Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is not a false dichotomy when, through H.R. 1, $1.8 billion is being slashed from the Head Start budget, causing 218,220 Head Start students to not get a start. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Danny Davis.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the final amendment before us would accomplish two important goals: First, the amendment would cut the funding authorized by H.R. 471 in half, thereby reducing the Federal deficit over the next 5 years by $150 million below what was authorized for expenditure in the base text of H.R. 471. We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side today, Mr. Speaker. But one thing is clear: Voting for this motion will save $150 million over 5 years. So the question for my Republican colleagues is will you be true to your promises to address the deficit, or will you put these promises aside to support a pet project that advances a narrow ideological agenda? Second, instead of spending money on a miniscule fraction of students who would receive a voucher, this amendment would target scarce Federal resources to areas where they would do the most good: D.C. public schools, charter schools, and special education/IDEA activities. As we have discussed, students participating in the existing D.C. voucher program have shown no statistically significant improvement in reading or math skills. By contrast, students in the D.C. public schools and charter schools have shown significant gains over the last few years. This amendment would direct funds to support schools that have been proven to improve student achievement. This amendment would also provide funds to support special education and IDEA-related programs in the District. IDEA funding goes toward critical services for children with disabilities, such as early intervention, support for special education teachers, and assistance to help students gain access to a suitable curriculum. Since the enactment of IDEA, achievement among students served by this program has improved dramatically, but more progress must be made. As Mayor Gray discussed Monday in his State of the District address, D.C. has been unable to serve all of its special needs kids in public facilities and is paying nearly $250 million to send students to nonpublic schools that can serve disabled students' unique educational needs. This amendment would help D.C. better serve students who need special education services in the public system. Importantly, let it be clear that if you vote ``yes'' on this motion, the amendment it proposes will be voted on immediately following this debate. That vote will be followed by a vote on final passage of the bill. Adoption of this amendment will not delay consideration of this legislation; and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to direct scarce Federal dollars where they will do the most good. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this final amendment to the bill. With that, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, most respectfully to our Speaker, I know his intentions are very good and honorable, and I wanted to be clear on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that we care about every single child being educated and becoming all that God meant for them to be, too. That is why we oppose the $1.08 billion cut from Head Start in H.R. 1 and the $5.7 billion cut from the Federal Pell Grant program. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ additional minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 471. Let me be very clear: Public funds should support public education. But this bill, which would authorize $300 million to support education in the District of Columbia, includes an authorization for the expenditure of $100 million over 5 years to enable a tiny fraction of D.C. students to attend private schools. We have been told that the purpose of this bill is to help D.C. children get a better education. But House Republicans passed legislation earlier this year that slashes billions of dollars from educational programs across the country. In H.R. 1, which passed the House in February, House Republicans cut $5.7 billion from the Pell Grant program, $1 billion from Head Start, $757 million from Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, $694 million from Title I-A grants, and $100 million from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Under these Republican cuts, nearly 44,000 students from the District of Columbia could see their Pell Grants reduced, 700 would lose their Head Start placements, 500 could face reduced or eliminated after-school placements, and 2,500 would lose supplemental educational services. Remarkably now, after voting to leave so many behind, the Republican leadership wants to authorize $100 million in new spending just for private schools in the District as part of a $300 million authorization for education in that one district. And the majority does not even pay for any part of this $300 million bill. Let me be clear on this point: There is no offset for this bill. For that reason, H.R. 471 also appears to violate the legislative protocols issued by the majority with such fanfare at the beginning of this Congress. So all the rhetoric supposedly justifying massive cuts to education funding, all the talks about budget constraints, about tightening our belts, and about making sacrifices, all that goes out the window when the majority wants to give $100 million in taxpayer funds to private schools. Also problematic is that the D.C. voucher program has not resulted in better student achievement. The Institute for Education Sciences evaluated this program and found that in 2010, there was no overall statistically significant impact on student achievement in reading or math. By comparison, reading and math test scores did improve among students enrolled in the District's public schools and its public charter schools from 2007 to 2010. The bill is also a direct assault on D.C. home rule. The Speaker did not consult with the District's representative or its elected officials before introducing the bill. Our committee did not receive testimony from the mayor of the District before we marked up this bill. And the Republicans have not introduced a national voucher bill because using taxpayer dollars to fund private schools