Floor Statements

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, to proceed with a select committee to find out what happened at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of September 11, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 2 years since a terror attack claimed the lives of four brave Americans in Benghazi: Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith; former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty; and former Navy SEAL and Bronze Star recipient, Tyrone Woods.

Over the past 2 years, our committees in the House have aggressively investigated what happened that night in Benghazi and the Obama administration's preparedness and response to those terror attacks.

Unfortunately, the White House has engaged in a pattern of obstruction, consistently ignoring subpoenas, redacting relevant information, and stonewalling investigators. This obstruction gives cause to the grave concerns expressed by countless Americans across the country.

Mr. Speaker, what is worse, as the White House refuses to turn over documents, they go in front of the American people and claim to be transparent. Those in the administration claim to be cooperating. They claim to be focused on bringing the perpetrators of that attack to justice.

Mr. Speaker, the attacks in Benghazi brought the first time an American Ambassador was killed in the line of duty since the 1970s and, to this day, not a single perpetrator of the attacks has been arrested or brought to justice. We should be using every tool necessary to find those responsible and bring them to justice.

After ignoring for nearly a year a lawful congressional subpoena, the White House, under court order, finally released emails showing that administration officials deliberately and deceptively misled Americans, claiming that the attack in Benghazi was the result of an offensive Internet video, rather than the product of a failed foreign policy that allowed radical Islamic terrorists to flourish in post-Qadhafi Libya.

This obfuscation and refusal to come clean to Congress has left us, as well as the people of this country, wondering: What else is the White House hiding?

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want Americans to believe that this investigation is motivated by politics. No. This investigation would not be necessary had the Obama administration come clean. This investigation would not be necessary had the Obama administration complied with congressional subpoenas.

This investigation would not be necessary had the Obama administration not misled the Congress, the American people, and the media about what happened in Benghazi.

The American people deserve the truth and, most importantly, the families of those four brave men deserve the truth.

This committee will build upon the excellent oversight work conducted to this date and ask questions and demand answers. Constitutional checks and balances were intended to ensure that each branch of government conduct itself with the utmost integrity and do so within the law. That is our duty, and we will solemnly and judiciously carry this out.

Today, we have an opportunity to stand together and take another step closer to accomplishing that goal, to finding the truth; and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the American Research and Competitiveness Act.

Mr. Speaker, right now, America isn't working for too many people. Last month alone, 800,000 people left the workforce, and many more continue to search for a job. Working people are having a tough time too. They are having a tough time climbing the economic ladder of success, partly because America is struggling to remain competitive in the global marketplace.

However, we have an opportunity to change that today by passing this legislation and improving the R&D tax credit and making it permanent.

This action will grant the U.S. a chance to compete for more research and development investment dollars while manufacturers are being courted by other countries that have more stable R&D tax incentives and lower corporate tax rates. But the positive economic impact will not be constrained to manufacturing alone. It will also bring new investments to the energy industry, medical research, STEM advancements, and information technology, among others.

A 2011 study by Ernst & Young found that strengthening the R&D tax credit would raise wages by up to $3 billion in the short term and $8 billion in the long term. It would also increase employment related to research by 130,000 in the short term and over 300,000 jobs in the long term. With the American economy sputtering along, this bill creates an opportunity that we simply cannot afford to pass up.

Mr. Speaker, to put it simply, this legislation is about jobs. This legislation is about giving American workers and middle class families a chance at new opportunities. This legislation is about creating an America that works again, an America that works again for everybody.

Let's stand together in a bipartisan fashion and pass this bill so that we can help turn this economy around and begin to move in the right direction once again.

I want to thank Chairman Camp for his leadership in bringing this bill forward, for Congressman Brady in the Chamber from Texas, and the rest of the Ways and Means Committee for their hard work on this issue.

I urge my colleagues in the House to support this bill.

I thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Issa, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to hold Ms. Lois Lerner in contempt. The substance of this resolution should not be taken lightly. The contempt of the U.S. House of Representatives is a serious matter and one that must be taken only when duly warranted. There is no doubt in my mind the conditions have been met for today's action.

