Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This resolution directs the House committees to review Federal regulations for their effect on our economy. I agree with this resolution and I will vote for this resolution. In fact, that is an oversight, of course, that committees should in fact be carrying out without this resolution.

Democrats believe that it's important to vigorously review regulations to make sure they are keeping pace with the changing economy, and that's why President Obama has already issued an executive order that calls for such a review.

Where regulations are duplicative, where they stifle innovation and entrepreneurship, where they hold job creation back without protecting consumers, they should be revised or ended.

But let's also remember that Federal regulations keep our drinking water and our air clean, protect our children from unsafe toys and food, put a check on abusive practices of insurance companies and credit card companies, and help control the kind of Wall Street gambling that wrecked our economy just a few years ago.

As a matter of fact, even though regulations were on the books, we know they were not enforced, which led to literally the loss of trillions of dollars by homeowners, individuals and businesses. We want regulations that protect Americans and foster economic growth and will call the committees to review regulations with both of those goals in mind.

There is a reason that the Democrats have worked so hard to pass the Make It In America agenda, an agenda with which I am particularly identified. We need to in that agenda, if we are going to create the environment that I heard one of the Members on this floor talking about that will lead to businesses being able to make things in America and do so profitably, review regulations, review tax policies, and review other government policies to make sure we are competitive in the global marketplace. But we also want to make sure that we have consumers protected, as I said, and the environment protected, because there should not be a trade-off, but a complementary working of the two together.

The new environment the Federal Government ought to work to create will promote growth, jobs, and success of the American people. Make It In America not only means manufacturing it, but it means succeeding in America, succeeding in global markets.

I will, as I said, vote for this resolution. But the test will not be whether this resolution passes or fails. The test will be whether or not in fact we do the work that the American public expects us to do. The test will be whether our economy does succeed under the revisions we have made.

I tell my friends on that side of the aisle, neither one of us have done perhaps the job we should have done.

But we ought to also be humbled by the fact that during the 30 years that I have been in office, for 20 of those years the Republicans have been in charge of the executive department of government. Just recently they were in charge, as a matter of fact, from 2001 to 2008, when we saw the deepest recession start and flourish and continue into this next administration since the Great Depression.

So let none of us on this floor point the finger at one another. The American people want to see solutions, not angry rhetoric. The American people want to see this economy grow and create the jobs that they need. All of us ought to be committed to that objective, and we ought to project to the American people that we are prepared to come together and work together and legislate together to achieve that end.

As I said, I will vote for this resolution, but the hard work is ahead of us.

Frankly, the adoption of this resolution could have been, as I am sure most of us on this floor know, probably been done by unanimous consent, because what it calls for is our responsibility and is absolutely essential if we are going to create the kind of environment to grow this economy, create the kinds of jobs and be competitive in international markets.

I again thank my friend for yielding the time, and I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

I now yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me ask the gentleman, he mentioned on Thursday, is the gentleman confident we will be leaving by 3 o'clock or shortly thereafter on Thursday and doesn't expect to be here on Friday?

I thank the gentleman for that comment. I know the gentleman will be brief today. But I do want to ask a question with reference to the 302(a) allocations, 302(b) allocations that the Appropriations Committee dealt with and then dealt with a product consistent with those numbers.

It is my understanding that that has now changed or is expected to change in terms of the 302(b) allocation numbers and that they are being modified; am I correct? As I understand it, they have not been modified in the Appropriations Committee and will not be subject to a vote in the Appropriations Committee, and that that number out of the Appropriations Committee may not be the number that will be reported out to the floor next week. Is that correct?

I thank the gentleman for that answer. Will there be another markup of the Appropriations Committee to attain that number?

I thank the gentleman and will end it with this: I am then to understand there will be no markup in the Appropriations Committee on the proposed cuts that will be brought to the floor? Am I correct in that?

I thank the gentleman. We can discuss it at a later time when we have more time.

I thank Congressman Murphy for yielding, and I want to join him in the remarks that he has made.

I had the opportunity to attend a memorial service and speak at a memorial service for my friend, Bill Ratchford.

Bill and I first met in the early 1970s. Bill had been speaker of the Connecticut House and was serving as president of the National Conference of State Legislatures. I was about to be president of the Maryland Senate, and another former Member, Martin Sabo, was the speaker of the Minnesota House. The three of us became very good friends.

Later in the week, the next week, we lost an extraordinary American, Sargent Shriver. I had the opportunity to speak at his wake last Friday night.

The reason I mentioned Sarge Shriver, Bill Ratchford and Sarge Shriver were both extraordinary public servants who believed that service to others was their most important role in life in terms of their public service. Now, privately, they were both also representatives of extraordinary family leaders, revered by their families. And his sons, Bill Ratchford's sons, and Sarge's sons spoke at their memorial services. Shaun, Scott, and Brian spoke movingly of a father who was fully engaged and adored by his sons. Of course his wife, Barbara, a very close friend of mine for some 40 years, as was Bill, was revered as a mother.

So these two families, two extraordinary leaders that we have lost recently, represented the best in America.

Bill Ratchford was my friend. Bill Ratchford brought honor on this institution by his service. Bill and I had the opportunity to serve on the Appropriations Committee together, which was arguably, at that point in time, the most bipartisan committee in the Congress of the United States. I am not sure that's still true, but it certainly was then. Bill Ratchford was respected on both sides of the aisle for his decency, his intellect, and his commitment to making America a better country.

I am pleased to join my friend Chris Murphy, who has been such a giant himself at a young age, but at an age when Bill Ratchford was becoming a major leader in their country.

I thank Bill Ratchford and his family for what they have contributed to this country. We lament his loss, but we celebrate his life, which was an extraordinary life well lived and a blessing to all who knew him and to his country.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Dreier has put additional pressure on me with his thoughtful remarks.