is highly unpopular and has failed in every referendum placed on State ballots. Despite all of these arguments against the bill, to me, the most significant problem is that it diverts funds away from educational programs that help all of the District's 70,000 students. Instead, the bill would use a lottery system to award vouchers to send about 1.3 percent of District students to private schools. I know there are Members on the other side of the aisle who are truly concerned about the education of our Nation's children, and they have a sincere desire to help students of the District of Columbia. But we should help all of the students. We should provide a high-quality education for all of them, and we should support continued improvements that raise all student achievement. I have said it over and over again: The greatest threat to our national security is the failure to properly educate every single one of our children, every one of them. We should not adopt a measure that spends $100 million so that about 1,000 students can go to private schools. And as a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of quality public education, as one who has sat on a charter school board, I agree with the President's statement of the administration's policy which opposes creating or expanding a voucher program and asserts that the ``Federal Government should focus its attention and available resources on improving the quality of public schools for all students.'' Because this bill does not do that, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 471 in its current form. Mr. Speaker, later during this debate, my distinguished colleague Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia, will offer an amendment to redirect funding for private schools to improve public education for all of the District's students. This amendment is a thoughtful improvement, and I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I grant the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud those who are leading America toward equality and equity for all people--and, especially, to commend Maryland's Senior Senator, Barbara Mikulski. As a father, my greatest hope is for the continued social progress that will allow my daughters to achieve the full measure of their dreams. That is why, during Women's History Month each year, I am thinking more about our future than about our past. Recently, President Obama, also the father of two daughters, expressed the same perspective. ``While enormous progress has been made,'' he observed, ``there is still work to be done before women achieve true parity.'' His observation is backed up by ``kitchen table'' economics. When women are not treated fairly, their families suffer as a result. One would think that the concept of equal pay for equal work is so American that it would already be a ``done deal'' in this country. Yet, we know that equal pay is not yet a reality. Family hardships result from the harsh reality that women, on average, make just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in comparable jobs (just 69 cents if you are an African American woman-- and 59 cents if you are a Latina woman). Last week, Senator Mikulski was afforded another opportunity to remind everyone of this still-to-be-achieved civil rights goal as we participated in an event honoring Lilly Ledbetter, the woman whose Supreme Court equal opportunity case led to the ``Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.'' As she was applauding Ms. Ledbetter for the courage and determination she had shown fighting for fair pay, I had the opportunity to reflect on Barbara Mikulski's vision for America--and upon all that she has achieved in public life. Maryland's senior Senator is a remarkable human being--and a person I am honored to call my friend. When I first entered the Congress after a Special Election in 1996, Barbara was there for me, helping us to get our office up and running as quickly as possible so no one in Maryland's 7th Congressional District would lack representation. I have never forgotten that kindness. It was a practical demonstration of the same human compassion that Barbara Mikulski has offered to tens of thousands of Marylanders over the years. It is why she has become a national leader--and why her colleagues in the Senate have supported her work and leadership on two of its most prestigious committees: Appropriations and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. We all have an interest in women and their families receiving fair pay for the work that they perform. Maryland's Senior Senator was one of the essential leaders in our efforts to enact the Affordable Care Act, as well as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Yet, despite the national prominence that she has achieved, ``Senator Barb'' has never lost that candor, honesty and strength that are so typical of the Highlandtown of her youth. In her family's grocery store, she learned the challenges faced by working families. Then, as a social worker, she perfected the skills that she needed to become an effective leader in our cause. Today, I doubt whether there is a single person in our home State of Maryland who does not know what Senator Mikulski stands for. Her progressive values are solid and clear. We know that she is going to fight for all of us every single day. Less well known, however, is Barbara Mikulski's lifetime vision of bringing all of America's working families together in support of progressive change. It is a dream that ties together her roots in Highlandtown with my own South and West Baltimore heritage: ``Unfortunately, because of old prejudices and new fears,'' she observed back in 1970, ``anger is generated [within European ethnic communities] against other minority groups rather than those who have power. What is needed is an alliance of white and black, white collar, blue collar and no collar based upon mutual need, interdependence and respect--an alliance to develop the strategy for new kinds of community organization and political participation.'' All Americans are better off for our progress toward achieving Barbara Mikulski's dream--and the movement toward a better America that her dream sustains.