Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in their agitation over the debt, our Republican friends have obstinately focused on program cuts alone, ignoring the harm to American families and the economic recovery. Their mindless slashing of the budget is costing jobs, while damaging communities. Yesterday's news about EPA cuts hurting local efforts at clean air and clean water is another example.

More than a quarter of the deficit growth since 2001 resulted from the economic downturn which reduced tax revenues and increased programmatic spending. You spend more on unemployment when more people are unemployed.

Our focus should be on job creation, which reduces unemployment costs and increases tax revenue. However, in their first 6 months in the majority, the Republicans have not passed any legislation to create jobs.

The government's budget is often compared to a household budget, but every family knows that expenses are just one side of the equation. How many Americans, in tough times, take on second or even third jobs to increase their income because some expenses just can't be cut?

As a Nation, we have the ability to increase our revenues, our income. An obvious place to look for additional income is closing tax loopholes and ending unnecessary subsidies, for example, for large oil companies would be one of the best places to start.

Tax incentives are intended to help businesses create vital American jobs or develop technologies to improve our way of life. We as Democrats support those tax incentives that increase domestic manufacturing and other American businesses which create jobs and

aid the economic recovery. These tax breaks promote our national economic priorities and put people back to work.

But when a company's profits are $10.65 billion in just 3 months, such as ExxonMobil's were earlier this year, who can reasonably argue that that company needs expensive incentives to stay in business and make money?

The 10 most egregious tax loopholes enjoyed by the large oil companies have helped the five largest companies make a combined profit of nearly $1 trillion over the last decade.

The billions we spend every year on subsidies for the largest oil and gas companies are not moving us any closer to energy independence or a clean energy economy. The subsidies are not necessary and they're not useful for our economy.

In 2010, nearly 60 percent of big oil companies' profits went to stock buybacks and dividends, not job creation. With oil produced at $11 a barrel, and sold for $100, tax breaks for oil companies are simply wasteful handouts, transferring money from working families to corporate stockholders. The difference over what was sold for an average barrel of oil, $72 average production price; average production cost, $11.

No American family should be giving up their dinner to donate money to the millionaire next door. Removing these tax incentives will save taxpayers $40 billion over the next 5 years with only minimal impact in the profit, not in their operations. Cutting subsidies will not raise oil prices, which are set in a global market that this year will be in the range of $2 trillion to $3 trillion.

Subsidies in the Tax Code, instead, should be directed toward emerging technologies like wind and solar. That's where the real jobs are. A University of Massachusetts study found that incentives for clean energy create two to four times more direct and indirect jobs compared to investments in oil and gas production.

Another obvious place to cut is the ethanol tax credit. We don't need to subsidize something that industry is mandated to buy.

We cannot ask children and seniors to bear the brunt of sacrifice while we are simply giving more money to large corporate interests that don't need it. We must make tough choices to ensure we leave a sound economy to the next generation, but we have to make those choices wisely so we leave a Nation that is competitive, prosperous, healthy, and educated.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2021, which undercuts Clean Air Act standards and would allow large oil companies to circumvent air pollution regulations. I strongly believe that America needs to ensure our energy security and reduce our dependence on imported oil, but this bill is not the way to accomplish this goal. I support safe and responsible resource extraction and further developing our renewable energy capacity. But energy independence will not be secured by curtailing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act to protect the nation's air quality standards.

H.R. 2021 would severely limit the EPA's authority to protect human health and the environment. It would allow companies to waive permit reviews by the Environmental Review Board and would exempt them from requirements to use pollution control technologies, despite the ready availability of these technologies. Removing these controls would allow damaging pollutants to be released into the air, including nitrogen dioxide, particles, and sulfur dioxide, which would have significant health, environment, and climate impacts. The regulations to prevent this pollution are reasonable, commonsense provisions, yet this bill would undercut them, allowing widespread damage to human health and the environment for benefit of few wealthy companies. The health and environmental damage would be seen on all coasts where drilling takes place.

According to some estimates, Shell's proposed 2010 drilling plan for the Arctic alone would have released as much particulate matter as 825,000 additional cars on the roads, traveling 12,000 miles each. This is only a single company's plan for a single drilling location; the full ramifications of this bill across all companies and all regions would be immense and disastrous.

