Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

So much of what we do on this floor is so partisan, going over the same old issues. I bring to you an amendment that I cowrote with the Chamber of Commerce which deals with an issue that has not yet been discussed on this floor.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board is funded by the SEC through a convoluted process designed to claim that they are not a government agency, but they are funded by a mandatory tax, and if you don't follow their prescriptions, you can, indeed, face criminal, as well as civil, penalties.

If it is not broke, don't fix it. For 100 years, we had good rules on how to account for leases. The tenant pays rent, the owner of the building owns the building, and the financial statements disclose in the footnotes all the details any financial analyst would want to see.

Since it is not broke, the folks at the Financial Accounting Standards Board have decided to fix it. They want to list on every balance sheet in America the future amount that will be paid in all lease payments as a liability. The effect of that is to increase the liabilities shown on the balance sheets of American business by $2 trillion. That is right, this is a $2 trillion issue that has not yet been discussed on this floor.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board has done some outreach and taken some testimony. By the standards of the accounting world, they have listened. But by the standards of democracy that we are familiar with, trust me, far more is done before you permit a single three-story apartment building.

Mr. Chairman, almost 70 Members of Congress have urged the Financial Accounting Standards Board to stop. They keep going. They want to act in concert with the European International Accounting Standards Board, and that board is beholden to the European Parliament in Brussels. That is right. Those who, in effect, enact American law are not listening to Congress; they are listening to the only Parliament in the world held in lower esteem than Congress.

What will be the effect on our economy? Well, this will add $2 trillion to the balance sheet liabilities of American businesses. It will put a tremendous disincentive on businesses to sign long-term leases. If your tenant won't sign a long-term lease, you can't fund a new building project, a new shopping center, or a new industrial park. So that is why an economic study funded by the American Association of Realtors, the Economic Roundtable, the Business Owners and Management Association, and others says that the best-case scenario is that this will destroy 190,000 American jobs and reduce our GDP by almost $28 billion a year. The worst-case scenario is over 3 million jobs and nearly half a trillion dollars decline in our GDP.

It is time for us to tell the Financial Accounting Standards Board not to go down this road in an effort to fix something that isn't broken.

It is time, also, to focus on an additional disadvantage of this accounting proposal, and that is it will cause tens of thousands-- hundreds of thousands--of businesses in this country to be in violation of their loan covenants, which means that they will have to immediately pay off their liabilities or renegotiate with their bankers, who will insist upon higher personal guaranties and higher interest rates, et cetera.

Thousands and thousands of long-term bonds that have been sold in the public market will be held to be in violation of their loan covenants and will become immediately due--not because the businesses were wrong, but because the accounting standards changed.

Now, I have often thought that accounting principles ought to be written by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and not by Congress. I am clinging to that belief. As I see this disaster unfold in the preliminary--in the discussions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, it is harder and harder to cling to that belief. But I still retain hope that the accounting standards board will change direction and will not adopt this new policy, which solves no problem and which will add $2 trillion to the liabilities of American business and cost us hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Mr. Chairman, because I am hopeful that they will change course, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

So many have spoken on this floor in favor of states' rights. A majority of Americans live in States in which medical marijuana is legal, and yet we have this bizarre circumstance where these have to be all cash businesses. The result, as the gentleman from Colorado points out, is tax evasion--or potentiality for tax evasion-- and also an invitation to crime--violent street crime--as people figure out how they can invade with guns a store that is licensed by my State or his State and try to steal huge quantities of cash.

It is absolutely absurd to tell people that they cannot use medical marijuana when they are in physical pain and they live in a State where that is allowed, and it is even more absurd to have to keep millions of dollars of cash there for the possible criminal taking because we have businesses that are actually operating that are outside the banking system.

Offered By: Mr. Sherman

Amendment No. 16: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 40th anniversary of the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus and to call for the end to Turkey's continued and illegal occupation.

The Greek Cypriot community continues to struggle and face the denial of its fundamental human rights. Turkish troops and colonists from mainland Turkey based in the occupied area prevent thousands of Greek Cypriots from returning to their homes, and those who chose to stay in the occupied region face daily threats and discrimination. Their properties are often confiscated or sold without their consent. They face daily religious persecution, as Turkish troops restrict access to and destroy religious sites, and constrain freedom of worship.

