and benefits and working conditions.

But it doesn't say that. It says you simply can't have it before. It never says you have to have it. It never says you can't delay it by suit after suit after suit. It never says you've got to get to issue. It never says you've got to give the employees the right by a certain date.

This bill before us won't do anything to help the economy or create jobs, as I said. I continue to have the strongest faith in the American worker, that they are the most talented and most productive in the world. We should not be rolling back their protections. Instead, we should focus on helping to get more Americans back to work.

And as for the NLRB, the real trauma is it is now a pro-worker and employer NLRB, as opposed to simply a pro-employer NLRB. That's the problem you have.

The courts ought to ensure equal treatment. The NLRB ought to ensure equal treatment. It has not been doing that for some period of time; and now, in my view, it is. God bless them. That's what they should do.

Employers and employees ought to get a fair shake and a fair election, and I agree with that premise. Timing is obviously of concern to both parties. I would hope we would defeat this bill, and then if we want to talk about assuring elections, let us do so to protect democracy and protect workers.

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

I spoke yesterday on this issue. My good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, and I have talked a number of times about this.

In 1995, as I said yesterday, I voted for an amendment very similar to this, almost exactly like it. I had a confidence at that point in time that, in an emergency, three-fifths of us would come together and vote to do that which the country needed to keep it stable and safe.

Regrettably, over the 16 years, I have lost that confidence. I've lost that confidence this year, where, frankly, on the majority's side of the aisle we would not have passed a CR to keep the government open once. We wouldn't have passed it a second time; and, very frankly, had we had to rely on the votes solely of the majority side, as we have in the past on my side, we would have defaulted on our debt.

That is not a good context in which to adopt an amendment that puts the country at risk if three-fifths are not available to act in an emergency. As a result, I will not vote for this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

We are engaged at this very day in an effort to try to come to agreement on how we balance the budget; and, very frankly, we only need 51 percent, and 51 percent is not there.

But we have balanced the budget, and we balanced it without an amendment. We balanced it in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. And my Republican colleagues rightfully say, ``Well, we offered those budgets.'' Yes, they did. But I will tell you, I have no doubt, not a single doubt, that if the surpluses that were created by those budgets had been available in 1998 and Bill Clinton had not said save Social Security first, that what we would have done is cut revenues deeply and had deficits during those 4 years. Now, you may disagree, but I have no doubt, based upon the philosophy that I have heard since 1981 from my Republican friends, that that would have been the case.

I said yesterday that what we need is not a balanced budget amendment, that what we need is a balanced budget.

How do we get to a balanced budget?

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) pointed out he was a county commissioner. Now, I'll bet as a county commissioner he probably had to pay for what he bought. He gave the analogy, if you've got X coming in, then that's what you spend, not X plus Y. The fact of the matter is his party has spent X plus Y, plus Z, plus A, plus B, plus C, and has run a deficit for every single year they had the Presidency during the last 30 years I've been in the Congress--without fail.

Now, what happened to bring us a balanced budget?

First of all, we had two parties responsible. I don't think we could have done it with just one party--my party or your party. We had two parties responsible, and we constrained one another. Then we had extraordinary growth in our economy, and that's what brought us a balanced budget. But we also adopted in 1990, again in 1993 and in 1997--and I tell my good friend, the sponsor of this, sometimes he voted for PAYGO and sometimes he did not, and your party abandoned the principle of paying for what you bought in 2001.

As a result of abandoning that PAYGO responsibility, you could cut revenues very deeply and not pay for them, not cut spending. It takes no courage, I suggest to my friends, to cut taxes--none whatsoever. Everybody is happy. Paying for bills is a lot tougher. It requires a lot more courage, a lot more responsibility. But you jettisoned statutory PAYGO in the 2000s, and you went on a spending binge. Not only did you blow a hole in the deficit, but you also blew a hole in the economy, and we saw the worst job creation of any administration since Herbert Hoover because the economy, rightfully, was not confident that we would manage our finances correctly.

What we need, ladies and gentlemen, in this House is a balanced budget, not a balanced budget amendment. Let us summon the courage, the will, and the ability to work together immediately on this Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, but let us do it day after day after day. Then when the issues come before you, have the courage to either vote against spending or to vote for the revenues to pay for what all of us have wanted to buy.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Will the gentleman yield? Because the gentleman is not accurate on that.

The gentleman, I take it, has no time to yield.

The gentleman's chart is very interesting. He talks about voting for budgets.