Let me say that there is nobody on this floor who doesn't believe that the deficit is a very, very substantial problem that confronts us; and I would hope that there is nobody on the floor who believes that it's going to be accomplished in a simple fashion to bring this deficit under control. But I fear that there is too much simplistic--not simple--simplistic rhetoric with reference to this deficit.

After borrowing trillions of dollars to finance tax cuts, a new entitlement, and two wars, our friends on the Republican side tell us they are now taking the deficit seriously. All of you have heard my comments about how under the Clinton administration the budget was balanced and how under the Reagan and Bush I and Bush II administrations it was not.

If our Republican friends mean it, if they were interested in the deficit as anything other than a political issue, if they actually use their House majority to back up their words with action, then no one, in my opinion, would be happier than me and our party, the Democratic Party.

Our deficit I think all of us should agree is too big for partisan politics. It cripples our children's opportunities. It makes it harder for them to pay for college education, buy a home, start a business, or plan a future.

I want my Republican friends to take the deficit seriously. I want my Democratic friends to take the budget deficit seriously--to join President Obama in making the hard choices it will take to get out of debt.

But, frankly, so far the opportunity to finally back up their words of fiscal discipline have been a record of disappointment.

A rules package, and I tell my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the rules package provides for $5 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next 10 years--$5 trillion; a vote to repeal health care reform is another $230 billion of deficit; a pledge to cut

spending by a hundred billion, which it has taken them less than a month to break; and, today, a one-page resolution with no numbers and no specifics.

I think this resolution is unprecedented, certainly in the 30 years that I've been here, which gives to one person out of the 435 the opportunity and the authority to set a number that we will consider in this House. I don't think that's precedented. I don't think it's democratic. It's not transparent. And it's not an open process.

Colin Powell has already been quoted, but we're still waiting for the answer of what is going to be cut. At a time when getting out of debt, growing the economy, and creating jobs are our country's defining bipartisan challenges, we need hard choices--not more political theater.

Now, we passed a budget enforcement resolution which was criticized by the other side because we didn't pass a full budget. I think that's, perhaps, correct.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the additional 1 minute.

We were criticized; but in that budget enforcement resolution, we had a number, and when you voted on the rule, you knew the number you were voting on as a House of Representatives. Here you have no idea what you're voting on. You could be voting for 2008 numbers or anything less than that under this resolution.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

But let me say to the gentleman, it may be unprecedented times; but it does not warrant this unprecedented abdication of democracy in this House in setting what is probably the most critical question that confronts government: How much are you going to pay for it? I think we all agree on that. That's what is at issue here.

And this resolution does not allow Members of Congress to engage on that. It simply gives to one person the ability to set that number. It's not only unprecedented; it, in my opinion, is undemocratic--with a small ``d.'' It does not provide the transparency and the openness of which the gentleman has correctly spoken and I hope we pursue.

And I hope that we oppose this resolution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to call to the attention of my colleagues, as the four of you have done so well tonight and in nights past, we just had a very significant conference on the eastern shore of Maryland. In that conference, we discussed the agenda that we call Make It In America. Make It In America, as I am sure you explained earlier in the evening, I heard much of what you had to say, not all, but Make It In America is about succeeding in America, making it. There are a lot of Americans who are not sure that they, or at least their children, are going to make it.

In addition, Americans overwhelmingly respond, and we hear a lot of talk about listening to the American public, I think that is something we ought to do, but they overwhelmingly respond that their belief is in order for us to continue to be the great economic engine for opportunity in this country, it will be necessary for us to continue to make things in this country. To make it in America, whatever ``it'' is. In addition to that, to grow things in America, as we do so well, and sell them not only domestically but around the world. That's the President's focus on doubling our exports. He knows, as we know, that if we are not making things, the possibility of doubling our exports is zero.

I believe that people around the world respect and want to buy American products. Unfortunately, we are not making as many products as we used to. The President has asked Jeffrey Immelt of GE to head up a task force which looks, in effect, to enhance our ability to make it in America, to grow jobs in America, to grow good paying jobs with good benefits in America.

The American people understand that if we don't do that, 20 years from now the United States of America will not be, as it is today, the economic engine of the world. It is true our competitor in some sense in China is growing, but they still have a far way to go before they match the United States' ability to produce goods and services.

The founder of Intel, Mr. Grove, has written an article about how we need to make it in America; his point being that we are the center of innovation, inventiveness, and development in the world. But his point is then made that in too many instances we are inventing products, innovating how they can be used, developing them, but then bringing them to scale--that is, manufacturing them for consumption on a broad basis--overseas. His premise is, and I agree with him on this conclusion, that if we continue to do that, that our inventors and innovators will migrate to where the product is being taken to scale or, in other words, manufactured for large-scale consumption.

I am hopeful that Republicans and Democrats can join together in this Make It In America agenda. We passed a number of pieces of legislation in the last Congress that were supported on a bipartisan basis, some of which have already been signed by the President, because on both sides of the aisle there is an understanding and I think a commitment to create an environment in which it is possible to make it in America and profit by doing so.

I think we are all harkened by the fact that Ford has brought plants back from Mexico and China, that Whirlpool has brought plants back, that GE has brought plants back, as well as others, and decided to manufacture things here in America and do so profitably; that they can make a quality product here with skilled labor, well-educated labor that will produce a quality product, higher productivity, and therefore result in profits.