Turkey continues to obstruct attempts to discover the fate of military and civilian personnel who have been unaccounted for since the invasion 40 years ago Turkey has prevented the exhumation of mass graves in its restricted military areas, even under the offer of U.N. supervision.

Fortunately, Cyprus's government continues in its commitment to a U.N.-sponsored process to reach a lasting solution that would create a bizonal, bicommunal federation respectful of the human rights of all Cypriots, Greek or Turkish. Last year, President Anastasiades proposed several measures which would significantly contribute to the negotiating process, and recently, the leaders of both Cypriot communities issued a Joint Statement which lays a strong foundation for future talks. The United States has welcomed both of these developments as crucial steps toward a lasting solution. Regrettably, the Turkish government has not only rejected all of these proposals, but also exercises ``gunboat diplomacy'' to interfere with legal oil and gas explorations in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Forty years is too long for a people to be denied their basic rights. It is too long to be separated from one's family and one's home. It is time to make Cyprus an example of reconciliation, peace, and stability for the eastern Mediterranean, and for the international community at- large.

Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed votes on Tuesday July 8, 2014. I was in Los Angeles tending to my mother recovering from surgery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 369 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 370, the Social Media Working Group Act of 2014 and the Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service of His Excellency Tatoul Markarian, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Armenia to the United States of America.

His Excellency Dr. Markarian is completing his term as Ambassador to the United States after nine years of service. Dr. Markarian has been a crucial figure in fostering relations between Armenia and the United States.

As Armenian Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Markarian has been credited with creating closer ties with the United States by coordinating visits between the two countries' government officials and diplomats. He has been instrumental in securing increased humanitarian assistance from the U.S. to both Armenia and Artsakh, two struggling economies that are in great need of economic support. This has been highlighted by Armenia becoming a competitive potential candidate for Millennium Challenge Corporation funding, which aims to reduce widespread poverty and strengthen infrastructure. Ambassador Markarian has also been largely responsible for coordinating improved bilateral talks between both countries, through the U.S.-Armenia Economic Task Force and Strategic Dialogue.

Dr. Markarian has had a long career in public service. He served in the Republic of Armenia's legislative and executive branches at a crucial time, during the Republic's early years, first as assistant to the Vice Chairman of the newly created Armenian parliament, then as an advisor to the Vice President of Armenia and Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister. During his tenure as Ambassador to the United States he concurrently serves as the Ambassador to Mexico.

I commend his Excellency Dr. Markarian on his service and accomplishments. His service has strengthened the relationship between Armenia and America. I wish the best for him, his wife, and three sons in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise to address issues in the Middle East. The President has been criticized for the fact that we do not have a large residual force in Iraq and that we do not have a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi Government.

Let us take note that it was President George Bush who installed Prime Minister Maliki in May of 2006. President George Bush's decision to allow Maliki to take power and to allow him to keep power is directly responsible for most of the woes facing Iraq today.

Maliki was so malevolent that, throughout 2006, 2007, and 2008, he refused to enter into a long-term status of forces agreement with the United States and with President Bush. He insisted that any troops that remained in Iraq after 2011 would be subject to Iraqi kangaroo courts and could be executed on trumped-up charges. Obviously, we couldn't leave our troops in Iraq under those circumstances.

It is Maliki that is the source of the problem, and it is President Bush that is the source of Maliki. To say that President Obama should be able to negotiate a long-term agreement with Maliki when President Bush was unable to do so is utterly absurd.

As to Sergeant Bergdahl, it is important for us to note that, while we have just released five prisoners from Guantanamo, President Bush released over 500 from Guantanamo, and virtually all of them were dangerous.

Over 100 of them are on the battlefield--and we know where on the battlefield they are--waging war against the United States and its allies. Most of the other 500 are also waging war against us; it is just that our intelligence isn't good enough to say exactly where on the battlefield they are located.

