Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 28, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. I would have voted:

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 86 (on agreeing to the Cummings Amendment to H.R. 899),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 87 (on agreeing to the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 899),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 88 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 899),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 89 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 899 with instructions), and

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 90 (on passage of H.R. 899).

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, I missed one vote in a series of recorded votes. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 64 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1123, as amended).

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 10, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 55 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2431, as amended); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 56 (on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 447, as amended); and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 57 (on approving the journal).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Bellevue Downtown Association on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. This non- profit organization is made up of passionate community members and has played a key role in creating the flourishing downtown that the citizens and businesses of Bellevue, Washington enjoy today.

Over the last 40 years, Bellevue has been transformed into a thriving business center that is home to roughly 1,300 businesses and 45,000 workers. I am confident that this rapid economic development would not have been possible without the work of the Bellevue Downtown Association, as their efforts have made this area an inviting location for both businesses and residents.

In particular, much of Bellevue's growth as a rising entertainment and cultural scene in the area is largely bolstered by the Association's impressive lineup of annual events. From a jazz festival and summer concert series, to the Eastside's largest Fourth of July celebration, the Bellevue Downtown Association's efforts have made downtown Bellevue more than just a great location to do business, but an appealing, culturally diverse place to live as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I recognize the work of the Bellevue Downtown Association. Without its voice and hard work, downtown Bellevue would not be the economic and cultural center that it has become today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There are a number of problems with this piece of legislation. One of the biggest ones is just the process of it. This has been dropped on us at the absolute last minute. In fact, on a bill that has profound impacts on the budget in a number of different areas, we just, moments ago, received a broad outline of a score of how it is going to impact that budget--moments ago. We did not have time to consider this legislation adequately to figure out what impact it was going to have on the budget, but there are a couple of things we do know about it that creates a major problem.

Yes, in the short-term, this pleases two constituency groups. It pleases veterans, and it pleases doctors by giving them the money that they want. But what was not mentioned in the speech talking about this bill in favor of it is how it is paid for. It is paid for by adding another year to sequestration.

Now, there are a couple of interesting things about this. First of all, that is 8 years from now. We have heard nothing but, from the other side of the aisle, about how government is spending too much money, about how the deficit and the debt are out of control, and yet here we have up-front money being spent on the promise that 8 years from now we will cover those costs. And what is worse, 8 years from now, the way we are going to cover those costs is through sequestration, across-the-board cuts that will cut other entitlement, other mandatory spending programs. So we are really simply robbing one group of deserving people to pay another group of deserving people. That is hardly responsible and hardly helpful.

There are a couple of other specific aspects of this that I want to mention from the Department of Defense standpoint, focusing now just on the portion that addresses the cost of living reduction.

I want to make sure we understand what exactly that cost of living reduction was. In the military, if you serve 20 years, you can retire at that point with your full pension, which is basically half of your pay at that point. This bill took, for those people between the ages of 42 and 62, working age, and reduced their COLA by 1 percent. It didn't reduce the pension. It reduced how much that pension would be increased by each year by 1 percent.

Now, I don't deny that that is a hit and a cost, but what is it offsetting?

The Pentagon has to pay this cost, or at least a portion of this cost. They have to pay--the old bill, and again, I am just getting the new score. But in the old bill, it was roughly $700 million a year that DOD had to take out of their operating budget and put in to paying for this pension. So, by doing this, we are taking roughly $700 million a year out of the Pentagon budget.

What does that mean? What it means is a further blow to readiness. Now, Republican and Democratic members of the Armed Services Committee have rightly screamed that we are cutting readiness to the point where we are not training our forces to prepare to fight the fight that we ask them to fight.

Now, the gentleman made an excellent point that, basically, what is going to make people want to sign up for the military? And he mentioned making sure that we take care of our veterans. I certainly think that is an issue. And I will tell you, for the last 10 years we have increased the GI Bill. We have increased pay every single year. We have made dramatic increases in combat pay. I applaud this Chamber for the bipartisan way in which they have taken care of our military veterans. But one other major issue that is going to determine whether or not people want to join the military and stay in it is whether or not we train them and prepare them for the fight we are going to ask them to do. And what the consequences of this are going to be is it is another blow to that.