I want to congratulate particularly the gentleman from California, a former State leader in California, still a great leader from California, but he has come to this body just a few years ago to succeed Ellen Tauscher, who became Assistant Secretary of State. He has done an extraordinary job in a very short period of time, and his focus on this Make It In America is unsurpassed, unequaled in this Congress. I want to thank him for his leadership and focus. And I want to thank Mr. Ellison and Mr. Pallone and Mr. Tonko for their focus, because I think we are on the right track on this.

I think our Republican colleagues hopefully will join us as partners not to take partisan credit for this but, that America will be advantaged, America's people will be advantaged. The reduction of our deficit as we grow the economy will be advantaged, and we will see an America that is on the rise in terms of growing our economy, creating jobs, good paying jobs, and opportunities and future for our people.

So I congratulate and thank the gentleman from California, the gentleman from New York, the gentleman from New Jersey, and the gentleman from Minnesota for their leadership and communication to the American people of what this Make It In America agenda is all about.

I'll try to take a minute.

Let me say what I think is so good about this agenda Make It In America.

It is an agenda that, unlike some, brings us together and doesn't divide us. From left to right--Republican, Democrat--people all over this country understand that, if we are going to be a great country, as we are today, and if we are going to remain so in the future, it will be because we continue to be a manufacturing country, a country that makes it in America.

I have talked to the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, and organized labor. This is an agenda item that will bring labor and management, business and workers together to cooperate so that America will continue, not only to make it in America, but to do so in an expanding way rather than in a shrinking way. We've been doing some growth in the last few months, in the last year, in the last 2 years, in the last 3 years, but not enough. We can do more.

Make It In America is the agenda for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week.

I want to thank the gentleman for informing us of the schedule for the week to come.

I want to thank, at the outset, not only the gentleman but the Speaker as well for the respect and consideration they have given during this current tragic situation that confronted us in Tucson and the critical injuries sustained by our colleague, Gabby Giffords. I want to thank Mr. Cantor in particular for his very strong statement, as well as the Speaker's very strong statement, that an attack on any individual who serves is an attack on all of us irrespective of party or philosophy. I think we all have raised prayers for the victims who lost their lives, their families, prayers for those who are either in the process of recovering or are now out of danger, and of course for our beloved colleague, Congresswoman Giffords, as well.

So I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and the Speaker's leadership in joining with our leader and myself in leading the House in what I thought was a very appropriate and united response to that tragedy.

We are heartened by the progress that Congresswoman Giffords is making, and we look forward to her quick return.

Now, Mr. Cantor, if I can, next week we are scheduled to leave on Wednesday. I know there has been an articulation of an intent to try to get out by noon on the days that we leave. Would you expect that to be the case this next week?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

Given that response, can I ask the gentleman: Would he expect there to be an open rule with reference to that bill?

Not only do I recall that as being a fact, I also recall it as an answer that I used to give the gentleman on a regular basis.

But I am certainly hopeful, as he was hopeful, given the representations of transparency and openness, that there would be opportunities to amend. I know that Mr. Van Hollen spoke to that in the Rules Committee, and I would hope that we could see that policy which has been expressed by your side pursued in this instance as well as future instances. I thank the gentleman for his response.

Let me ask the gentleman: There was some criticism raised when we passed a budget enforcement resolution that we hadn't passed a full budget. In that budget enforcement resolution, as you recall, A, we articulated a specific number; and, B, that number was voted on by the entire House.

It is my understanding that the proposition that will be put before the House next week will provide and give unilateral authority to the chairman of the Budget Committee to set a number and that that number will not be voted upon by the House pursuant to the authority granted in that resolution.

Is that an accurate reading of that resolution?

I thank the gentleman for his response.

I do not want to be argumentative, but I have just received your amended copy of the resolution, and as I read on your second page, it says ``the remainder of fiscal year 2011 that assumes non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less.''

The implication in that, it seems to me, is that Mr. Ryan unilaterally can set a number which has not been agreed to by the House, but under the power granted in this resolution would bind the House to a number to which it had never agreed.

Is that an accurate reading of that? Could, in fact, under this resolution Mr. Ryan set a number that is less than, as your resolution says, 2008 numbers?

So would it be therefore accurate that the ``or less'' is superfluous and is not intended to give Mr. Ryan the authority to set a figure at less than 2008 levels?

The point that I am trying to make, and perhaps not as clearly as I need to make it, is that what we are in that resolution giving is to one person--one person--in this Congress the authority, without consideration by this House, to set the number, without hearings, on what we will, as you articulate, cap spending levels at for fiscal year 2011.

As I understand it, there have been no hearings by the Budget Committee, no hearings by the Appropriations Committee, no hearings by the Ways and Means Committee, or by any other committee involved in fiscal matters as to what the ramifications of that cap will be to individual programs or individual Americans.

I share the gentleman's view and have voted consistently, as I voted for the balanced budget amendment, as the gentleman knows, last we considered it, to bring our fiscal house into order. I think neither party can necessarily take sole responsibility for doing so or not doing so when it comes to fiscal balance.

But I do tell my friend that, with respect to transparency and openness and to the inclusion of all the Members of the body, it is, I think, not consistent with that objective to give to one person, however brilliant that person is--and I happen to have great respect, as the gentleman knows and as I have said so publicly in the press, for Mr. Ryan, who I think is a very positive, effective, important Member of this body; but I am not for giving any one person in this body the authority to unilaterally set the number at which we will fund America's government for the next 7 months.

I yield to my friend to see if he might have a response to that because, in his responses to me--and I understand the cap--but at any number below that, at 2007, 2006, 2005 levels, it seems to me this resolution authorizes Mr. Ryan to set such figures as he unilaterally determines is an appropriate figure. In his mind, that may be an appropriate figure; but it is not necessarily the same figure that this body voting in a transparent, open way might select.