H.R. 2021 would also increase Federal court litigation, taking authority from local courts and giving it to the D.C. Court of Appeals. This replaces an established, inexpensive process for citizen challenges to government actions with a longer, more expensive review process by a court that may not be familiar with the local coastal and air quality conditions.

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Federal policy should be more diligent than ever in pursuing safeguards and regulations that make sure that such costly, destructive events are made less frequent, rather than commonplace. Stripping out the environmental protections that we already have is irresponsible and it puts not only the Oregon coast, but communities from Alaska to California and from Maine to Florida at unnecessary risk. H.R. 2021 does nothing to secure a clean, safe path toward energy security. I oppose this legislation.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. I appreciate all my colleagues who represent the Oregon coast for bringing this forward. Now, my district may not actually touch the Oregon coast, but my constituents and I spend time there, value its beauty, the ecosystem, and the economic benefits it brings to the United States. The underlying bill could bring all of these at risk, allowing expedited drilling for offshore drilling, a process that is expedited for those who would drill, but a process that is much worse for citizens who may object.

We need to continue to respect the wishes of Oregonians to keep oil rigs off our shores, prohibiting sources from obtaining permits to drill off the coast of Oregon. This amendment is an appropriate safeguard to protect our coastal environment and communities.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 9: Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

Page 31, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 10: Page 127, line 18, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $15,000,000) (increased by

$15,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct a vote that I made in the amendment series of H.R. 2112. During the roll call votes, I voted ``no'' on the Campbell amendment to prohibit funding from the Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service account for being used for the purpose of destroying wild animals in order to protect livestock. I intended to support the amendment, as I firmly believe that the federal government should not support cruel, drastic measures of animal destruction. My record is strongly supportive of these types of provisions, and I regret that I missed another opportunity to state my strong disapproval to many of the trapping and poisoning methods employed in the destruction of wildlife.

I wish to clearly state for the record that I supported the Campbell- DeFazio amendment and did not intend to vote against it.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the amendment from my good friend from Arizona. I appreciate his work over the years as we've tried to refocus attention and our resources in areas that are more productive for most American farmers and ranchers, for the taxpayer, and for the general economy.

I just heard my good friend talk about his concern about who's going to feed America in the future. Well, the issue of having these lavish agricultural subsidies that are concentrated three-quarters in the top 10 producers, and they are not people who are in the main producing food, the fruits and vegetables that people care about that would add to nutrition. The people that are in my agricultural community in Oregon are basically shut out. 87% don't receive it. They are not getting support for some of the things that are market neutral in terms of marketing, in terms of research that's being slashed, in terms of commonsense support for meeting their environmental objectives to protect clean water and habitat.

Being able to start tamping this down is essential. The AGI limitation, the one that I had on the floor last night that would limit the total amount of payment, these are things that there's never a good time to deal with them. I've been through three farm bill cycles. I've heard the body express itself in terms of instructions to the conferees and watched them disregard it when it came, for example, to limitation of payment.

I would like to turn to my friend from Arizona to yield some time. Before I do, I just want to correct one misapprehension that is floating around about the amendment that we had on the floor last night that limited title 1 payments to $125,000 per entity.

Now, some people are pretending that this would somehow affect disaster payments or crop insurance. No. It is just title 1 payments. It's very simple. It's set forth in the bill. Anybody can read it. And it's not going to deal, for example, with disaster payments. But on this note, I would like to yield to my good friend from Arizona, thanking him for his continued partnership and advocacy in this area.

I appreciate his clarification. I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment. It's insane that instead of changing our trade-distorting, unjustified subsidies, that we're instead going to subsidize the cotton industry both in the United States and in Brazil. It's certainly not the approach that we should be taking at a time when we're going to have to do business differently. We talk about people getting economic haircuts. What happens today is that 31 congressional districts get more than half of all the subsidies. They, not coincidentally, are districts that are concentrated on the Ag Committee and have a different perspective than the majority of the people in the House.

I'm hopeful we can work our will with these amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to engage in a colloquy with my friend from California (Mr. Farr) about cuts in this legislation.