Mr. Speaker, there are few government abuses more serious than using the IRS to punish American citizens for their political beliefs. The very idea of the IRS being used to intimidate and silence critics of a certain political philosophy is egregious. It is so egregious that it has practically been a cliche of government corruption in works of fiction for decades, ever since President Nixon's administration.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in this instance, under Ms. Lerner's watch, this corruption became all too real. Conservatives were routinely targeted and silenced by the IRS leading up to the 2012 election, unjustly and with malice. Those targeted were deprived of their civil right to an unbiased administration of the law. These citizens, these moms and dads simply trying to play within the rules and make their voices heard, were left waiting without answers until Election Day had come and gone.

Liberal groups were not targeted, as my colleagues across the aisle like to claim. Only conservative groups were deliberately singled out because of their political beliefs, and they were subjected to delays, inappropriate questions, and unjust denials.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are owed a government that they can

trust, not a government that they fear. The only way to rebuild this trust is to investigate exactly how these abuses occurred and to ensure that they never happen again. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, a Republican or a Democrat or hold any other political or philosophical position, your rights must be protected from this administration and all those that come after it.

For nearly a full year, Lois Lerner has refused to testify before this House about the singling out and targeting of conservative organizations. She spoke up and gave a detailed assertion of her innocence and then refused to answer questions. She later spoke with DOJ attorneys for hours but still refused to answer a lawful subpoena and testify to the American public. As a public servant, she decided to forgo cooperation, to forgo truth and transparency.

In 2013, Ms. Lerner joked in one uncovered email that perhaps she could get a job with Organizing for America, President Obama's political arm. This is no surprise. Our committees have found that Ms. Lerner used her position to unfairly deny conservative groups equal protection under the law. Ms. Lerner impeded official investigations. She risked exposing, and actually may have exposed, confidential taxpayer information in the process. Day after day, action after action, Ms. Lerner exposed herself as a servant to her political philosophy, rather than a servant to the American people.

This, Mr. Speaker, is why the House has taken the extraordinary action of referring Ms. Lerner to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution and is why we will request a special counsel to investigate this case.

Not only has the President asserted that there is ``not even a smidgeon of corruption'' at the IRS, but leaks from the Department of Justice have indicated that no one will be prosecuted. That is not surprising, as a top donor to the President's campaign is playing a key role in their investigation, potentially compromising any semblance of independence and justice. An independent, nonpartisan special prosecutor is needed to ensure a fair investigation that all Americans can trust.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know the full context of why these actions were taken. As early as 2010, leading Democratic leaders were urging the IRS to take action against conservative groups. How and why was the decision made to take action against them?

The American people, Ms. Lerner's employers, deserve answers. They deserve accountability. They deserve to know that this will never happen again, no matter what your political persuasion. The American people deserve better.

Because of Ms. Lerner's actions, because of her unwillingness to fully testify, and because she has refused to legally cooperate with this investigation, I urge my colleagues in the House to hold Ms. Lerner in contempt.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 4438, the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014, sponsored by Representative Kevin Brady. This bill will provide American businesses with the certainty they need to invest in good-paying middle class jobs and develop the technologies of the future.

The House is also scheduled to consider a privileged resolution finding Lois G. Lerner, former Director, Exempt Organizations Division, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 10, the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act, authored by Chairman John Kline. Mr. Speaker, America does not work if our children are trapped in failing schools. This bipartisan bill provides an opportunity for our children to attend schools which foster a quality learning environment focused on those students succeeding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that for 30-plus years, the R&D tax credit has been on temporary extension. This is nothing but reflecting reality, saying that this is a very important part of incentives, so that we can fulfill the mission that the gentleman is on, that we share as well, which is more manufacturing here in America.

If making it in America is important, the R&D tax credit is fundamental to that mission. This has been in place for over 30 years on temporary extension, and to hold it hostage as the gentleman suggests, Mr. Speaker, is not the way to go about facilitating growth in our economy.

I respect the gentleman's commitment to fiscal discipline. Obviously, we have different opinions about how to get to that goal, but both of us, I think, would agree, Mr. Speaker, that growth is something that has been too little, too tepid, and we need to return to an era in which we can see some robust growth in our economy.