If you are a pilot, you will not have enough fuel or enough fixed equipment to train as often as you need to. If you are an infantryman, you will not have the bullets to practice as much as you need to. Doing this creates the one thing that everyone has said we don't want, and that is a hollow force, a force that exists but is not trained to fight the fight that we ask them to do.

In fact, there is a great and compelling story told by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in an argument for why readiness is important, and that was the Korean war, and those were the troops that we sent over in the initial effort to stop the North Koreans. Those troops were not trained, and men died because they were not trained and they were not prepared for a battle that we sent them into.

So we are robbing one portion of the Pentagon budget to pay another, and I think we are robbing precisely the portion that we can least afford to rob. And I don't think there is anything noble about standing up and taking money away from the readiness that is going to train our troops to fight fights that we, as politicians, send them to fight.

Now, I will say, on the SGR fix and the doc fix, that is a short-term problem, and we need to deal with it. Step aside. I would be very, very happy to pay for that, and I support that very strongly.

I do not like the pay-for. Personally, I would be more than willing to raise taxes or cut spending in other places other than to, once again, go back to the sequester option and also to kick it out 8 years from now.

This is an irresponsible bill that approaches very, very real problems. But make no mistake about it. You can stand up and talk about what you are paying for, whom you are giving the money to, but I do hope people will address whom you are taking the money from. You are taking the money from other recipients of mandatory spending by doing sequester again. And as importantly, you are taking the money away from the readiness accounts that will train our troops so that they are able to fight, so that we will hopefully not do the one thing that I think would be utterly unconscionable, and that is to send troops to a battle that we have not prepared them for.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), though she is in support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so if the gentleman has no further speakers I will close.

I yield myself the balance of my time just really to drive home one point on the Armed Services' side of the equation, and that is the impact that personnel costs are having on the Department of Defense. They are an increasing, growing part of our defense budget in large part because we have been very, very generous with people who serve in the military in terms of pay, benefits, and retirement, but as everyone who serves on the Armed Services Committee knows, increasing personnel costs squeezes out other portions of the budget.

I have talked a lot about readiness. I think that is incredibly important, but also procurement, making sure that the men and women who serve in the military have the equipment that they need to fight the fight. We can have a great military where everyone is very well paid, the benefits go on forever, but they don't have the equipment or the training necessary to fight.

I will tell you, every single expert, right, left, middle, wherever, who studies this question, we just had four prominent think-tanks spanning that spectrum come out with a study on the future of the Department of Defense budget. Every single one of those experts has said that if we do nothing to rein in personnel costs, that is precisely the force that we will have; it will be hollow. It will not have the equipment, and it will not have the training to do what it is that we ask them to do.

Now, we may not think that the 1 percent cut that was done here in the COLA is the best way to go. I can entertain that argument. I certainly understand veterans who were promised this, who expect to receive it. If it is not that, what is it? What is on the table? All we have done in this Chamber is said no, no, no to every effort the Department of Defense has put out there to try to rein in this spending, to try to rein in this spending, as I said, so that we can have a military that lives up to what we want it to live up to. This is a very, very real issue.

Once again, we are punting it and completely ignoring it, completely unaddressed by supporters of this bill. They are just addressing this narrow area, making the broader problem worse.

As I said in the beginning, also, once again, adding sequester back in the lexicon for another year. This is not a solution to any problem, other than a series of political ones. We have just too many difficult choices to make to simply rely on politics with every bill that we bring up here. We have got to make some hard choices. This bill doesn't do it. It punts once again in every conceivable way. It simply makes the problems worse.

I know it is not going to happen, but I would nonetheless urge this body to oppose this bill and make some responsible choices, actually make choices as to what to do with the budget instead of continually punting on every difficult decision that comes before us. I assure you, this will not be the last one by any stretch of the imagination.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 27, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 24 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2166, as amended), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 25 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3008, as amended).

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 3 and Tuesday, February 4, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 32 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1791, as amended); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 33 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 357, as amended); ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 34 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 470); and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 35 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 470).