Let me ask the gentleman: Is the gentleman representing to me that this resolution will, in fact, result in 2008 levels of expenditure so that Members, who are being asked to vote on this, will have a certitude of the number on which they are voting--that's my only question--so that they will know on what authorization they are giving, what budget direction they are giving, to the members of the Appropriations Committee?

I understand that, and I thank the gentleman. I know that he has indicated that we are going to be considering what I believe to be a $52 million cut--that's important money--to reach your $100 billion. However, if you do it at that level per week, of course, you will take approximately 50 years to get to $100 billion if we consider one every week that we are in session.

My presumption is that you will be informing us of those opportunities to cut as well, giving us opportunities on our side. There may well be Members on our side who want to join in making sure that we spend our money as effectively and efficiently as possible. But we also know and the commissions that have reported know that while these types of expenditures are important to review, I don't know that there have been any hearings on this YouCut. I know that this has been in response to the Web page question that you have propounded to people--I don't know how many responses you have received to that. But are you intending to have hearings in relevant committees on future propositions to cut?

I thank the gentleman.

And let me ask again, does the gentleman intend, once the committees are up and running--I understand in a transition it takes some time-- that the cuts that you are going to propose on a weekly basis will have been subjected to committee oversight and hearings, with the public having an opportunity to testify on the consequences of those cuts?

Good. I appreciate that response.

Lastly, I ask my friend, one of the significant issues that will be confronting us in the coming months will be the extension of the debt limit to ensure that America continues to pay the bills that it has incurred and therefore maintain fiscal stability not only in this country but throughout the world. The Speaker and you have both made, I think, very positive comments on the fact that, as unwanted as such a vote may be, it is, nevertheless, as the Speaker pointed out, an adult vote--that I took to mean a responsible vote--to ensure the fiscal stability of our country.

Does the gentleman anticipate a clean up-or-down vote on that issue when it becomes timely to vote on that issue sometime in March of April?

I thank the gentleman.

It's my understanding, from the gentleman's response, that if in the eyes of you or Mr. Boehner or your side of the aisle serious spending cuts have not been effected, that you would oppose the extension of the debt limit.

Is that what I hear you saying?

I thank the gentleman for that response. And I hate to keep pressing him, but if his hopes are not realized--and I don't know the answer as to whether they will be, but at some point in time we will be confronted with an alternative of whatever the facts may be with respect to what we are able to pass through this House, the Senate, and get signed by the President, we will be confronted with the consequences of our past behavior, and I underline ``our,'' o-u-r, spending that we have incurred. And I don't want to go through the entire debate that you and I always go through, so I won't do it, but we will be confronted with, as the Speaker says, an adult moment as to whether or not we will, in light of the consequences of past behavior, take actions necessary to preclude America from defaulting on its debts. And I simply ask the gentleman, will we have the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on that issue under the circumstances where we have reached, as the gentleman points out--we don't know the exact date--the extent of present authority?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a great American, my friend Sargent Shriver, a son of Maryland, who passed away this week at the age of 95. He was a public servant who lived a full life dedicated to promoting justice and

opportunity in America and, indeed, throughout the world.

As the first director of the Peace Corps, Mr. Shriver skillfully launched an organization that has strengthened respect for America across the world and has for half a century exposed generations of Americans to the world beyond their borders. Sargent Shriver also made his mark as the director of important anti-poverty programs and as the leader of the Special Olympics movement, a movement that he joined his extraordinary bride, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, in heading.

In the words of his biographer, Scott Stossel: ``Often the things that Sargent Shriver accomplished, starting the Peace Corps in just a few months, or getting 500,000 kids into Head Start programs its first summer when the experts said that 10,000 kids was the maximum feasible, were things that everyone beforehand had said were not realistic, or were downright impossible, Sarge Shriver did.''

Sarge Shriver had a gift for what one of the old War on Poverty colleagues called ``expanding the horizons of the possible.'' I am reminded of Robert Kennedy's quote that he used so often that ``some men see things as they are and say, `Why?' '' Robert Kennedy said: ``I dream things that never were and ask, `Why not?' '' Sarge Shriver mirrored that quote. May we all learn from his example. May we honor his legacy of public service by expanding our own horizons of the possible, by caring for those who need our help here and around the world.

Sargent Shriver brought to American life a singular commitment to service. His good work and his historic example will long outlive his 95 years.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this bill to repeal.

Last year, we acted to reform health care in America to make it easier for small businesses to cover their employees, to take important steps to bring down costs, and to stop insurance company abuses that bankrupt sick Americans and deny them coverage. We acted in the face of a crisis, a cost crisis, which saw premiums more than double over the last decade; a coverage crisis, which saw more than 40 million Americans without health care insurance; and a fiscal crisis, which saw the cost of health care driving our country deeper and deeper into the red.

A constituent of mine from southern Maryland recently wrote to thank us for health reform that now lets her carry her 21-year-old daughter on her insurance, but she wrote that something else also inspired her to support this piece of legislation, seeing ``a lot of other people who are hardworking, honest people who were going bankrupt because of unexpected medical expenses.'' Those were the stories we had in mind last year when we passed the health reform law--and today, as we fight to protect it.

Nonpartisan observers tell us it will reduce the rise in premiums for millions, cover 95 percent of Americans, and contribute to reducing our deficit. The opponents of health care reform have spent more than a year painting it in apocalyptic terms, but they can't erase the history that proves that bringing affordable care to all Americans has long been the goal of both parties.

Just yesterday, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican, said that the Affordable Care Act ``is the law of the land, the fundamental platform upon which all future efforts to make that system better will be based.'' That was Senator Republican leader of the Senate, Bill Frist from Tennessee, one of the great medical practitioners in this country, a doctor. In 2008, Senator John McCain said this: ``We should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen.''