It will help those who are chronically unemployed. It will help businesses grow. It will help communities grow and families get by easier, so they can see a better future. This R&D tax credit is something that, as the gentleman says, he supports, and to support that means support it as it has existed, but let's once and for all send the signal of certainty that this will be the policy for manufacturing and others in this country, so we can continue to innovate.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the difference in the SGR to this is we have consistently offset the expenditures under SGR. This R&D tax credit is a tax credit. It is allowing businesses who invest to keep more of that investment, to plow it back into research.

The precedent is not there, as it is on SGR and the other items that perhaps the gentleman would point to. This is important to growth. This is important to manufacturing. We should all join together and support the current extension of what has been in place for over 30 years, on extension over a dozen times.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to just point out that the last time the gentleman's party was in the majority in this House during a lame-duck session we did extend the R&D tax credit unpaid for. I hear what the gentleman is saying, but I would point that out for historic accuracy.

I would say this, Mr. Speaker. I guess there may be a little bit of different view on how deficits are created. The disproportionate cause for our deficit is the fact that we have demographics in this country, 10,000 people every day turning 65 becoming eligible for our health care entitlement programs, and those programs are almost 50 percent-- the Medicare program is almost 50 percent underfunded. That is the disproportionate cause of the deficit.

I think all of us have said you can't tax your way out of it; you can't grow your way out of it; you have to change the structure of the program. That is something that the gentleman's party nor the President will agree with us on. That is the disproportionate cause of the deficit.

An additional cause of the deficit is we don't have enough growth; we don't have revenues coming into the Federal Government. For some reason, there has been an acceptance around here of a new norm, a very low and tepid growth. The R&D tax credit is something that is growth oriented; it is certainty. The gentleman said so himself. The gentleman said that manufacturing in America needs certainty in the R&D tax credit.

We have essentially been allowing an R&D tax credit since 1981 in this country. So let's just call it what it is and make it permanent so that we can get back on the path to growth. Addressing growth, addressing our unfunded liabilities connected with entitlement programs, that is the sure way to reduce deficits and reduce the debt burden.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would just respond, we have had this discussion before. The majority is in opposition to the Senate bill. The Speaker has said as much, and I have said as much.

I have also said, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman, to the President, and others that we have got a lack of trust between this House and the White House. I have said to the President that what could help is we start rebuilding that trust, which starts with an admission that it can't be my way or the highway, and it must instead be building trust, understanding where we can agree together.

Yes, we all agree the system is broken. We have a system that is broken on the legal side, and we have illegal immigration. There are things that this House has done before, like a green card stapled to a diploma. The President says, no, we can't do something like that; we can't do something like that without taking care of everything. That, to me, Mr. Speaker, is where the problem lies.

There is not enough trust on the part of the Members of this body to think that the White House and the administration is going to implement whatever it is that we pass. So instead, why shouldn't we focus on where we agree and start from there? That has been the position that I have expressed to the gentleman as well as to the administration.

So again, I just take issue with his insistence that somehow we can just do that and it will all be fixed. That is the fundamental problem here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the accomplishments of Patient Services Incorporated (PSI) and to congratulate the organization on its 25 years of assisting Americans obtain the treatments and therapies they need. PSI is a national non- profit patient assistance charitable organization, headquartered in my Congressional district in Midlothian, Virginia. PSI has provided assistance to countless Americans in all 50 states and serves as a vital safety-net charity to help meet the needs of Americans suffering from expensive rare and chronic diseases.

Through PSI's leadership and determination, our nation's most vulnerable seniors are now able to access the treatments and care they need with the financial help of non-profit charitable organizations. I have visited with the devoted staff at PSI in the past, toured their campus, and I am proud to have PSI headquartered in my district.

PSI was founded out of the professional and personal experience of Dana Kuhn, a former Presbyterian Minister from Jackson, Tennessee. While employed as a clinical counselor at now VCU Hospital in Richmond, Virginia, Dana Kuhn encountered families devastated by chronic illnesses. Dr. Kuhn founded PSI in an effort to help this underserved community, and since then PSI has focused on finding solutions to the challenges facing the chronically ill.

Today I would like to congratulate PSI on its 25 years of helping Americans access medical treatments and therapies. In particular, I commend its Founder and President, Dana Kuhn, on his service to our country and his fellow man by creating this charitable organization.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pro-Growth Budget Act.

Right now, America is not working for too many people. For years, our economy has remained stagnant and job growth weak.