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, January 9; Friday, January 10; and Monday, January 13, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 7 (on the Sinema Amendment to H.R. 2279); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 8 (on the Tonko Amendment to H.R. 2279); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 9 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 2279 with instructions); ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 10 (on passage of H.R. 2279); ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 11 (on passage of H.R. 3811); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 12 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1513), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 13 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 230).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Dr. Sandra E. Madrid, who was recently awarded the 2013 Latino Heritage Award by the City of Seattle's Latino City Employees organization and Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn.

The Latino Heritage Award recognizes individuals who have made significant contributions to Seattle through initiative, innovation, leadership, and commitment to the Latino community. Dr. Madrid has been an active member of her community for many years and has made it her priority to empower minority groups and promote Latino involvement.

Dr. Madrid recently retired from the University of Washington School of Law and has worked diligently on issues important to diverse communities in our region. Sandra has long advocated on behalf of women and children and the underrepresented. She is also an inspirational mentor and educator to young individuals and professionals.

Dr. Madrid currently serves as a board member for the United Way of King County, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle Art Museum, and YMCA. In addition to serving on more than 30 boards in the past 20 years, she was also the first Latina to serve on the Board of Trustees of the Seattle Children's Hospital.

Dr. Madrid's dedication to the Latino community has made her a widely respected advocate and leader. Her work is commendable and we are fortunate to have her expertise representing our region.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Dr. Sandra E. Madrid on her contributions to the City of Seattle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate the Weyerhaeuser Company for being recognized as one of the most community-minded companies in the United States. The National Conference on Citizenship and Points of Light, in partnership with Bloomberg named Weyerhaeuser to The Civic 50 list as one of 50 companies that have demonstrated socially responsible practices and substantial civic involvement in their communities.

The Weyerhaeuser Company, based in Federal Way, Washington, began more than a century ago in the forest industry. The company currently owns and operates nearly 21 million acres of timberland with offices throughout North America and produces wood and fiber products for a variety of applications.

Weyerhaeuser also makes giving back to the community a company priority. Through the Weyerhaeuser Active Volunteer Employees (WAVES) Program, the company recognizes employee volunteers who contribute their time. The organizations where employees volunteer are also eligible to apply for WAVES grants, ranging from $1,000 to $5,000. Last

year, 1,357 of Weyerhaeuser's employees participated in more than 164 service projects and contributed more than 31,820 volunteer hours. Through their efforts, 164 WAVES grants were awarded last year to the community. Additionally, Weyerhaeuser has instituted an Employee Volunteer of the Quarter program to honor Weyerhaeuser employees who significantly impact their communities through their personal efforts.

Recently, Weyerhaeuser teamed up with World Vision, a non-profit faith-based organization focused on fighting poverty and injustice, creating Operation Diaper Drive. Operation Diaper Drive is an annual event held by Weyerhaeuser employees where diapers are collected and donated to low-income families. In March of this year, nearly three quarters of a million diapers were distributed to families throughout the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate the Weyerhaeuser Company on their recognition. Weyerhaeuser continues to strive as a leader in the community and in the nation for their impressive philanthropic work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I want to thank the chairman and echo his words about how important it is that we pass this piece of legislation. It is critical to our national security and critical to supporting our troops, to make sure they get the pay and the support that they need to do the job that we all have asked them to do.

This is never an easy process. We worked between the two of us and between our committees, and we worked with the Senate, House Republicans, bipartisan and bicameral. I am sure if any one of us were so designated as god of this piece of legislation, there are things we would change about it, but that is the nature of the legislative process. You come together, you compromise, and you put together the best product that all of you can agree on, and that is what we have done.

To not pass this at this point is to jeopardize our national security and to not support our troops.

I think this is an excellent compromise and something that needs to be passed. I think that we would all agree that we wish we could have done this through the normal conference committee process, but the Senate has their rules, and they had difficulty getting to that point.