There has been no alternative offered to accomplish that objective. And in 2006, when signing a State bill remarkably similar to the Affordable Care Act, Governor Mitt Romney, Republican, a leading candidate for President of the United States in the Republican Party, said this of that bill, almost exactly like this one: ``An achievement like this comes around once in a generation.''

While our Republican colleagues in Congress failed to take action on health care during a decade of doubling premiums and mounting debt, Congress acted last year.

Now my Republican friends have come to the floor with a plan to put insurance companies back in charge of American health care and to strip Americans of their hard-won freedom to make health choices for themselves.

Once again, families would face insurance companies' unfair caps on their coverage--or find their coverage canceled altogether. Once again, insurance companies could discriminate against children with disabilities and pregnant women. Once again, prescription drug costs for our seniors will go up. And once again, small businesses will be without any help to cover their employees in a world of skyrocketing premiums.

There's no arguing with the facts: repeal would cost our economy as many as 400,000 jobs per year, notwithstanding the rhetoric on the other side. They would be lost under the burden of crushing health care costs, and repeal would pile up over $1.2 trillion of additional debt on our children over the next two decades.

I urge my colleagues, preserve Americans' freedoms to control their own care. Join together to protect a system that meets the objectives set by generations of American Presidents: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush, as well as President Obama.

Oppose this repeal bill.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this week, we pause the work of the House to mourn the lost lives of six of our fellow citizens--one of those born on that day of tragedy and carnage when thousands were slain in an equally indiscriminate, heinous act of hate--citizens shot dead on Saturday in Tucson in pursuit of the ``right to peaceably assemble,'' the amendment which Gabby Giffords read on this floor. We come as well to honor those who risked their lives to save others, to pray for the lives of the wounded, and to pray for our colleague and friend, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Today, this temple of representative democracy is a sadder place. But Congresswoman Giffords' intelligence and her toughness, her public spirit and her charm will, God willing, and with the extraordinary medical care she is receiving, soon return to this body and again be a practitioner and a model for the principles of civil debate and thoughtful deliberation on which this temple is founded.

Congresswoman Giffords was attacked doing the work that is the heart of democracy, as has been so eloquently observed by our Speaker, Mr. Boehner: Listening to her neighbors, listening to those who sent her here to Washington to reflect their views.

Each one of us have done that work. Each one of us has come back bearing their fears and their hopes, their convictions and their visions for the future. Some, of course, are everyday hopes; some are matters of life and death. But in each case, we bring these hopes here and speak to our neighbors as best we can. That is what Congresswoman Giffords was doing.

We do not know, of course, the specific motive which led the perpetrator of this crime to act, nor can we draw conclusions as to specific causes, but it seems to me it is a time for us to reflect on the heightened anger being projected on our public debate and the daily denigration of those with whom we disagree. And it is appropriate, therefore, that the wrenching, shocking, senseless violence of that day compel us to reflect on our own responsibility to temper our words and respect those with whom we disagree, lest the failure to do so give incitement to the angriest and most unstable among us.

Let us speak for our neighbors in a spirit of unity, not a false and shallow unity, not a unity that wishes away our differences or our discords, but a unity founded on our reverence for our democracy's most precious, most fragile gift--its power to resolve without violence our weightiest questions.

In a much darker time than ours, from the edge of a great war, President Lincoln addressed these words to the men and women whom, even in the war's depths, he refused to see as anything other than his fellow Americans. He said this: ``We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.''

There are, in every society and in every culture and every nation, those who reflect that creed, but if we love our country, if we honor our oath to country, Constitution, and to our Nation of laws, we must live by those words. There is, perhaps, nothing we can do that will prevent the mindless violence committed by the few, but we can and must appeal to the best instincts of the many.

To the families of the fallen, we extend our sympathy. To the survivors, we extend our prayers for a full and speedy recovery. And to our colleague, to our beloved colleague, Gabby, we extend our love and our hopes for her early return to the Chamber and our ranks.

All of us in this time have come together, reached out to one another, comforted one another, and lifted one another up. May that sentiment not pass quickly from this body or from this country.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia on his election as majority leader of his party. He and I have had the opportunity to work together over the recent years. It's been a positive relationship, and I look forward to continuing that positive relationship, albeit in my diminished status.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for outlining the schedule. There was an interesting article in The Washington Post today about your job- killing comments always being attached to the health care bill. There are obviously some of us who know full well that was not part of the title, as I'm sure the gentleman would admit, and that in fact it does not do that at all. In fact, we think it creates jobs. But, in any event, I thank the gentleman for announcing the schedule.

I want to say we're disappointed, however, as he was when he was in my position, that we don't have a committee process for this very important piece of legislation. I think it's important from your perspective and it's important from our perspective, although we may have different perspectives on whether it should pass or fail. But it is an important piece of legislation. There was no committee process and no hearings; no opportunity for the public to be heard on the bill; no opportunity for the Members to testify with respect to that bill; no witnesses were heard. Furthermore, under the rule, of course we have been given no opportunity to amend.

The gentleman, when he was in my position, repeatedly indicated how disappointed he was that there were no amendments allowed on certain bills. I want to reiterate that concern. And given the lack of amendments, I want to clarify when he believes will be the finishing of votes on Wednesday. I understand debate will begin on Tuesday and it will conclude on Wednesday.

What time do you expect to conclude business on Wednesday?

I thank the gentleman for that response.