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, as I sat here and I listened to all of this, there are some things that are missing from this discussion which I think we are forgetting. And that, you know, sometimes I think that we forget that this is America. This is a country that has gained its power through its moral authority, not necessarily by its military might. And we have heard discussions this morning about kicking the can down the road, putting money into a rathole. You know, the more I think about it, Madam Chair, I think it is a very sad day when somebody from a State with high foreclosures can get up and talk about destroying a program that will help his own neighbors. There is something wrong with that picture. President Barack Obama uses a term that I wish I had invented. He says that we have an empathy deficit in our country. And I wonder what it's going to feel like on Sunday when my colleagues go to church, read from the same Bible that I read from, and can brag about the fact that they were able to kill a program that would allow some 30,000 people to stay in their own homes while at the same time, when I go to church, I will have to explain to them why they did it. We are better than that. We are better as a Nation. We are better, and it's easy for people to go home. You will go home tonight, you will fly home. You will have a nice, warm house. But let me tell you about the other America, the America that has come to five foreclosure prevention events that I have held in my district, 40 miles away from here. They come in with papers in hand because they simply want some relief. They have lost their jobs, duh, through no fault of their own. They come in with tears running down their faces. They are black, they are white, they are Hispanic, they are Asian. They are Americans. So you say to them, the taxpayer, the dollars that you pay, I don't want to use them to help you stay in your house and their houses. They are the same Americans that I used to see get on the early bus, the early bus, and then go to work. But now they have no jobs, in part because of the same kinds of efforts we see over and over again about saying getting rid of regulations, the regulations that were not adhered to, the ones that were not in place are the very ones that got us where we are. That's why many of them don't have jobs and are now losing their homes. We are better than that. That's why I was one of the authors of this revision. I am tired of seeing my fellow citizens come in, your neighbors and my neighbors, people that look like your mother and my mother, people that look like your son and my son. Tears running down their faces, simply wanting a break. They are not looking for a handout. They are looking for a bridge. And so it is when you go to church on Sunday, when they ask you, what did you do this weekend? What did you achieve? You could say to them, stick your chest out and say, yeah, I stopped some 30,000 people from staying in their homes, Americans. And then there's another argument that bothers me, Madam Chair. They act like we cannot create jobs and keep people in their homes at the same time. We can do better than that. And so I hope that when you go back and you talk to your neighbors and you say, a $1 billion program. A billion dollars. We were trying to get a little bit more, but even in the conference committee, the Republicans cut that down. And now they're back at it again. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. So common sense and balance. I rise today in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of H.R. 836, a bill that seeks to kill the Emergency Homeowner Loan Program. This program was created to provide limited, low-cost loans to enable borrowers who are unemployed through no fault of their own--through no fault of their own--or who face debilitating medical costs to continue paying their mortgages until they have made their way through the storm. By the way, a lot of people say they will never face these medical costs. Well, all of us are the walking wounded. All of us will face difficult problems. The question is: Will America be the America it has always been? We do not get our authority by might; we get it by the way we treat each other. And so these folks are going through some difficult times. These are the same people that this loan program is about; these are the same people who have shown up time after time sitting in the front row of something I call my foreclosure prevention program with tears running down their faces. Many of them have never missed a mortgage payment, have worked hard every day and have done everything that was required of them. These are our American neighbors. They are the American neighbors who sit in Ohio. They are the ones in California and New York. Those are our neighbors. They are in a time of need. We are talking about a billion-dollar program to try to help people as they are struggling, trying to get up after an economy--by the way, where regulations failed them. They find themselves in these difficulties in many instances because people were not regulating properly. And, yes, it upsets me because I go back to a district every night, 40 miles away from here, where people are sad and there are areas in my district where you probably have 25 percent unemployment. So I care about the jobs. They are important to me. I care about people living and staying in their homes. And so if anything was said by the November elections, it was about we need to sit down and get together and work through people's problems like any family would address family problems. And we must be about the business of making sure that we do those things to have a future. I don't want any child in America--I don't care whether he is in your district, Mr. Speaker, or anybody else's district--I want every child to have an opportunity. I want the same opportunities for your children, Mr. Speaker, as I want for mine.