I want to assure everybody that this was a fully negotiated piece of legislation. We engaged the Senate, both Republican and Democrat. Chairman McKeon and I worked very closely together. Our staffs worked very closely together. This is an excellent, important bill that needs to be passed for all of the reasons that Chairman McKeon mentioned: the steps forward it makes on sexual assault, the support it gives to our troops as they are in battle in Afghanistan in trying to protect our national security elsewhere. I really want to urge everyone to make sure that they vote for this and support this.

I want to use my remaining time to talk a little bit about the budget resolution, or the budget conference committee, that we are going to talk about later. I completely agree with Chairman McKeon. In the spirit of what I said about the NDAA about the necessity of getting our job done, we need to pass a budget. I know it impacts all manner of different other pieces of government, but I am most familiar with what it does to the Department of Defense to not have a budget, to not have appropriations bills, to have to go from CR to CR to government shutdown threat to actual government shutdown to another government shutdown threat.

You simply cannot function as well as you should, or as well as you would, if you had a dependable budget that said here is what you have. It will never be what all of us want, but it is better to have the predictability of having an appropriations process.

So it is critical that we pass the National Defense Authorization Act; it is critical that we pass the budget. We have to function as a government. We all know how low our approval ratings are. I think it is great: Democrats take great comfort in the fact that Republicans aren't popular and the Republicans take great comfort in the fact that Democrats aren't popular. But all it means to me is none of us are popular.

We need to get our job done. We have two great opportunities today to do that, to show the American public that this body functions, it works, and it will, in fact, live up to its responsibilities, and in the case of the National Defense Authorization Act, one of the most important responsibilities, and that is to provide for the common defense.

I urge everyone to vote for this important piece of legislation and to support the budget resolution coming later today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Sanchez), the ranking member of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member on our Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Barber), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to take a quick minute again to thank all the people who worked to make this possible, our staffs on the Armed Services Committee in particular. The bipartisan majority and minority have all done an amazing job over a long period of time, and I really want to thank the chairman, as well, for his determination to get this bill done.

It is never the same path twice, which always makes it interesting, but the one thing that we have very much in common is an absolute determination to get the bill done for the reasons that the chairman and I stated earlier, because of just how important it is that we do our work and make sure we provide for the troops that are serving us. But we could not do it without the incredible expertise and tireless work of our staffs.

I particularly want to thank my staff director, Paul Arcangeli, for pulling all of this together as we bounced back and forth between whether or not we were going to do a formal conference or do this. That work that they have been doing over the last several months was critical in making this possible.

Again, I will close just emphasizing two big points:

We need to do our work as Congress because people depend on it. They depend on the United States Government functioning. Passing the National Defense Authorization Act is a critical piece of that so that we can continue to provide for the common defense as we are constitutionally mandated to do, and I urge everybody to support it.

Every bit as important is the budget agreement that is coming up later on. We have all, to some degree on the Armed Services Committee and elsewhere, railed against sequestration. The vote that is coming up this afternoon is not a choice between this budget agreement and what each one of us individually would like. It is a choice between the budget agreement and sequestration, a CR and further threats of government shutdown. And I will just emphasize that the impact that that would have on the Department of Defense and its ability to do the job that we are asking them to do would be devastating.

I know we have heard everybody claim that sequestration was going to be this big deal and it happened and the sun came up the next morning and everything was fine. Look, there are two things about that.

Number one, it had a profound impact on a lot of people. Not everybody to be sure, but it did have that profound impact.

The second big point is it gets worse. The first year was tough, but there were uncosted balances. There were things you could do. They have kind of been running on fumes for a while, and if we continue with sequestration, those fumes run out and the cuts will be devastating and we will not be able to do what it is that I think we need to do to provide for our national security, which isn't to say the defense budget can't be cut. It is being cut, and it is going to be cut. There are cuts and then there are the nonsensical cuts of sequestration. The only way out of that right now is the budget agreement.

Lastly, I will say that applies to a lot of other aspects of government: transportation, housing, Head Start. We have heard all the stories about the devastating impact of sequestration on all those programs. Later this afternoon, we will have our first real opportunity to reverse that. It is critically important that we do so.