In light of the fact that your side has made a pledge to allow ample time for Members to read and consider it, and notwithstanding that they have already not pursued that as vigorously as I think you would have hoped and perhaps we would have hoped as well in the 112th Congress, I was wondering if the gentleman can enlighten us on what he expects to consider the rest of January, after next week, so that

Members might have opportunities to anticipate issues that you're going to be bringing forward.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Obviously, the health care bill that he and his party seek to repeal had probably more consideration, more open debate, more transparency, more amendments, and more hearings than almost any bill that I have considered as a Member of this Congress over the last three decades-- full and open consideration, amendments offered from both sides in committee on a very ample basis; but I am glad to hear that you agree that there has been ample debate time for that. There has not been any debate time in committees--or amendments--on the repeal of that law.

I am certainly hopeful that the gentleman does not mean to say that if the majority party concludes that the American people have already decided on the issue that that will be the exception to the rule that you have put forth in terms of full and ample notice, debate, the amendment process, and transparency. I would certainly hope that that would not be the case. I don't expect it will be the case, and I hope it won't be.

Let me say in addition that I am very pleased that the majority party allowed in order the amendment by Mr. Matheson. As you know, we tried to have a permanent fix to the reimbursement of doctors who took Medicare patients. Unfortunately, the minority party in the Senate, which had the opportunity to do that, precluded us from accomplishing that objective. So I am pleased. That needs to be done. We need to have a stable funding expectation by doctors when they provide services to Medicare patients--to seniors--as we want them to do and as we want them to continue to do. So I am pleased that you allowed that amendment, and I would hope Members on your side will be supporting that amendment as we will on this side.

Let me ask you now, Mr. Majority Leader, as I am very concerned, and I expressed this on the floor. Your rules, in my view, provide for some $5 trillion to be incurred in additional deficits. They allow that because you have exempted almost all of the possible reductions in revenues--tax cuts, reductions in revenues--notwithstanding no reduction in spending. Well, if you reduce revenues and you don't reduce spending commensurately, inevitably, you will create large deficits, which inevitably will be paid by future generations.

That has been the experience that, again, I have had when we had significant tax cuts in the 1980s and in the last decade of 2000--2001 to 2003--when we created very large deficits.

My presumption is that you will be finding commensurate reductions in spending to your tax cuts that you will want to continue. If you don't do that, deficits will inevitably follow. The majority party has not done that in years past. Is it your expectation that that will occur in the future?

The question I want to ask you as well is that you have provided in your rules for essentially ignoring CBO scores--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which has issued a preliminary score for the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights. They believe it will increase the deficit by $230 billion in the first 10 years by repeal and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years.

My question is: Having deemed in the rule today a provision allowing the chair of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, to ignore the CBO score, will the majority continue to ignore CBO scores on legislation for the rest of Congress or will we be fiscally responsible, in my view, and adhere to the advice and counsel we receive from CBO?

I yield to my friend.

I want to say to my friend, the continuing rhetoric is Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Americans in every family that I know understand that their revenues directly impact on their spending and vice versa, and if they don't, they have a real problem. If they don't have enough revenue to meet their expenditures, they've got a problem, and if their spending exceeds their revenue, they have a problem.

I tell my friend, I understand what you're saying, and I've heard this rhetoric all of my career here in the Congress. When President Reagan was President, we never overrode a Presidential veto of an appropriation bill because it spent too much. If he vetoed it, it spent too much, he never had a veto overridden. Nevertheless, we incurred an additional $1.5 trillion in deficits. Under President George H.W. Bush, we didn't override any veto of his, and we incurred an additional $1 trillion. That was $2.5 trillion plus.

Under the Clinton administration, of course, in the economic program as you and I both know that your party universally opposed, we had a surplus, the only President in your lifetime and I think in mine, which is substantially longer, that's had 4 years of surplus. Now, I know you say, the response that Mr. Dreier gave to me, is that, well, yes, we took over the Congress in 1995. That's correct. And of course not only did you take over the Congress in 1995, but in 2000, you took over the Presidency as well and controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency.

And during that period of time, we didn't pass any appropriation bills on our side. You were in full charge during the Bush administration's first six years, and $3.5 trillion of deficit spending was incurred, making a total of over $5 trillion of deficit spending during the time that your party took the position that we didn't have a revenue problem, we had a spending problem.

Well, it ended up being a $5 trillion deficit problem, adding to the deficit for our children and for my grandchildren and for my great- granddaughter, and I'm concerned about that. And that is why I'm so concerned about statutory PAYGO, sticking with CBO scores, and accommodating our spending and revenue. They are both related, obviously, and to ignore that eliminating revenue without eliminating spending does cause deficits I think is to ignore reality.

So I would hope my friend would talk to Mr. Ryan of the Budget Committee and bring us legislation which would, in fact, do what you and I want to do; that is, eliminate the deficit. If we've got two messages during this past election, in my view, it was, A, focus on creating jobs. We've got to get to work. Americans are hurting. We had some good job numbers this month. We've created over 1.3 million jobs this past year as opposed to losing almost 4 million jobs in the last year of the Bush administration. That's progress. But as I've said so often, it's not success. Success will be when every American who wants a job, willing to work, can find a job, and they can support him or her and their families.

But we need to not pretend that revenues and spending are not inextricably related, and that if we give up revenues before we do the difficult thing, the tough thing, the adult thing, as Mr. Boehner said, and cut the spending, then cut the revenues if Americans are buying it, then we ought to be paying for it and not passing along the bill to our grandchildren, and I would hope the gentleman would pursue that.

If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I want to say something about health care briefly.