I didn't agree with some of the priorities in your budget; that's accurate. He is correct that we didn't cut taxes, but he is incorrect as to when you cut taxes. You cut taxes in April, months before 9/11, and you gave away a lot of money and you didn't pay for it. You didn't cut spending in order to pay for it in your budgets that you offered. Furthermore, what the gentleman doesn't point out is in 1993, to a person, you voted against a program which was designed to pay our bills--to a person. You said it would destroy the economy.

We had the best economy and the largest budget surplus that you've had and an administration that is the only administration in your lifetime that ended its 96 months with a surplus, Bill Clinton's.

Mr. Speaker, on Veterans Day, I had the privilege of attending the annual parade honoring our veterans in Leonardtown and remembering the fallen service members from St. Mary's County, Maryland. It was a moving and meaningful ceremony, with many who have served our nation in uniform and their families attending. The parade in Leonardtown is the largest in the state, with a long tradition of honoring the service of Maryland veterans.

The program included four students from Leonardtown Elementary School, each of whom read a brief statement written to answer the question ``What does Veterans Day mean to me?'' Their words were a powerful affirmation that the ideals our service members have fought to protect continue to be passed on to the next generation, and that with those ideals we teach a love of country and respect for service. I would like to share their statements with my colleagues.

Katy Kindley wrote: ``Veterans Day means to honor and love the ones who fought in all wars or to honor someone who didn't fight but served to help those in damaged places. Where do they go when they leave? What places will they visit? Will they ever come back? All armed forces that serve our country take only with them--hope. The hope that they won't let those in need be [needy], the hope to succeed in their job, or the hope to just come home to their families. Navy, Army, Air Force, U.S. Marines, or any other force that serves our country take hope and the will to serve with them.

``If you are the child of a veteran, hold your hand up. How do you feel when your mom or dad leave to go on travel? Do you feel scared they will never come back? Do you wonder if they will bring something back? All of your questions remain with you. I'm glad to say that I too have a brilliant and most valiant veteran to look up to--my dad. My dad does his best to serve in the Navy. A lot of times he leaves for a very long trip. One time, he left for seven months! I was very sad. But I was overjoyed to see him come home. Let's take a day to honor, love, and cherish the ones who served in our country. To all those veterans out there, I say: you rock!''

Liam Byers read his statement: ``Can you imagine what life would be like without our

brave veterans? We probably would live in a country where we were not free at all. We couldn't go to school and get a good education for our futures. We couldn't go to the church we wanted or go to church at all. We probably couldn't choose our jobs or even our marriages!

``The brave veterans who risked their lives and health to fight to keep us free are perhaps some of the bravest people in our proud American history. They keep us and our rights safe and free from oppression, such as communism and tyranny.

``We have Veterans Day to honor the brave men and women who fought to keep us and our country free. We have two minutes of silence on Veterans Day called the `Great Silence,' where we remember everybody who fought (and died) for our freedom. My Boy Scout troop marches in a parade for Veterans Day and throws candy to the parade watchers (and sometime we pick up candy on the road for ourselves!).

``On Veterans Day I feel proud to be living in America, where our noble veterans serve in the Armed forces to keep our country free. How do you feel on Veterans Day?''

Lauren Menges shared these thoughts: ``Veterans Day is a day set aside to honor America's servicemen and women for their patriotism, love of their country, and willingness to sacrifice for our freedom. A veteran is anyone who has served in the armed forces, such as: Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, or Air Force.

``Veterans Day used to be called Armistice Day. It honored the signing of the Armistice that ended World War I on November 11, 1918. The end of the war took place on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918 with the German signing of the Armistice. It was declared a legal holiday on May 13, 1938, and was officially declared Veterans Day on November 11. Some people celebrate with a parade. Most schools have the day off. And other countries celebrate by observing two minutes of silence at 11:00.

``I have several family members who served in the military. My great uncle, Gordon Moniz, served in the Korean War, and my uncle, Bryan Menges, served during Operation Desert Storm. My first cousin, Joshua Menges, graduated last year from West Point and is now actively serving his country. I love that my family members served in the military. I am grateful for all the veterans and for their bravery.