At the current time, three out of four Americans report that they are living paycheck to paycheck. The ability to climb the economic ladder of success and live the American Dream is becoming much more difficult for millions of people.

Mr. Chairman, this is the status quo in America, but it is a status quo that we must not accept. Our constituents deserve better. Our constituents deserve a government that is focused on turning this economy around and making America work again, and work again for everybody.

In the House, there are some very clear differences on how to solve America's problems. My Democratic colleagues believe the best way to move the country forward is with $1.8 trillion in new tax hikes so that this government can even spend more. That is not right, and it is not fair. Working Americans deserve a chance to put more of their hard- earned paychecks into their personal savings accounts, to invest that or spend it on their families before they are forced to send it to Washington.

We House Republicans have a better plan, a balanced budget that will begin to provide working families, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet, with just a little relief. The budget before us will create jobs. It will cut wasteful spending. It will reform our Tax Code and hold Washington more accountable. Plain and simple, this budget is pro- growth. This budget is about making America work again.

Today, Members of the House have a very simple choice. We can continue the status quo, stand in the way of economic progress and new opportunities for working middle class families, or we can choose to lead the American people down a path to prosperity where all Americans have a chance at success.

Mr. Chairman, passing a budget is not only an important step to restoring trust in government and faith in our economy, it is our legal obligation to do so. The House passes a budget even when our paychecks aren't on the line. The House Republicans choose to lead on this issue. We have passed a budget every year since taking the majority. So let's now stand together and fulfill one of the most important duties that we were elected to do and pass a budget that the American people that sent us here can be proud of.

I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of the Budget Committee, for his continued dedication to reining in wasteful spending and restoring fiscal responsibility and in balancing the budget.

I also want to thank the other members of the Budget Committee for their hard work continuously on this issue.

I urge my colleagues to pass this budget on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider three bills from the Budget Committee.

The first bill, H.R. 1871, the Baseline Reform Act, authored by Representative Rob Woodall of Georgia, would require CBO and OMB, when scoring legislation, to assume that the baseline does not increase or decrease for discretionary spending, which they do now. This practice added $1.2 trillion to the baseline in 2013.

The second bill, H.R. 1872, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, written by Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey, brings off- budget programs on-budget to provide a more accurate accounting of these programs.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider and pass a budget resolution on time for a fourth consecutive year. The Republican budget, under the leadership of Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and the Budget Committee members, will adhere to the agreed-upon spending limits and balance the budget in 10 years, as we did last year, increase economic growth and job creation, create opportunity, lessen the middle class squeeze, cut wasteful government spending, and strengthen our entitlement programs.

I would say to the gentleman, for this fiscal year, he is correct.

Mr. Speaker, first I would ask the gentleman just to refer to a letter by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, dated March 19, to the Majority Leader and the minority leader in the other body. This letter essentially lays out the case for why their bill is unworkable. Again, these are the folks that are in the business of administering these programs.

I would also say to the gentleman, I think the gentleman knows our position on that bill. It doesn't create any jobs. Right now, we are in the business of trying to see how we can get people back to work, for an America that works for more people, and I would say to the gentleman, I look forward to joining him and focusing on that.

Mr. Speaker, I would say back to the gentleman, it is my opinion that what the gentleman asked for is a continuance of the status quo.

We want to get people back to work. We are in the business of job creation. We want to provide a better environment for businesses to hire folks. We want to help those folks who are chronically unemployed access the skills necessary to fill the job openings today. As the gentleman knows--and I am sure his district is not unlike mine and many others--there are a lot of job openings that are left open because the workforce doesn't have access to proper training and skills.

I look forward to joining with the gentleman in looking towards the future and to how we can help those who are out of work get a job.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that what we are amenable to is looking to try to fix the problem. I would also refer the gentleman to the fact that the emergency unemployment insurance that the gentleman speaks of was in place for the longest time, I am told, in history, and that it was in place for an emergency.

As the gentleman well knows, we have in place 6 months of unemployment insurance benefits for those who are out of work. I know that what those who are out of work beyond that, who are deemed chronically unemployed, want most is an opportunity to get back to work. That is where I believe we ought to focus our efforts and really help people get back into a job so that they can support themselves, their families, and create a better future.