As I have been analyzing the legislation coming before us, Mr. Farr, it appears that the legislation, if approved in the form that is before us, would have a really devastating impact upon American farmers, families, and the environment. The legislation before us, as I understand it, cuts nearly $1 billion from the five main conservation programs, conservation programs that put money directly in the pockets of family farmers.

Over the last 5 years, these programs have been so popular that the list of farmers who want to participate greatly outweighs the availability. Both the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program have twice as many applicants as they can serve. And the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program combined have over 1 million acres waiting to apply.

These are not programs that are underutilized or ineffective. They appear to be widely popular and provide a direct benefit to America's farmers and ranchers. These would appear to be exactly the type of programs we should be supporting. They provide support for family farms and producers who are doing exactly the right thing, ensuring that we use precious tax dollars not only to support farmers and ranchers but to ensure clean water, clean air, and fertile productive soil.

They are a blueprint for a better path forward, a farm bill that helps farmers add value and truly supports small- and mid-sized operations. I was wondering if you would care to comment on my concerns.

I appreciate the sentiments of my good friend from California, as I appreciate his leadership on issues that relate to both agriculture and protecting the environment.

Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that Members will spend time looking at what this means to farmers and ranchers in their communities and hope that as the legislation works its way through Congress, we will be able to reverse these efforts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I listened to my good friend from Texas talk about deferring yet again to the Ag Committee, that somehow this payment goes to the Brazilian cotton industry and not to the cotton farmers, a distinction without a difference I would suggest.

I rise in support of my colleague from Wisconsin in this proposal. I've been in this Congress having watched three farm bill reauthorizations, and each time we find that there is expression on the floor of this Chamber for actual reform. We've asked for limitations. We are told well we just don't--the floor doesn't understand; it's too complicated. Well, it is complicated and twisted because this is an effort to try, through the complexity, to layer efforts here that cheat the American consumer, that hurt the environment, and pose serious problems for international trade.

And my friend from Wisconsin is correct. We were talking about this in the last farm bill, and we got our comeuppance, but instead of responding responsibly in reducing or eliminating the illegal cotton subsidies, we're shoving upwards of a half-billion dollars to the Brazilian cotton industry, and I'll be prepared to argue, it benefits cotton farmers. So we're subsidizing two countries because we fail to reach our responsibilities now.

I sincerely think this is wrong. I think $147 million could go a long way towards helping the part of American agriculture that grows food that we categorize as specialty crops who are dramatically shortchanged.

I would like to yield the remainder of my time, if I could, to my good friend from Wisconsin, the sponsor of this amendment.

And Mr. Chair, on that note I, too, commend what my friend from Wisconsin is doing. I look forward to the comments from my friend from Arizona. If we're serious about reform and saving money, it's time to move in this area.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, these are challenging budgets and difficult economic times. But unfortunately, there really are alternatives to slashing environmental payments and nutritional support in the farm bill. There is an alternative to reform and modernize.

The last farm bill pretended to start limitations in payments. But exempted from the modest limitations in some areas were market loan payments, loan deficiency payments, and commodity certificates not capped. This means that entities can virtually receive unlimited title I dollars under the current law.

Mr. Chairman, it's important for us, as we are dealing with trying to reduce the strain on the Federal budget, to do so in a way that is strategic. The amendment I propose would establish a $125,000 payment limitation in total. Now, this will save two-thirds of a billion dollars.

Bear in mind that we are now cutting existing environmental contracts if this bill came forward. The majority of farmers and ranchers in this country still receive nothing, 62 percent receive nothing. In my State of Oregon, it's 87 percent of the farmers and ranchers. It's time to start with modest restrictions on government subsidies.

There are a wide range of areas in this budget. As it's working its way through the House, we're going to see very dramatic reductions, almost a third in transportation. We sliced $1 billion from sewer and water programs to State and local governments. At a time of record high farm commodity prices, this would be a time to place this modest limitation.

There's actually a question whether or not some of these payments even go to farmers at all. In 2009, some of the entities that received title I handouts--the Fidelity National Title Institute received over $4.85 million. Almost $3 million went to the Mercer County

Abstract Company. The American Marketing Peanut Association received largesse from the Federal Government worth over $3.98 million.