I appreciate the gentleman's comment, and briefly in closing, Madam Speaker, let me say this. I hope we can cooperate, but we do have a divergence, as my friend pointed out, and that's of course the nature of what the House of Representatives does, debates different points of view. Frankly, my experience, as I have said, is that when we diverged in a point of view in 1993, when my Republican friends took the position that accommodating revenues to spending would, in fact, from their perspective, be a job killer--they talk a lot about job- killing legislation. They all voted against that legislation in 1993, and in fact, some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle lost their election because of voting for that piece of legislation. In fact, however, it helped create the most robust economy anybody in this Chamber has experienced in their lifetime. It created over 22 million jobs, as opposed to losing 8 million jobs in the last administration under President Bush, so that there was a substantial difference which you can see, touch, and feel and read about and know about.

So I tell my friend, yes, there's a difference of opinion, but there's no difference of opinion on what happened, and when Winston Churchill, who you quoted before and of whom I'm a great fan, one of the things that Winston Churchill was most known for was trying to remind his British friends: don't forget what dictators and despots do--and I make no aspersions, I want to make that clear. I'm simply saying he believed strongly in learning from the past and not continuing to make mistakes and not continue to do what failed in years before.

So I agree with the gentleman in looking at the past for instruction on how to make the future better and to create those jobs that both he and I want to create and that America certainly is looking for us to create.

I thank the gentleman for this colloquy.

Article I, continuation of section 2: ``The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

``When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

``The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment.''

Mr. Speaker, today, Senator Barbara Mikulski, my colleague from the State of Maryland, becomes the longest-serving woman Senator in American history. It's a fitting milestone for a public servant who has been a trailblazer for her entire career. From her beginnings as a social worker and community activist, Senator Mikulski's career has always been motivated by a deep commitment to open doors of opportunity, to serve the people of Maryland, and to carry their voices to Washington.

In 1986, Senator Mikulski became the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right, as well as the first woman elected to statewide office in Maryland's history. Since then, her constituents have returned her to office four times--a sign of the seriousness and skill she brings to her work in the Senate. For decades, Barbara Mikulski has been an inspiration and a role model to women in public life, mentoring generations of women leaders. I congratulate her on today's important milestone, and I wish her all the best in her continuing service to our State and its people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule not for small reasons of this rule or that rule but because it authorizes trillions of dollars of new debt without paying for it.

There are two ways to create debt: You can buy things and not pay for it, or you can simply cut revenues and make yourself unable to pay for things. Statutory PAYGO was designed to accomplish the objective of having us do what is difficult to do--pay for what we buy. If we are honest with one another, it doesn't matter whether you want to spend or simply cut revenues. If you don't do both--cut spending and either maintain or cut revenues consistent with your cutting of spending--then you will inevitably create new debt.

Now, all of you have heard about my three children, my three grandchildren, and my one great-granddaughter. They, frankly, won't care how the debt was created, whether it was created because we cut revenues but didn't cut spending, which is what happened, of course, in the 2000s, or what happened in the eighties, where we incurred trillions of dollars of additional debt. During the Clinton administration, we didn't do that, and we restrained spending. Our Republican colleagues were very helpful in doing that, obviously, and we continued to pay for what we bought. We created 4 years of surplus. So I oppose this rule because of the trillions of dollars that it will authorize, be incurred in new debt.

Secondly, I oppose this rule, as do my friends from the various territories, from Puerto Rico, from the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and the Pacific Islands. We talked about, during the course of the campaign, listening to people. We have almost 5 million people who are American citizens. How do we listen to them? We listen to them when their Representatives put their green or red on the board.

I will be introducing a resolution tomorrow, which will be referred to the Rules Committee, and I hope you will consider it.

I thank the gentlelady.

I was telling my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, congratulations to him for his obtaining the chairmanship. A thoughtful and hardworking Member of this House will chair the Rules Committee. I am going to be introducing an amendment to the rules that, my presumption is, we will adopt today which will return this symbol of respect, this symbol of inclusion, this symbol of colleagueship, if you will, to our six representatives of American citizens.

I hope my friend will hold hearings on that. I would like to testify on that issue.

And I say to my friends that I hope we reject these rules so that we can correct both the trillions of dollars of exposure that it creates and to ensure the inclusion, in a real and meaningful way, but not constitutionally objectionable way, our friends who represent

the District of Columbia and our territories.

I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding.

I tell my friend, you and I have been here some period of time.

Well, that's true, so I'll be very respectful.

I've heard that argument that you just made made in 1981, in 1989, and again in 2001. I tell my friend, my experience has been that it hasn't worked, and we have incurred substantial trillions of dollars of debt pursuing the Rules Committee philosophy that is represented in your rule.

On the other hand, a bill that you opposed, and every member of your party opposed in 1993, which you say was pursuing a job-killing policy, in fact created more jobs than any other administration since you and I have served here, some 22 million jobs and, additionally, balanced the budget. Did we work together to do that? We did.

But I will tell you my experience and yours has been that we did, in fact, balance the budget on the philosophy of statutory PAYGO.

Thank you very much, Speaker Halvorson. I appreciate your presiding over this historic piece of legislation.

I want to thank my friend Bart Gordon. Chairman Gordon has been an extraordinary leader of this committee, an extraordinary member of the Energy and Commerce Committee; and in both of those venues he has focused on making sure that America could in fact compete and compete successfully and be the great Nation it has been, is now, and will continue to be as long as we keep investing in that which grows an economy--education, science, mathematics and engineering.

I know that he has worked with some of the great industrial leaders of our Nation on this legislation. Mr. Augustine comes to mind. We're very proud of him in Maryland.

But I want you to know how proud I am of Bart Gordon. He said that I was one of his close friends. I think Bart Gordon is one of my closest friends, not just in Congress, but in life. He and I have been here for a long time together.

The good news is the ranking--used to be Democrat, now Republican-- Ralph Hall, is also a very close and dear friend of mine whom I have known all of my service here. He and I came together in the same class. He is a very good friend of Bob Slagle, who is a good friend of mine as well, and I want to thank him for his service to our country.