What did President Bush get for the release, not of five, but 500 dangerous prisoners from Guantanamo? Nothing, except a thank you from their native governments.

Now, on legal issues, we are told that section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act required President Obama not to release the five prisoners until 30 days after he notified Congress.

Even if he had followed those exact words, instead of releasing the five a few hours after Sergeant Bergdahl was in our hands, we would have released them a few weeks after Sergeant Bergdahl was back in our hands, hardly of great significance.

More importantly, the President has the constitutional right, as Commander in Chief, to engage in prisoner exchanges. In fact, the last Republican Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey, said that very thing just recently.

The President was on firm legal ground in deciding he had the authority to take this action without a 30-day notification of Congress. That being said, it would have been preferable if President Obama had, in fact, discussed the matter with key congressional leaders.

America is strongest when the President views Congress as a source of counsel, a source of advice, rather than a group of enemies to be notified only when such notification is explicitly compelled by congressionally valid statutes.

Whether this deal is a good deal, time will tell. It was a judgment call, but the President could have benefited from the counsel of Congress. It is particularly insulting for some to say that Congress is not a source of counsel, but just a source of leaks.

Keep in mind that 16 congressional leaders knew that we had ascertained the hiding place of Osama bin Laden, and that information did not leak from Congress.

I hope, in the future, President Obama and future Presidents consult key Members of Congress when making a difficult decision.

We are told that we don't negotiate with terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. President Bush negotiated with each and every terrorist regime, each and every identified state sponsor of terrorism--Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria, North Korea.

The Bush administration paid a ransom to an al Qaeda affiliate for the release of Martin and Gracia Burnham. Secretary Colin Powell designated the Afghan Taliban as an organization authorized for legal negotiations.

Now, it is also said that a prisoner exchange alerts our enemies to the fact that we value our prisoners, that we will not want to leave anyone on the battlefield, as if this is news disclosed to the world in June of 2014. The fact is we have always valued those detained by the enemy, and the enemy has always known that.

Mr. Chair, with regard to my votes on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act:

I voted for and helped pass the Grayson amendment, confident that as the bill proceeds, a sophisticated, nuanced, and balanced reporter shield provision will be inserted in lieu of the current text of the amendment. The rules and traditions of the House require that amendments to appropriations bills offered on the floor conform to strict rules that preclude balanced and detailed formulation. The Conference Committee will have the latitude needed to insert a balanced reporter shield provision and I will urge such an approach.

Additionally, I voted for final passage with the assumption that certain problematic provisions would be removed in Conference Committee.

I am pleased that we can move forward with the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and expect that upon passage in the Senate, the Conference Committee will improve the bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 132, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, 26 years ago today was the first day in a three-day pogrom perpetrated against the Armenian residents of Sumgait in then-Soviet Azerbaijan. Although official figures reported 30 deaths, it is believed that hundreds were murdered and injured as a result of the pogrom.

Just a week before the violence erupted, the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh voted to unify region with Armenia--the beginning of the Karabakh movement. In the days immediately after this vote Azeri civilians and local officials in the city of Sumgait held rallies calling for ``death to Armenians''.

On the night of February 27, 1988, Armenian residents in Sumgait were targeted and indiscriminately raped, mutilated and murdered. Calls for help from Armenians were ignored by local police and city officials. Journalists were shut out from the area. The violence raged on for three days before Soviet troops were able to put an end to the pogrom.

Witnesses of the horrific massacres later testified that the attacks were planned, as civilians had gathered weapons and the exits of the cities were blocked in advance to prevent Armenians from escaping. The homes of Armenians were marked so that the Azeri mobs could easily target them.

Unfortunately, the perpetrators of the pogrom succeeded in their ultimate goal--driving out Armenians. Fearing more violence, Armenians fled Sumgait. Later that year, another anti-Armenian pogrom occurred in Kirovabad, Azerbaijan from November 21st to 27th, which also forced hundreds of Armenians to flee the region. In January of 1990 violent mobs targeted the Armenian community of Azerbaijan's capital, Baku.

I would like to honor the memory of Armenians killed in the pogroms of Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku. If we hope to stop future massacres, we must acknowledge these horrific events and ensure they do not happen again.