These aren't the small family farmers that I think all of us would like to support.

In this day and age, it's embarrassing to be giving away $4 million of taxpayer money in 1 year to a private, for-profit company when I think what we should be doing is concentrating on the support for America's farmers and ranchers. We have the opportunity, with this amendment, to take a step in this direction.

I would strongly urge that my colleagues join with me in adopting this amendment establishing a $125,000 overall limit, and be able to start saving two-thirds of $1 billion and send a signal that we're serious about reforming spending.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his kind words and thoughtful analysis.

The approach that we are taking here is to put an overall limit of $125,000 in addition to what we are talking about. This would have only affected about 6,500 entities in 2009. It is an appropriate step forward.

I hear some of my colleagues concerned about changing the rules for a few thousand people who are getting huge amounts of subsidy. You know, this bill will change the rules for tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers who would otherwise get environmental protections, payments for environmental programs. In fact, some of the existing contracts would be abrogated.

Now, there are going to be lots of changes going on. I hope that we start now beginning the process of agricultural reform and making clear that we want to start by putting some overall limitation during a time of record high farm prices. There is never a good time to do it. I think the time to do it is now.

I look forward to a spirited debate on farm bill reform. I hope at some point we are able to actually do some meaningful reform, as acknowledged by even the proponents from the committee. We have got lots of problems with the existing bill. We could do a better job. It is complicated.

Well, this isn't complicated. This is straightforward and direct, and I urge an ``aye'' vote in support of the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's words, and I appreciate his courtesy.

I listened with amusement to my friend from Georgia talk about his concern that we're going to be importing food from overseas if we have some reasonable limitation on these title I payments.

The food, which are the fruits and vegetables that the people in my State raise--and I met with a bunch of them this last week again--get zip. They get nada. We're cutting back on the research funding for them. We're cutting back on marketing. We're cutting back on helping them comply with the environmental requirements that they want to meet because they're good stewards of the land. We're making it harder for them to do the work of producing food for America. Yet we're having lavish subsidies for five commodities, which is where 90 percent of the money goes.

If you really cared about protecting the food supply, we'd redirect it. We'd save this $650 million, and we'd put it where it would do more good.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Today we are starting the most important debate of 2012 in Congress, the reauthorization of the farm bill.

Now, it is true that we are just talking about the ag appropriations bill, and much of the reform agenda will be difficult or ruled out of order due to the restrictive approach of the rules, although in the past some of my Republican leadership friends have had no compunction about legislating on appropriations bills. But here we will be protecting large agribusiness instead of American farmers, ranchers, consumers, and the environment.

This debate matters. Each point that is made on the floor or in the media, each vote that is accumulated against the status quo and towards change and fairness is another step towards reforming the one area that almost every independent analyst agrees is right for reform.

From the far right to the far left, people agree it is time. American agricultural policy is frozen in time through the past collection of farm bills. It misallocates scarce dollars, it spends too much on the richest farming interests who really don't need it, and doesn't provide enough support for the majority of farmers and ranchers who do. It does not place a priority on the nutrition of our children, and it unleashes an assault on the environment.

There must be a better way. There is a better way. Cutting back on unnecessary expenditures for the wealthy and the undeserving would make it possible to give a little more to the farmers and ranchers, the majority of whom don't get anything under the current farm bill.

Now, most farmers and ranchers don't just want money. They would much rather have assistance to make them more competitive. There is far more that can be done by providing for important research to strengthen the production of food. More can be done to market American agricultural products at home and abroad, to establish farmer's markets. More can be done to protect farmers and their crops from disease and pests. And we can do so in a way that is consistent with our environmental values and our budgetary constraints.

Farmers and ranchers as a group are some of the most outstanding stewards of the land and the environment we have in America. But we are looking now at a farm bill that is going to dramatically cut back the money to help them with environmental compliance, even requiring breaking some existing contracts.

But complying with environmental regulations and changing policies is going to take some effort and in some cases is going to cost money. Why aren't we protecting the environmental programs and providing technical assistance to help these agricultural interests do what they want to do, which will not only improve water quality, wildlife habitat and air quality, but will put money in their pockets, supporting small and medium-sized operations?