So I hope the gentleman will join us in refocusing away from accepting the status quo as the new norm and, instead, try to enhance the prospects for the pursuit of happiness for more people. And we are about an America that works for everybody, including those who are chronically unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, we, too, would like to see the SGR overhaul replaced with something that works. Our

Physician's Caucus on the majority side of the aisle has put a lot of work into this issue, together with the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, have come up with a plan, as the gentleman knows, that had bipartisan support.

The problem is how to pay for it, and as I think the gentleman would agree, we can't go and continue to incur costs without finding out ways to pay for it, and that seems to continue to vex--many of the problems around here are trying to discover bipartisan pay-fors.

We made a commitment to continue to work with those Members who are most engaged in this issue and look forward to continue working with the gentleman to try to find those pay-fors, so we can put in place a long-term plan to give some certainty to our providers under Medicare.

I would just say to the gentleman, as he knows, both the Speaker, I, and others have said we reject the comprehensive approach taken by the Senate.

Also, as the gentleman correctly states, we are in favor of trying to fix a very broken, antiquated, legal immigration system, as well as trying to do something to stop illegal immigration. We just have an issue about the President's insistence on, first of all, saying it is his way or the highway.

Secondly, the gentleman and I have talked before about the growing frustration that many Americans have, as well as Members on our side of the aisle, about the seeming disregard for the law by this administration in selectively implementing laws that have passed, specifically as it relates to the Affordable Care Act.

How would one know provisions that will be upheld, implemented, executed in whole or not, given this situation surrounding the ACA? Those are the kinds of challenges we face.

I would also note to the gentleman that the kind of thing that he refers to, comprehensive immigration, we reject that notion that the Senate bill, and we reject comprehensive efforts that have been undertaken over the last several years because they haven't worked so well.

Instead, we should be looking to try and do the things that we agree on. What about border security--border security itself? If we can agree to say that is going to be our position, we are not negotiating on a comprehensive bill, that we have to take care of that.

What about the kids? The gentleman knows I am very focused on trying to do something that we can agree on, but without saying that that has to be a precursor to something that the President insists, or otherwise, we can't even have the discussion.

So, again, we have got a lot of issues with regards to immigration. I would say to the gentleman I understand his frustration. I think that we have plenty of people who are also frustrated, given how things have gone with this White House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership in bringing this bill forward, the Save American Workers Act. It is today that I rise in support of the Save American Workers Act.

Mr. Speaker, every working American deserves a fair shot at climbing the economic ladder of success, and every wage earner deserves a chance to

live the American Dream. However, over the past few months, we have watched the President's health care law wreak havoc on working families and squeeze the middle class, who are already struggling to make ends meet.

As we all know, millions of people have seen their premiums and deductibles go up under the President's health care law, while others have been forced off the very plans they were promised they could keep. But that is not the full picture. Because of the 30-hour workweek provision in ObamaCare, wage earners could see their hours reduced, resulting in a 25 percent cut to their pay.

Now, let me just take a moment to explain exactly who might see their paychecks shrink. According to a study by the Hoover Institution, there are 2.6 million Americans especially at risk of having their wages cut. Of those 2.6 million, 59 percent are younger workers between the ages of 18 and 34, many of whom may be trying to save for college or for their first home; 63 percent are women, many of them single moms trying to support their children. The median household income for families most at risk from harm under this ObamaCare regulation is just over $29,000. That is the median household income most at risk.

The bottom line is this: the workers most affected by these cuts are those who earn the least. For someone who currently earns $10 an hour and works 40 hours a week, being cut to 29 hours means a loss of $110 each and every week. Three out of four Americans are already claiming they are working paycheck to paycheck. A 25 percent cut to their income would have a devastating effect. This is not how America should work.

While this rule will impact Americans in all different industries, those who are most likely to be affected work in retail, restaurants, manufacturing, and even America's education sector.

In my hometown of Richmond, many school districts have begun to limit part-time workers to less than 30 hours a week to avoid added costs imposed by the advent of this health care law and would thus strain their budgets.

A substitute teacher named Amy, from Chesterfield County, Virginia, was asked by the Richmond Times-Dispatch about the burdens of this rule under ObamaCare, and she said: ``The people that it is going to affect are the people that need or want to work every single day.''