``I would like to quote from a poem by Linda Ellis called `Mommy, What is a Veteran?' `How do you describe a veteran and the sacrifices they made so that you and your children's children could live free . . .and unafraid? How do you describe a veteran for a child's sake? You say: A veteran is a person to whom we owe every breath we take.' ''

Also, we heard a statement from Maddie McCauley: ``To many people, Veterans Day is special. Veterans Day all started on November 11, 1919, as Armistice Day. Armistice Day was to celebrate the first anniversary of World War I. Armistice Day was to honor all the brave soldiers who fought in World War I, keeping the United States safe. Now, Veterans Day is to honor all the brave souls who fought in all wars, who gave us our freedom, which many people elsewhere do not have.

``Veterans Day is celebrated with speeches, parades, special church services or ceremonies, visiting graves, and having the Great Silence. Many people visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This tomb holds the body of a U.S. soldier who was killed in battle. Nobody knew who this fearless man was.

``Veterans Day to me is an important holiday. I do have a few veterans in my family. My Great-Grandpa Hal was a fighting ace in the Air Force for many years. My family and I hang our American flag from our house. We also wear red, white, and blue to honor America. I think of many soldiers who endured many tough days away from their family fighting. I think, `Thank you for all you have suffered just to keep us free and safe.' ''

Katy, Liam, Lauren, Maddie, and their classmates, even at their young age, understand the sacrifices made by our veterans. I was glad they were able to participate in the ceremony alongside other public officials, and the many veterans who were on hand.

Together, we all thanked the families of three St. Mary's County fallen heroes for their sons' service and sacrifice. SPC Raymond J. Faulstich Jr. and CPL Matthew Wallace gave their lives serving in Iraq, and SGT Ryan Patrick Baumann fell in combat in Afghanistan. We also applauded a recently-returned wounded warrior, Thomas Caleb Getscher, who lost both legs and part of an arm in Afghanistan. Patuxent Habitat for Humanity will soon be helping to renovate his home to make it more accessible.

In their memory, and in honor of the veterans who returned home, we continue to recommit ourselves every Veterans Day to meeting our obligations to those who served our nation and put their lives on the line for the freedoms we hold dear.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in 1995 I spoke on the floor in support of a balanced budget amendment. That was 16 years ago. There's a lot of water over the bridge since that time. I said then and I quote: ``I do so because I believe this country confronts a critical threat caused by the continuation of large annual deficits.'' I believed that then, and I believe it now. And I have voted against tax cuts that weren't paid for, I have voted against Social Security benefits that weren't paid for, and I have voted against other items that weren't paid for. I stand by my 1995 statement today. However, as I've said, events in the last 16 years lead me to oppose today's balanced budget amendment.

Only months after we had that debate, my Republican colleagues shut down the government. In 1997 we passed an amendment with bipartisan agreement reaffirming the 1990 agreement that we would have a PAYGO process in place. And without having passed a balanced budget amendment, we did in fact balance the budget 4 years in a row. Why? Because we paid for what we bought, we didn't cut revenues before we cut spending, and we restrained spending--4 years in a row. I tell my Republican friends, none of you in your lifetime has lived during the course of a President who had four balanced budgets. Were you partially responsible? Absolutely. Were we partially responsible? Absolutely. But what was the lesson? That we didn't need an amendment; we needed the will and the courage.

Without having passed that balanced budget amendment under President Clinton, not only were we able to balance the budget, but we also achieved the only President term in the lifetime of anybody in this Chamber or listening to me that had 4 years of balance and a net surplus--hear me--a net surplus at the end of 96 months as President of the United States. We made it happen not with a balanced budget amendment, but because we had the will to do so and by following PAYGO rules.

Sadly, I tell my colleagues and the American people, Mr. Speaker, under President Bush, Republicans exploded the deficit and abandoned PAYGO, along with the principle that we ought to pay for what we buy.

We do not have a spending problem or a revenue problem; we have a pay-for problem. The Republican Congress spent enormous sums on two wars, a prescription drug program, and tax cuts without paying for them. If you have the courage of your convictions, you pay for things.

Spending rose at a level nearly twice the inflation rate that Bill Clinton's rose in spending during the 8 years of the Bush administration when Republicans were in charge of everything for 6 years and had a President who could veto anything that we did.

When the financial crisis hit in 2008, President Bush told us that if we failed to act, there would be a high risk of depression.

What did the President's party do? You say you have a three-fifths vote if there's an emergency. President Bush told us that if we did not act there would be a depression and, in fact, we had a vote, and that vote was 205-228, with two-thirds of the President's party voting against the President in what he called a crisis.

That gives me, I tell my friends on the Republican side, no confidence that in time of danger and crisis, that we could summons three-fifths vote. I believed in 1995 we could summon those votes because, frankly, we were a much more bipartisan and, in my opinion, responsible body. But I do not have that confidence today, and I am not prepared to take that risk.