I urge passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. I again thank the chairman. I very much value our partnership, given the desire for bipartisanship out there today. People always ask me if I have any Republicans that I work with. I do; the chairman of our committee, who has done a great job in that capacity. I very much value our friendship and our partnership. Hopefully, we will get the Senate to get this done and we will make it 52 years in a row.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Bob Drewel, long-time civic, community and education leader in the Puget Sound region, on his retirement after over 20 years of public service.

From his most recent tenure as Executive Director of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and his more than twelve years as Snohomish County Executive, Bob's leadership and reputation serve as a model for all those who wish to pursue a career in civic service.

During his time at the PSRC, Bob effectively worked to build partnerships between the private and public sectors and is well known for his leadership in promoting regional solutions to the many challenges facing western Washington. While at the helm of the PSRC, Bob

guided critical initiatives including regional transportation planning, growth management and economic development.

In his twelve years as Snohomish County Executive, Bob successfully strengthened partnerships among the county, local governments, and other public and private entities to create a shared vision for a prosperous community. Under Bob's leadership and prudent fiscal management, the county was able to plan, design and fund several important county facilities. In 2007, the county administration building was named ``The Robert J. Drewel Building'' in honor of Bob's integrity, leadership and ability to work across party lines as County Executive.

In addition to his leadership at the PSRC and as Snohomish County Executive, Bob is the past President and CEO of Everett Community College and the former Chairman of Sound Transit. Bob also helped build community partnerships as a board member of the Economic Development Council, Healthy Communities Initiative, and United Way of Snohomish County. Bob's civic involvements extend even further to include the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Rotary, Everett Area Chamber of Commerce and numerous other community organizations.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Bob Drewel. Bob personifies the ideal of public service to his fellow citizens. I wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Harriet Thomsen from Washington State, who will be recognized as an extraordinary volunteer by Friend to Friend America at this year's Volunteer Appreciation Day on November 23, 2013.

Harriet has been a volunteer and supporter of Friend to Friend since it was founded in 1974. The visitation program connects volunteers to elderly or disabled persons living in nursing homes, increasing the quality of their lives and establishing long-time friendships. Harriet has since been a strong advocate for the elderly community and has worked vigorously to maintain Friend to Friend's mission.

Harriet's passion for volunteerism stem from her first visit to a nursing home in her earlier years. She noticed that most homes provided dark activity rooms and were lacking sanitary equipment. Harriet immediately took charge and published an article in her local newspaper asking for donations like paint, chairs and lamps to improve assisted living facilities. She also mobilized women at her church, addressing the concerns she had about the unfortunate conditions some elderly must endure when living in a nursing home. She became invested and took it upon herself to positively change the living situation of seniors.

Although Harriet is highly praised for her selflessness and dedication at Friend to Friend, she also volunteers at the Children's Hospital Boutique in Kent, Washington and regularly cooks dinners for the homeless at Grace Lutheran Church. She is currently a retiree that spends more than 40 hours a week assisting others.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Harriet Thomsen. Harriet is a true inspiration and an excellent example of a community leader. Her service to Washington State will be appreciated by many for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mohamed Ali from Federal Way, Washington, who serves as Co-Chair of the King County Somali Health Board and Program Coordinator for the Hepatitis B Coalition of Washington at WithinReach. Mohamed was recently honored by the White House as a Champion of Change.

The White House presented Ali with the Champion of Change Award for his heroic efforts during a winter storm in the Puget Sound

region last year. Mr. Ali's proactive approach to the dangers of carbon monoxide within his community helped save lives and protect vulnerable families trying to heat their homes in the winter.

By acting as a liaison between King County Public Health and the local Somali community, Mohamed ensured that safety warnings for carbon monoxide were translated for individuals who do not speak English and that the community was informed about the risks of burning fuel indoors during power outages.

In addition, Mohamed worked with volunteers at a local mosque to establish a hotline for the community to ask questions about the storm and request aid. He was also instrumental in coordinating the establishment of a nearby aid station that offered heat and hot meals. As a result of Ali's and others' efforts, King County reported zero deaths and ninety percent fewer hospitalizations than during the region's last major winter storm.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I congratulate Mohamed Ali for being honored with the Champion of Change award and recognize his service to the King County community.