This month also marked the 10th anniversary of the heinous murder of Armenian Army Lieutenant Gurgen Margaryan at a NATO training camp in Budapest, by Ramil Safarov, a Lieutenant of the Azerbaijani Army. Safarov used an axe to hack Margaryan to death while he was sleeping. After being convicted of murder by Hungarian courts, he was transferred to Azerbaijan where he was immediately pardoned and given a hero's welcome. Several Azerbaijan government officials have hailed Safarov's actions as patriotism. This is unacceptable, and the international community should hold Azerbaijan accountable for this.

Recognizing the ethnic-cleansing of the Armenians from Azerbaijan is an important step. However, we need to do more--we need to demonstrate to Azerbaijan that the United States is committed to peace and to the protection of Artsakh from coercion.

We must call for an end to all threats and acts of coercion by Azerbaijan's government against the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh.

Congress should strengthen Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act by removing the President's ability to waive U.S. law prohibiting aid to Azerbaijan because of its continuing blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. In 1992, Congress prohibited aid to Azerbaijan because of its continuing blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. However, in 2001, Congress approved a waiver to this provision and administrations have used the waiver since then to provide aid to Baku. Azerbaijan should not be provided aid from the United States as long as they continue a policy of threats and blockades against Artsakh.

I urge the Administration to remove all barriers to broad-based U.S.- Nagorno-Karabakh governmental and civil society communication, travel and cooperation.

Madam Speaker, I am here with the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee. She and I represent a city built in the desert suffering from a drought. We interrupted our rain prayer meeting to come here and to talk about how flood insurance is critical to the national interest.

We should not burden our economy with a situation in which people can't buy their home, sell a home, live in their home. It is time for us to defeat the previous question motion and take up on the floor of this House a bill that had overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, that has 182 cosponsors here in the House.

It is time to stop partisan wrangling and deal with bipartisan legislation critical to homeowners from one coast to the other, and yes, a few in Los Angeles as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The political pundits are all focused on was this a good deal, was this a bad deal. But we're not here in Congress to give a grade to the administration. We are here in Congress to decide what legislation should be passed. Congress is a policymaking body, although so often those in the administration think that we are, at most, advisers or critics; but let us take a look at this deal, and we'll see that what we get out of this is at least overstated by its proponents.

Because we are told that this halts their enrichment of uranium. It is true that it limits their 20 percent uranium; and Iran will not be making progress during the 6-month period of this deal toward its first bomb, but they will be making very substantial progress toward their eighth, ninth, and 10th bomb. And Iran is not a nuclear power until they have some to hide, one or two to test. It is not their objective to have but one, because throughout this agreement it is very clear the centrifuges keep spinning, the amount of low enriched uranium keeps growing; but we're told that Iran will not be increasing its stockpile. If you read the agreement, yes, they will, but they have to convert to uranium oxide metal, that which they produced during the term of this agreement.

There are some proponents of the agreement that say, Well, that means that they are neutralizing all that they produce under the agreement. That is hardly true.

I have been the chair or ranking member of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee since it was created in the early part of this century, and I have worked with the nonproliferation experts. The fact is that this uranium oxide, this huge new additional stockpile to be created over the next 6 months can be converted back to gaseous form and then enriched further. And converting it back to gaseous form will take only a couple of weeks.

So this agreement provides that Iran makes substantial progress toward more low-enriched uranium, building its stockpile toward a real collection of nuclear bombs.

We are also told that we have given up very little in this agreement. We have given up far more than you can find in the text because the most important thing about our sanctions is momentum. And we passed additional sanctions in 2010, 2011, 2012; and, if hadn't been for this agreement, the Senate would have passed the bill that we worked on in the summer, and we would have passed additional sanctions in 2013.

The content of those sanctions is important, but even more important is the momentum. If you are a multinational corporation, you can find a law firm that will find loopholes in our existing sanctions, but you will decide not to invest a lot into that business plan because you know Congress is going to pass more sanctions.

Well, now you know we are not passing any sanctions in 2013; and the question before us, as legislators, is whether we will be passing sanctions in 2014.