Then there is the issue of nutrition. By skewing the production to artificially prop up and make profitable sugar, massive subsidies for corn, putting big money behind it, instead of improving the nutrition for our schools, for example, we are literally subsidizing a diet through our tax dollars that is making our kids sick. Instead, we should be helping them both be well-fed and healthy, not just well-fed with empty calories, but with fruits and vegetables that will strengthen their bodies and the prospect for long-term health. But the people who grow food, like fruits and vegetables, are discriminated against under existing American farm policies.

Help farmers and ranchers grow food, protect the environment, and strengthen the economy. It is a simple formula. It is hard to imagine a more pro-American agenda and one that Americans from all across the political spectrum agree with. It is time to listen to them, to work for them, and make it happen.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for my good friend from Georgia, Congressman Kingston. He got dealt a tough hand by a really unpleasant, mean-spirited, unnecessary Republican Budget bill. There are real consequences for moving forward with the Ryan budget. But in a sense, this is the first debate of the 2012 farm bill.

We have a farm policy that spends too much on the wrong people to do the wrong things. There are opportunities for us to rebalance the equities. Now you are hearing some debate about whether or not we should honor a WTO commitment to Brazilian farmers for $147 million a year. The only reason we're doing this is because Congress, in its wisdom, would not cut back on the cotton subsidies that go to American farmers, that are inappropriate and unnecessary. But instead of changing the system, we're paying Brazilian farmers for our cheating. That's goofy. And I think, at a minimum, we ought to remedy that. Put it into nutrition for poor women and children.

Now I will tell you that all you have to do is ask the hunger advocates in your community. Every Member of Congress has people who are dealing with the problem of hunger and food insecurity in their districts. I commend my friend Mr. McGovern for his leadership in dealing with the issue of hunger at home and abroad. We ought to be dealing with it here and now. This bill that's coming forward ought to rebalance the equities with the cotton subsidies for Brazilian farmers. There are other remedies. But we ought to look at every single amendment that comes to the floor to change the farm bill allocation under appropriations as a first important step towards rebalancing and having a healthy agricultural policy----

To having an agricultural policy that serves our interests, those of our children, our families; that gives more to farmers and ranchers and less to international farmers and huge agribusiness interests; that doesn't slash environmental support for American farmers but helps us here at home.

There is a better way. There is actually bipartisan support, if we can ever see our way clear to getting it to the floor. This debate this week is an important first step, and I urge my colleagues to vote accordingly. This is a battle we can win on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has called on Congress to oppose irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric toward Latinos, and instead to focus on fording solutions to the nation's most pressing concerns that work for all Americans. Today, I join with them in opposing irresponsible rhetoric and supporting the importance of civil discourse in the political process, especially on issues related to race and ethnicity.

The current national immigration narrative misrepresents the Latino community. Some use the community as a scapegoat, and some blatantly encourage xenophobia for political gain. Like all Americans, Latinos care about and are deeply affected by the complex issues facing our nation: serious economic challenges, a flawed immigration system in need of reform, an unnecessarily complex tax code that often hurts the middle class, and an aging infrastructure that endangers the literal ties between us. Those who slander, dehumanize or disrespect any community in particular are refusing to solve problems in a thoughtful, constructive way.

If we as a country join hands, move forward and choose to be respectful of Latino--and all racial and ethnic communities--we can solve our problems together. Every day, Latinos make substantial contributions to the economic, civic, and cultural life of Oregon and this country. I encourage my colleagues to seek out and consider the Latino perspective on today's issues, and to find areas of common ground based on our shared values and interests. I encourage them to meet with NCLR and other Latino businesses, non-profits and community groups in their area. Hearing the Latino perspective benefits all Americans. I consider it an honor to represent the Latino families, students, workers and constituents of the 3rd congressional district in Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 91st birthday of Stanley Sheinbaum, one of our country's most unique civic leaders. In his early years, Stanley served as a cartographer in World War II and was a student at Stanford, where he received top honors. He went on to become a Fulbright scholar and a professor of economics--first at Stanford, then at Michigan State. In 1964 he married Betty Warner and together they moved to Santa Barbara, where Stanley became one of the most vocal opponents of the war in Viet Nam. He twice ran for Congress on an aggressive anti-war platform and helped raise money for the legal defense fund of Daniel Ellsberg, the Defense Department analyst who leaked the ``Pentagon Papers'' to the New York Times.