Mr. Speaker, as this shutdown drags on--and I concur with the comments of my colleague from West Virginia--it is serious and having serious consequences. The American people are left to wonder why.

Back here in Washington, D.C., you have all kinds of talking points and spin, and it circles around and can easily get very confusing as everyone seems to focus on the wrong things as to what caused this. And, really, it is very simple; and I think understanding it and getting Democrats and Republicans to stop talking past each other is the first step to getting out of this.

We have to understand that basically when you pass a budget to fund the government, the first thing you argue about is how much money is spent on it; and we had that argument and, believe me, there are deep disagreements between the Republican House, the Democratic Senate, and the White House on that.

But an agreement was reached between Speaker John Boehner and Harry Reid on the level of funding; and that level of funding, frankly, is vastly lower than Democrats want, and we were going to go forward with that until the Speaker changed his mind and decided that he wanted something else. So if you are wondering why Harry Reid, the Senator, the Majority Leader in the Senate, is upset about this situation, it is in part because he had a deal and the Republicans went back on that deal.

But it gets worse than that. So instead of simply agreeing to the amount of money that would fund the government, Republicans are now saying, no, they want policy changes within the budget in order to fund the government, in order to just simply keep it open and in order to raise the debt ceiling so that we can pay our bills.

Now, policy changes do occasionally happen within appropriations bills, but only when they are agreed upon between the House, the Senate, and the White House. And the problem that the Republicans have and what they have had for 3 years is they simply do not have the votes to pass the policy changes that they want because they didn't win the election last time. President Obama won the election, Democrats control the Senate, and, ironically, Democrats actually won 52 percent of the vote for Congress, but because of gerrymandering, Republicans wound up with more seats.

But however we got here, they do not have the votes to advance the agenda that they want to advance, and they

are willing to shut down the government and stop funding it and not raise our debt ceiling; and, by the way, every day we get closer to that debt ceiling and not raising it is a day that is bad for this economy, all because they can't pass their policy agenda through the present Congress. Which raises the interesting question, What is that policy agenda? And that perhaps is the most frustrating thing about this.

We heard originally that they didn't pass the continuing resolution to fund the government because they wanted to end ObamaCare. Now editorials have been written by leaders; by the majority leader, Mr. Cantor. I have heard Paul Ryan say, no, no, no, it is not about ObamaCare; we understand we are not going to get that. Okay. So what policy change is it that you want? And this is where you get into the deficit. But, again, the Republicans haven't specified what they want on this.

Now, we know if you go back through 3 years of history, what they say they want, they want tax reform, though it hasn't been specified, and they want cuts in entitlements to get us closer to a balanced budget. They are completely unwilling to consider any revenue increases.

Now, the problem with this is the President doesn't agree. The Senate doesn't agree. The deficit is a problem, no question, but Democrats believe that part of that solution has to be revenue; and to this point we get $600 billion in revenue as a result of the deal that was reached last January in exchange for over $2 trillion in cuts, $2 trillion between the cuts that were made in the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the cuts that have now been forced on us by sequestration, $2 trillion in cuts and $600 billion in tax increases.

But be that as it may, the Republicans don't have the votes. They don't have the support of the President, and they don't have the support of the Senate to get those cuts, and yet they insist on shutting down the government.

Now, the big problem is what is it that they would want in tax reform and entitlement reform? And this is the thing that I think the American public is unaware of. The Republicans keep saying that they want entitlement reform, which means cuts in entitlements. They keep saying that they want tax reform. They have been in charge of this House for 3 years. They have not brought to the floor or passed out of committee any tax reform or any entitlement reform.

They put it in their budget, which is just sort of a big-picture list of future objectives of what they want to do. Why haven't they passed legislation? If they are willing to shut down the government and cause all of the pain that we have heard because they fervently believe that we need entitlement cuts and tax reform, the least they can do is bring it to the floor and tell us what it is.

Oddly, the President and Democrats have put more on the table in terms of reforming our entitlements. As part of the Affordable Care Act, we made reductions in Medicare, which the Republicans beat us up for and which has been responsible for Medicare actually going down in inflation.

The only solution for this, tell us what you want and understand how this situation works. The pain is too great.