Why is momentum so important not just to those international businesses trying to decide whether to invest in exploiting the loopholes? Most of economics is psychology. It is currency values. It is consumer confidence. It is business confidence. It is investment. And we saw the celebrations in Tehran as the business community celebrated this agreement because it ends the continuing momentum toward additional sanctions.

But we are not here, again, to grade the administration. That is for pollsters and pundits. We are here to decide whether to pass legislation.

It is very clear we are not going to pass legislation that becomes effective in 2013. The question before us is whether we will pass legislation which, by its terms, becomes effective June 1, 2014. And the reason the administration sent some of its top officials to brief us in a classified briefing today is because they want to convince us not to take any action in the first 5 or 6 months of 2014. Well, what does that mean? That means, in effect, we are not going to take action in 2014. Why is that?

Most people think that this deal expires in late May, 6 months after it was adopted on November 24, 2013. That is not the case. The start date is some day to be determined sometime probably in late January. So if we, as a Congress, are convinced not to take any action, not to pass any legislation, not to go through the committee process and the markup until after this

agreement has terminated, we are talking about late July. Well, at the end of July, we go on break. We come back for, what, 2 or 3 weeks between then and the November elections.

So if the administration can convince us to not do anything until 6 months after the trigger date, which is a date to be determined sometime in January, they can assure the Iranians that no new sanctions will be adopted in 2014. And that will be apparent to those doing business in Iran and those doing business with Iran.

The administration complimented us more than once, saying these sanctions are what brought Iran to the table, but let us remember that the administration opposed the adoption of these sanctions every single time. The reason we did not adopt any sanctions against Iran in 2009 was because of opposition from the administration and the tremendous intellectual clout and credibility that the State Department and administration bring.

But it is not just this administration. We didn't pass any sanctions during the entire 8 years of the prior administration. Oh, we passed some through the House, but they stopped them in the Senate, and with considerable effort. Not one bill became law. So we have seen two administrations do their best to delay, dilute, prevent, and defeat sanctions legislation.

So now they say, Isn't it great we have this legislation, but don't pass any new legislation. Let us remember, we were against the legislation they now say is so great.

The best example of this is the Kirk-Menendez amendment in 2011. That was the bill that prevented Iran's central bank from clearing their petroleum dollar-denominated transactions through the American banking system. Well, what did the administration say in the form of a letter from Secretary Geithner? He wrote on December 1, 2011: ``I am writing to express the administration's strong opposition to this amendment because, in its current form, it threatens to undermine the effective'' sanctions. ``In addition, the amendment would potentially yield a net economic benefit to the Iranian regime.''

There is only one reason Iran is at the table today. It is because of the sanctions we have adopted the last 3 years. And the most important of those was the Menendez-Kirk sanctions that the administration fought against.

What we ought to do is adopt legislation providing additional sanctions. And we have already written them. We passed the bill in June, with 400 votes on this floor. We should have those sanctions--and I would think others--go into effect on June 1, unless Congress, in an expedited proceeding, passes a resolution saying, Hold off. We've seen enough progress. These sanctions don't need to go into force.

Instead, and the other choice, we can do nothing on the theory that we will do the right thing in the last few days of July, as if Congress turns on a dime, as if the State Department has been unsuccessful in delaying, defeating, and diluting sanctions in the past. That, I think, would be a mistake.

With that, I would point out that this deal calls for a rollback of sanctions that violates American law in a number of respects. It will not be the first time that an administration has refused to enforce the sanctions bills passed by Congress.

I will say that from 2010 through 2013 this administration has done a much better job of enforcing such legislation than either of the prior two administrations. But as a technical matter, the administration has agreed to waive that which the law does not allow it to waive, particularly section 504. And I will go into the details in some other forum.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend Joyce Black, who passed away on Friday, October 4, 2013. I wish I could be at the funeral today to be with her husband Stanley and the rest of her family, but my congressional responsibilities keep me in Washington.