My party, of course, voted with President Bush because we thought there was a crisis. Now, a few days after that, we came back to vote, and we did pass it.

I tell my friends that even on the second vote, when we did, in fact, pass that bill that President Bush asked us to pass because there was a crisis, he could not summon the majority of your party to support him. Barely three-fifths, notwithstanding the President's assertion of crisis, voted to meet that crisis, with 172 Democrats voting with President Bush in a bipartisan response to crisis.

Earlier this year, again, in control of the House, Republicans brought the government to the brink of shutdown. Over the summer we saw them hold the country hostage by pushing us to the brink of default, in the first time in my memory, the United States of America to the brink of default.

I have not changed my beliefs about balancing the budget, and I invite all of you to vote with me on paying for things that we buy, not passing those costs along to my children, my grandchildren, and my two great grandchildren. We have shown we can do it. We balanced the budget for 4 years.

Don't talk about it. Just do it. Don't refuse to pay for it. Don't cut taxes and increase spending.

Don't just preach fiscal responsibility; practice it. It will take no courage to vote for this amendment. But it will take courage to balance our budget by paying for what we buy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I congratulate him for his leadership on this effort.

I thank my friend, Chairman Bachus, for his facilitating the passage of this legislation.

Community banks, Mr. Speaker, are the life blood of our local economies. They are locally owned and operated. They know their local businesses and residents intimately, and lend to them, not just because it's a sound business decision, but also because it benefits the greater community.

With the credit and lending crisis we have experienced over the past couple of years, the small banks that operate in our local communities face numerous challenges just to stay afloat. These are the banks we need to see lending to small businesses and homeowners, but they are hamstrung in their attempt to raise capital by outdated SEC registration requirements. This one is over half a century old.

Under the nearly 50-year-old 500 investor exemption rule, banks have to register with the SEC if they have more than 500 shareholders. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), whose bill this is, explained why that is difficult and why it changes as people who have stock die and leave their stock to more people and to heirs. Banks that have exceeded this low threshold must provide extensive and costly financial disclosure under our Federal securities laws.

Now, over the years, we have upped the threshold in terms of dollars that the bank assets have, but we have not affected the number of shareholders. To reverse this registration, they are then forced to lower their number of shareholders by buying back stock which, all too often, means losing local shareholders who keep these banks connected with their local communities.

The rationale behind SEC registration rules generally is to provide effective and timely disclosure to protect investors, which of course all of us support. However, as Maryland's Banking Supervisor Mark Kaufman notes, the current rule adds to banks' cost with little associated benefits, especially considering that, unlike most private companies, banks file public disclosure already on a quarterly basis and do so on a more timely basis than public companies, as the gentleman from Connecticut pointed out in his remarks.

The American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, State groups like the Maryland Bankers Association and small banks throughout Maryland and the Nation support raising this threshold to 2,000, which is what this bipartisan legislation would do. This will lift a significant regulatory burden on

our community banks without any offsetting price in regulatory oversight and make it easier for them to raise capital so they can continue to lend and support job growth in our communities.

I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support

I thank my colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Fudge.

I'm honored to be on the floor with John Lewis, who came close to losing his life to make sure that Americans could register and could vote.

Mr. Speaker, we're a year away from an election, one that will shape the course of our Nation for years ahead. The choice we make will be pivotal. And in order to make certain that it reflects the direction our people want to take, we ought to do everything we can to ensure that all who have the right to cast a ballot can do so.

Equal access to the ballot is the most fundamental right we have as Americans. It is what preserves our democracy and instills confidence in our system of government. Some of our greatest national struggles have been over suffrage--from votes for African Americans and women to votes for the young people who risk their lives for us in uniform. The right to vote, however, is today, as we have heard by so many, under threat in a number of States seeking to place obstacles in front of minorities, low-income families, young people, and seniors seeking to exercise that basic right to vote.

They claim we need to crack down on an epidemic of voter fraud that does not exist. There is simply no evidence of any widespread voter fraud. As many as a quarter of African Americans do not have the necessary forms of identification now being required by some States. Data from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice shows that African Americans and Latinos make use of early voting at a far higher rate than other groups, especially opportunities to vote on the Sunday before election day. At the same time, there has been an assault on voter registration.