After the war, Stanley remained deeply involved in the causes that were dear to him. His many interests, accomplishments, and important relationships are too numerous to recount. A few of the highlights include the nine years he served as chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, where his leadership led to a ten-fold increase in contributions. In 1988, he was the leader of a Jewish-American delegation that convinced Yasser Arafat to recognize Israel and disavow terrorism. From 1991-93 he served as president of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners in the wake of the Rodney King beating, during which time he led the fight for justice and accountability, during that explosive period in the city's history.

His many achievements are in a delightful documentary, Citizen Stanley, which pays tribute to his many years of service and activism. Today, here in Congress, we have the opportunity to wish ``Citizen Stanley'' a happy birthday as we celebrate his extraordinary life and many contributions, especially to American justice and foreign affairs. At 91 years of age, Stanley Sheinbaum continues to inspire the best of the American progressive tradition.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, today I voted against both House resolutions that are the wrong response to the United States participation in an international coalition to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Libya.

I do not, however, support an open-ended commitment. Additionally, my vote last week for the Conyers amendment to bar all funds from being used to deploy, establish, or maintain a presence of Members of the Armed Services or private security contractors on the ground in Libya makes clear I only support a limited U.S. role.

Too often the greatest powers, including the United States, have failed to act when they could have intervened in a responsible way to stop the slaughter of innocents. In Libya, it was clear that there was a crisis developing and America, with our NATO allies, the Arab League, and the UN Security Council, appropriately provided limited support to rebel forces.

That assistance included a no-fly zone that has undoubtedly saved thousands of lives.

It would have been an unfortunate precedent and undermined key global institutions if we failed to act with such a clear, unified call for intervention.

Inaction would have endangered the recent display of democratic aspirations by so many in the region.

Our failure to act would have emboldened the despots of Syria, Iran, Yemen and others, suggesting there were no consequences for murdering peaceful protesters.

Our primary role in the NATO mission has been to provide operational and logistical support to other countries that have taken the lead on enforcing UN Security Resolution 1973.

The Kucinich resolution is ill-advised, requiring U.S. forces to cease all operational support for the NATO mission in Libya within 15 days. I believe that we must not turn our backs on our allies and more importantly, the innocent civilians in Libya who want the right to choose their own government.

Speaker Boehner's resolution, while not calling for an end to U.S. involvement in Libya, is factually inaccurate and attempts to rewrite history.

I will welcome thoughtful legislation acknowledging that the U.S. has chosen to answer the cries of the innocent Libyan people, but makes clear that our commitment to their aspirations of self governance is not open-ended, and which clearly defines our goals and--more importantly--limits.

There's no more important agenda item currently facing Congress than ensuring America pays its bills and honors its obligations. The accumulated choices of Congresses and administrations, past and present, have created the debt and the need to honor the obligations--like an unfunded war in Iraq that's going to cost trillions of dollars, or an unfunded Medicare prescription drug program both from our Republican friends.

We're not going to default on our debt. With over a hundred of my colleagues, I signed a letter calling for a clean extension and offering to work with the Republican leadership so they wouldn't be held hostage to the most extreme members of their party in order to push through draconian proposals that have no chance of being passed, which would unsettle the markets and do damage to things that Americans care about, like the reckless proposal for ending the Medicaid guarantee to seniors and additional tax cuts that are unaffordable.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership decided not to treat this seriously. They're bringing a bill to the floor which they're not supporting.

They put it on the suspension calendar so it had no chance of passage, and they think somehow this is constructive. Well, it's not.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for us to be serious, to avoid taking legislative hostages. Maybe the Chamber of Commerce thinks that Wall Street is in on the joke that is represented by their legislative ploy here today, but I'm not certain the American public is. It's time to stop the games.