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. As I said on the floor this morning and listening to my esteemed colleague on the other side, I must tell you that I am a bit upset, for he talks about common sense and balance. These two words, ``common sense'' and ``balance,'' are something that I talk about all the time. As the ranking member of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, we talk about common sense; and we talk about balance. And part of common sense and balance is trying to make sure our children are educated. Part of common sense and balance is making sure that I helped my neighbor who just died of cancer. I would have to go into my pocket over and over again to give him the money to supplement his chemo. Common sense and balance. Common sense and balance is trying to make sure that people will have jobs when I appear at my jobs fair in a few weeks, and that it won't be just like last year where 9,000 people showed up at 6 o'clock in the morning and circled around the buildings. Common sense and balance means that the students at Morgan State University will not have their Pell Grants reduced by $800 when they are struggling right now. They're working and trying to get a job if they can get one, and working doing the best that they can, and then it's their turn. Common sense and balance says we don't cut them off. And so as I listen, I think about all of this, and I'm trying to figure out, how do the American people get common sense and balance out of what is going on in this House? Now, with regard to I heard my friend talk about regulations, just this morning in a hearing that we had in Government Reform, we had all of these execs from corporations come and talk about how they wanted to get rid of ``job-killing'' regulations. Every one of them agreed with me that regulations are important because they protect the health, welfare and safety of people. And as I told them this morning, I said to them, and I was very clear, I said, when I was a young student, a high school student, and I would go to Bethlehem Steel every summer to work, when I blew my nose after being there for an hour, when the mucus came out, it was black. It was regulations that addressed that. And there were men who had been there 40 years who were breathing that every day, 8 hours a day. And many of them died early. Common sense and balance. Common sense and balance. And then I said to my constituents, and I said it to them at a town hall meeting this week, I said, I wish the Congress would address issues like we deal with our family problems. If you've got a family problem, if you have got a daughter or a son who wants to go to college, maybe go to an expensive college, you don't say to them, you're not going to go to college. You find a way to, yeah, cut back on some things. You don't cut back on everything. You don't say to that child, you cannot go to school because it's now their turn. You just don't turn your back on them. You don't cut off people's jobs and their training when they're trying to be retrained, when that father who's lost his job is trying to be retrained----

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Goodlatte, which would prohibit the use of funds made available by this Act to develop, promulgate, evaluate, implement, provide oversight to, or backstop total maximum daily loads or watershed implementation of these TMDLs for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. As the Representative of Maryland's 7th Congressional District, I was proud to have worked closely with Maryland Senator Ben Cardin during the last Congress to lead the effort to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program and to instill innovative new approaches into the program that will finally lead to the true restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, we were unable to enact that legislation during the last Congress--but the effort to create a Chesapeake Bay program that supports effective clean-up of the Bay will continue. Fortunately, a number of other processes are already underway that will expand and strengthen the effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. President Obama issued an executive order to guide a renewed and reinvigorated federal clean-up effort shortly after taking office. And critically, on December 29, 2010, the long-awaited Total Maximum Daily Loads, TMDL, were issued for the Bay--and the watershed states are now developing their Watershed Implementation Plans, WIP. The TMDLs established for the Chesapeake Bay are specifically required under the federal Clean Water Act. Their development is also consistent with consent decrees in Virginia and the District of Columbia from the late 1990s. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the TMDLs set Bay watershed limits of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year-- limits that would achieve a 25 percent reduction in nitrogen, 24 percent reduction in phosphorus, and 20 percent reduction in sediment flowing into the Bay. The TMDLs are tough--but they are realistic about the reductions in pollution we need throughout the 64,000-square-mile watershed to restore the Bay's health. Over the past decades, the effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay has been largely based on voluntary agreements within and among the states. Recent assessments of the Bay show us that the pledging of earnest promises, the utterance of heart-felt slogans, and the signing of agreements enforced only by good will have achieved water quality in the Bay that is still rated ``very poor''--even though billions of dollars have been spent in support of these promises. If we are serious about cleaning up the Bay, we must implement the TMDLs--and the EPA must be fair but insistent in applying these requirements. It is therefore essential that the TMDL process get off to a fast, efficient, and effective start. Eliminating funding for the enforcement of the TMDLs is tantamount to arguing that we should continue to allow the Chesapeake Bay to be a sewer--where pollutants running out of storm drains and waste treatment plants, from overly fertilized front yards, and off farm fields collect and create ``dead zones'' where life cannot be sustained. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science has estimated that 40 percent of the jobs in Maryland and Virginia associated with crabbing were eliminated between 1998 and 2006--an outcome resulting from the decimation of the crab population due to the pollution accumulating in the Bay. In the face of such losses, a vote against enforcement of the TMDL is a vote that says job losses are acceptable--and that though options are available to restore the Bay, a polluted Bay is good enough. I urge my colleagues to reject this position by voting against this amendment and in favor of a robust effort to clean the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I oppose the continuing resolution put before us by the Republican leadership, which proposes to cut $100 billion in spending below the funding levels President Obama requested in his budget for fiscal year 2011. According to a summary developed by the House Appropriations Committee, these cuts are ``a massive down payment on the new Republican majority's commitment to drastically decrease discretionary funding in order to help our economy thrive and spur job creation.'' Sadly, there does not appear to be any accompanying material that specifies exactly how cutting funds from programs that make essential investments in our communities and in our Nation's infrastructure will spur economic growth. Specifically, I would like to know how many jobs will be created by cutting $581 million from state and local law enforcement assistance or by cutting billions in funding for the high speed rail program. I would also like to know how cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from each of the HUD community development fund, the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds, or from transit capital investment grants will support job creation. Frankly, I don't believe these cuts will create any jobs--nor do I believe they will support the economic growth that will move our country out of the recession created by an appalling combination of regulatory failure and corporate recklessness. Mr. Chair, while I agree that the current deficit is not sustainable, we are also not going to create jobs by cutting aid programs for the poor. According to an October 2010 report released by the Congressional Research Service, 3.7 million more persons fell below the poverty line in 2009 compared to the number below the poverty line in 2008. These 3.7 million people were pushed into poverty by a recession they did not create. As a result, in 2009, a total of 43.6 million persons had incomes below the poverty line--more than at any time since we began tracking this measure in 1959. Within that figure, 1 in every 5 children in this country lived in poverty in this Nation in 2009. These figures can only be described as appalling. And yet we are told that cutting billions from job training programs, cutting a billion dollars from community health centers, cutting a billion from Head Start, and cutting $747 million from nutritional programs for mothers and infants will help eliminate our $14 trillion dollar national debt and will also ``help our economy thrive and spur job creation.'' Mr. Chair, these cuts will not contribute to a thriving economy or create a single job--but they will take essential aid from the millions in our Nation who have the least. If we are serious about cutting our debt, we must understand what has created that debt. Poor people did not create this debt. However, an analysis developed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in mid-2010 found that ``just two policies dating from the Bush Administration--tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan-- accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs.'' Despite the central role that tax cuts for the wealthy have had in increasing national debt, Congress voted just a few months ago to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, adding billions more to the national debt, including more than $80 billion for the tax cuts provided to the highest 2 percent of earners. Given this choice, it should not come as a surprise that our national debt is continuing to grow. Since we appear to be unable to consider serious proposals that will cut the deficit while truly supporting economic recovery, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and to vote no on the continuing resolution.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as I said a little bit earlier, this is not controversial. We're on the same page and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said it quite appropriately: We believe in effective and efficient government. There's nothing more important. When government performs effectively and efficiently, we all benefit. I think the President was right when he issued Executive order number 13563, when he said that we want to look at outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome regulations to modify and streamline our rules. That's what we're all about, but I want to make sure that we do have that balance on both sides because of the fact that the American people are depending on us to be their line of defense. As Mr. Stanley ``Goose'' Stewart said--he's a fellow who was part of the Sago Mine incident in West Virginia--and I'll close with these words. He said this to our legislators in a letter. He said, You were elected to represent the American people, but more importantly, you are Americans, and at the very base of it all you are human beings. The safety of our American people should mean more to you than extra profits for big corporations. It seems wrong to justify the filling of corporate bank accounts with the blood of American workers and the tears of their families. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I would just say one thing to the gentleman who just spoke, which is that we agree with the gentleman from Maryland. We want a comprehensive look at these regulations. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I continue to reserve.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time, as I said before, again, he was saying that regulations are put into effect to protect Americans. And I want to make it clear that we, on this side of the aisle, we have absolutely no problem with making sure that we look at regulations. If they are outdated, if they are overburdensome to the degree that there's no balance there, if they don't make sense, then we want to see those regulations go. But at the same time, what we're also saying is that it has to be a comprehensive examination. And I would think that the chairman of the committee would agree with me on that; that whatever we look at, because we want whatever comes out of this Congress to be credible and to be based on integrity, and we want the American people to buy into it, and hopefully this Congress to buy into it, that it would be a comprehensive view, that we'd look at the total picture, not just the cost, not just the benefit, but looking at it all. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).