The right to vote does not exist for political expediency. It is a constitutional right and a moral right for all of our citizens. It is the pride of America, this American franchise. For that reason, we are vigorously pursuing ways to protect an American's right to vote by drawing attention to efforts which attempt to restrict that right. We will be working closely with the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and with voting rights groups across the country. Throughout our history, Mr. Speaker, Americans have given their lives to protect the right to vote. It is worth fighting for. It is our fight.

I thank Congresswoman Fudge for her leadership, and I thank all those who have spoken tonight and will be speaking out every day, every week, every month to ensure that every American not only has the right to vote, but does, in fact, have America's willingness to facilitate the casting of that vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 75th anniversary of the Patuxent Research Refuge--established in 1936 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the nation's only National Wildlife Refuge created to support wildlife research.

Over the past 75 years, the Patuxent Research Refuge has been the site of countless advances in wildlife and applied environmental research. Scientists working on the refuge have been international leaders in natural resource conservation and their work has improved the health of animals and humans alike. Pioneering work in the field of environmental contaminants undertaken at Patuxent served as the backbone of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and research efforts at the refuge ultimately led to the banning of DDT.

Patuxent's research community has also made important contributions in the areas of migratory birds, wildlife population analysis, waterfowl harvest, habitat management, wetlands, coastal zone and flood plain management, endangered species recovery, urban wildlife, ecosystem management, and management of national parks and national wildlife refuges.

For those of us who live in this region, the Patuxent Research Refuge is more than a center for the advancement of science. It is an oasis in between two major cities--a site that gives all visitors the opportunity to immerse themselves in nature and reflect on the importance of preserving our environment. Indeed, among my proudest achievements in the Congress is helping to enable increased public access to Patuxent through the expansion of the facility from its original 2,670 acres to its present 12,841 acres.

I want to thank the staff and scientists of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey for their continued efforts to preserve this marvelous asset and advance our understanding of our environment. And I urge my colleagues to join with me in congratulating all of those gathered at Patuxent this weekend to celebrate this important milestone.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership.

I rise in opposition to this bill, the so-called Protect Life Act.

First of all, over and over again we repeat the premise that somehow we're using government funds through the Affordable Care Act for abortion. We are not. No matter how many times you say it, the fact is that we specifically precluded that from happening.

What this bill does goes much further. It threatens to make it harder for women across the country to receive health care that they need. I understand the doctor who just said that the termination of a pregnancy is not health care. I understand his premise. But I also understand that we in America have adopted the premise that if a woman comes to the hospital and has at great risk to her life a pregnancy which is causing her health to be at great risk and her life as well, what this bill does is say you don't have to intervene under those circumstances. I don't think that's protecting life, I say to my friend. In fact, I think it is ignoring the protection of life.

Moreover, it does nothing to create jobs, which is what Congress should be focusing on during this time when so many Americans are out of work. Very frankly, you have criticized the President of the United States for submitting a jobs bill to this Congress that doesn't have a chance of passage. I have heard that over and over again. All of you know this has no chance of passage. It may pass this House--I hope not; I urge its defeat--but it won't pass. It won't become law.

So while millions of Americans' quality of life is put at risk because of the lack of jobs and opportunity that they have, we consider what I believe is simply legislation to speak to a particular interest group in our parties. I understand that.

Republicans come to this floor and speak all the time about keeping government out of people's lives, but this bill does exactly the opposite. What it says is that women won't be able to spend their own money on comprehensive reform for reproductive coverage under a new health exchange. You don't want us to tell people they have to have insurance, but you want to tell them what they can't have in an insurance--with their own money. I'm not sure I get the distinction there. Maybe you can come up with a distinction, but it certainly is a very nuanced one, if it exists at all.

Even more unbelievably, the bill will allow a hospital to refuse women emergency care of this kind even when necessary to save their lives. I don't think that's what you intend. I certainly hope it's not. But it is the interpretation that many of us have put on the language of your bill.

So, ladies and gentlemen of this House, this issue has been debated over and over again. We adopted a Hyde amendment. The premise of the Hyde amendment was that we shouldn't take taxpayers' money and spend it on abortion.

Very frankly, I represent 60,000 Federal employees. We precluded them from using the salary that they receive to buy insurance that has abortion coverage. It's their money. I hear that all the time: It's their money. But you don't allow them to use their money for that purpose. Now you are saying to the private sector women: You can't use your money.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's their money for services they constitutionally can receive or it's not.

Defeat this bill. This is a difficult issue. Let us let women, doctors, and their faith deal with it.