Joyce lived a truly remarkable life. She was involved with numerous charitable and civic organizations, including the American Diabetes Association, City of Hope, Stop Cancer, Vista Del Mar, Israel Bonds, the Jewish Federation, the L.A. Jewish Home, the L.A. Opera, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, and the Temple of the Arts. In fact, earlier this month, Joyce and Stanley made a special donation to Children's Hospital Los Angeles that will fund research and clinical care programs at the hospital. Joyce was devoted to providing the best medical care to our children.

I extend my sincerest condolences to Stanley, her son Jack, and daughters Jill and Janis. Married for 57 years, Stanley and Joyce's partnership was truly inspirational. Joyce leaves behind a remarkable legacy of kindness and generosity that will impact not only those who were lucky enough to meet her, but future generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Work Group Act of 2013, I note that Sec 2 (b) implicitly calls for reductions in direct spending programs, but does not authorize the working group to consider additional revenue.

I have checked with the Parliamentarian and he has informed me that it is in order to give a bipartisan speech, even today. So I have a speech that I think most Members, on both sides of the aisle, can agree with. Mostly.

I have been here 17 years. I have been working every day for the toughest Iranian sanctions. This House has passed bill after bill. The Senate passed about half of them. And for over a decade, several administrations have basically refused to enforce the Iran sanctions that passed both Houses of Congress.

Then about three years ago, this Administration started enforcing our sanctions laws. They unleashed the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorist Financing and Intelligence, (TFI) and its Office of Foreign Asset control, (OFAC). TFI and OFAC are doing a great job. Yes, something the Federal Government is doing is working.

Iran's supreme leader was forced to allow one of his own insiders to run on a reform platform. And the Iranian people voted for the most reform they were allowed to vote for. It is clear that Iran wants out of these sanctions and is willing to surrender critical parts of its nuclear weapons program, but only if we are very tough in sanctions negotiations.

Let us remember why there is nothing more essential than preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran's supreme leader, on his Web site today, says the Holocaust is a myth and wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Iranian troops are in Syria backing Assad. Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism.

Now, imagine terrorism with impunity. There is nothing more essential than stopping Iran's nuclear program. In order to do that, we need more sanctions. Why? Because every day Iran develops ways to get around the existing sanctions program. That is why we need to do a bit more as they are undoing what we already have in place.

But what is actually happening? TFI and OFAC are basically shut down, 90 percent furloughed. Seventy percent of our Intel Community's civilian employees are on furlough.

So what needs to happen? First, restaff TFI and OFAC. These are essential government functions. Second, pass a clean CR because all aspects of our foreign policy, our national security operations, our intel operations are critical to keeping Americans safe from terrorism and stopping the Iranian nuclear program. And just as critical is our credibility worldwide. So it is time to drop demands that everyone knows the Senate and the White House will never accept, and pass a clean CR.

Third, it is time for the executive branch to use the statutory authority we have already given them. For example, they have designated about two dozen Iranian banks, cutting them off from the international system. It is time for them to designate all Iranian banks.

Fourth, the Senate needs to pass a bill that passed on this floor with 400 votes last July, The Nuclear Iran Prevention Act.

Staff the agencies, pass a clean CR, designate all the Iranian banks, pass and implement The Nuclear Iran Prevention Act; and we may just see a world safe from the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Mr. Speaker, this government, the government of the greatest Nation on Earth, will reopen only when the public decides that one party is being uncompromising and unreasonable.

The continuing resolution that the Senate sent us sets the spending level, and it sets the level right there at the Republican Ryan budget level--$250 billion below the President's request, $72 billion below the Senate Democratic budget. When it comes to spending levels, we have compromised. It is manifestly unreasonable to shut down the government to achieve a legislative objective.

Today, we are told that they will keep the government open for 45 or 60 days if only we allow them to dismantle ObamaCare. In December, they will say we will keep the government open a little longer if only we will strip-mine Yellowstone.

What if Democrats took the same tactic? What if we said we are going to shut down government until we get immigration reform, campaign finance reform, or gun control? We are as dedicated to those issues as they are to their ceaseless quest to repeal ObamaCare. But we will not shut down the government, we will not destroy the economy, we will not take hostages, we will not hurt this country just to get our own way.