The America COMPETES Act expands support for research and development, helping the United States to remain the world's innovation leader. It creates jobs for the short-term and lays a foundation for long-term prosperity. That is its key, of course. And it is an important part of the Make It In America agenda, a series of important bills designed to help America regain its manufacturing strength.

Let me say just a word about Make It In America. We heard a lot about made in America, things that were made yesterday in America, things that we did in the past. Make It In America is about what we are going to do in the future.

Make It In America is a non-ideological, non-party, nonpartisan premise; and that premise is shared widely by the American public: that if we are going to be successful in the future and continue to grow our economy, it is going to be in part because we make it in America; we make things in America, we manufacture things in America, we grow it in America, and we sell it abroad. Our products, whether they be hard products or soft products, we sell them throughout the world.

America is the innovative center of the world, one of the enterprising nations of the world. We invent things, innovate and bring to scale. Strike that. We don't bring them to scale often enough.

Andy Grove, who was one of the co-founders of Intel, wrote an excellent article in the New Yorker. I tell my friends on the Republican side and on the Democratic side, this is an issue that can bring us together to make America better, to grow America, to provide the kinds of jobs that Americans need.

Make It In America not only means manufacturing in America, but that we make it, that we succeed, that people believe and have the confidence that there will be an American economy which will provide them with jobs and they will be able to provide for themselves and their families. This is a significant step in making sure that America makes it in America.

One of the things that Andy Grove said in his article in the New Yorker was that the problem we have is innovation, invention, enterprise exists here more than any other place in the world; but what we are doing is we are inventing, innovating and enterprising, and then we are taking it overseas to take it to scale, to manufacture it.

The Kindle, I bought a Kindle for my grandson last Christmas, about $185. About 40 to 45 of those dollars are U.S. The rest is overseas. Andy Grove's premise is if we do that, what is essentially going to happen over the years is the innovators and the ``enterprisers'' and the inventors are going to follow where we're making it, whether it's in China or any other place. America, we cannot let that happen. This bill is a critical step in ensuring America's prosperity and job creating capacity in the long term.

Bart Gordon, congratulations to you. You will leave here in a few days. You will not be a Member of the Congress of the United States. You will never leave here in the sense you will always be in our hearts, and you are going to be on this floor, and we're going to see you regularly. But you will leave an extraordinary legacy for your country for decades and a century to come in this bill.

The bill establishes innovative technology and Federal loan guarantees for small and medium-sized manufacturers. Make It In America. Those loans will help American businesses respond to the needs of a changing economy, increase productivity, and keep pace with overseas competition.

Further, the COMPETES Act makes important investments in science, technology, engineering and math, as I said earlier, because helping our children excel in these fields is absolutely crucial to our economic competitiveness.

Finally, the bill strengthens the crucial national Science Foundation, which funds cutting-edge research in fields from computer science and mathematics to genomics. That's our future. America does it well. Let's do it here. Let's make sure that we're investing so that that will be the future as well as the present.

Federal support for research and innovation is one of the best investments we can make. Federal support helped create GPS, the computer mouse, computer-aided design, and the Internet; and there's no telling the ways in which it might shape our lives in the years to come. But, surely, there is no doubt that shape it, it will. And that's why we must invest. I urge my colleagues to boost American innovation by supporting this bill.

I end again as I started, by congratulating Bart Gordon, my good friend, an individual who's given so much to his country for so long, an individual that makes us proud to be his colleague and who has given added luster to service in this House by his own service.

Ladies and gentlemen, I know the consternation that exists with respect to our schedule and when we are going to leave. I want to announce what I believe to be the balance of the schedule tonight. I would hope that it would include, but cannot assert at this point in time because I don't know--and I don't believe it's the case--that 9/11 will be ready for us. They are still talking about it in the Senate. I just talked to Senator Reid.

We will go to a suspension bill, the child sex trafficking bill. We will then go to the rule for the continuing resolution. We will then do the continuing resolution. That would, unless we get 9/11, conclude the business for today.

It is, as Senator Reid indicates to me, a high likelihood that they will complete 9/11 sometime tomorrow. Now ``sometime tomorrow'' is, he says, no later than 4, as early as 2.

Ladies and gentlemen, I know we would all like to say that, well, let's go home. As you know, the 9/11 bill does, in fact, impact literally tens of thousands of people who participated subsequent to 9/ 11 in going into that building and initially looking for those who might still be surviving, and to look for those who did not survive and bring them out. So this is not a matter that does not have serious consequences for people who volunteered and, as a result of the atmosphere which confronted them as they went in, they became ill.

So I think all of us understand the seriousness of this bill and the consequences of not doing it. So I would ask you to bear with us. We will have these votes, and we will be in constant touch with Senator Reid, the majority leader.

But my expectation is that there is a high likelihood of a vote on 9/ 11 sometime tomorrow. As a result, I would be asking all of you to stay tonight and be here tomorrow so that we can convene and do this very, very important business, which is not just important to the New Yorkers; this is important to our country. At any time we may have a catastrophe in which people would volunteer and show heroic effort to save lives and to rescue people.

That is the schedule for the balance of the day. If 9/11 moves over here at any point and, frankly, what is happening now, I tell my friends, is that they're seeing whether or not, during the course of the START debate, which is going on now, whether they can get a time agreement and bring START to a close and a vote. If they can do that and then go to 9/11 and have a debate which is relatively brief, they've obviously had a long-term debate on that, and bring this bill to us tonight, I know that all of you would want and I would want and we will do it tonight. But I cannot assert that I think the Senate is going to move it in that time frame.

That is our schedule. And, hopefully, our business will be concluded tomorrow on the passage of 9/11.