So why is the government punishing those who are looking to earn an honest wage?

This administration believes that they can hide the reality of the wage cuts with an increase in the minimum wage. But that proposal, which the nonpartisan experts say will result in 500,000 lost jobs, is not the answer. The answer is restore the 40-hour workweek and let people work.

We have known for a long time that the President's health care law was broken, but now it is beginning to break the backs of American workers. Our constituents don't deserve this broken law or more broken promises. They deserve a fair shot at success without the government standing in the way.

Today, we have an opportunity to unclench this middle class squeeze and restore the 40-hour workweek so that wage earners don't have to worry about smaller paychecks. So let's stand together, in a bipartisan fashion, and take a big step towards creating an America that works again--and works again for everyone.

I would like to thank Chairman Camp, Representative Young, and the rest of the Ways and Means Committee for their hard work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support working families by passing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Ukraine Support Act. Vladimir Putin's recent military invasion and illegal annexation of Crimea

stand in direct violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and international law. His aggression may only continue unless we in America, along with our allies, respond with strength.

Newspaper reports indicate that Putin may not be content with swallowing Crimea whole and that he is now amassing troops on the border with eastern Ukraine and may soon have his eyes on Moldova.

The eyes of the world are on the United States and our EU and NATO partners. Adversaries and allies around the world are watching to see how we respond to this outrageous provocation, to see whether we mean it when we say Putin's actions are unacceptable.

It is vitally important that the United States, in conjunction with our EU and NATO allies, send an unmistakable signal that this aggression will not be tolerated. Together we must be prepared to exact a significant cost for Russia's behavior and that Mr. Putin's actions will be met with the firmest of resolve.

This bill is a first step towards supporting the Ukrainians and our Central and Eastern European partners and imposing truly significant costs on Moscow--but it is only a first step. We must fundamentally reassess our assumptions about Russia and acknowledge that Putin himself scrapped the administration's ``reset'' policy a long time ago. We need a new strategy that understands Putin for who he is, not who we wish him to be.

We need a new grand strategy. We need a foreign policy that stands up for our allies and stands up to our adversaries. We need to prioritize defense in our budget so that we maintain a military that can respond promptly to contingencies around the world and that instills fear in our enemies while reassuring our allies.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill, modest though it may be, will prove to be the first step on a long march to restore America's defenses and alliances. Now, more than ever, the threats to the very fabric of the international system require an America that leads.

I want to thank very much the gentleman from California, Chairman Royce, and Ranking Member Engel and the rest of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for their bipartisan work and for all of their efforts on this issue. I urge my colleagues in the House to support our friends in Ukraine by passing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. In addition, the House will consider an important bill next week to address the middle class squeeze by making sure that government policies do not provide incentives for employers to cut hours for their employees. H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act, sponsored by Representative Todd Young of Indiana, will protect hardworking Americans from losing up to 25 percent of their wages as a direct result of ObamaCare's 30-hour rule.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I expect the House to consider the first of three budget process reform bills next week to help reduce out-of- control spending and improve accountability to the taxpayers. Representative Tom Price's Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, H.R. 1874, will require CBO to provide detailed information on the economic impacts of major legislation as a supplement to CBO cost estimates.

With that, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and he is correct. The Budget chairman, Mr. Ryan, intends to hold a markup next week in his committee, and the expectation is, once that markup occurs next week, that we will have the budget on the floor the following week.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, that is accurate.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I have not had discussion with the chairman on that particular issue. I am aware of the gentleman's concern, and I think the gentleman represents his caucus in the desire, unfortunately, to limit the defense spending. I think the question is probably aimed at the fact that we have differences on that because, given what is going on in the world right now, I feel very strongly for the need

for American military power and our ability to project that, not always necessarily to use it, but necessary in our diplomatic role as well, so I don't have an answer to the gentleman on that and refer him to the Budget chair. I am glad to engage in any conversation with him going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, and he knows and he and I have spoken, that most of our conference feels strongly that the existing system is broken. We have got to do something about maintaining the enforcement and implementation of the law. We have to do something about the antiquated system of legal immigration to address the needs of our country.

The problem has been, Mr. Speaker, that there is a serious deterioration in the trust factor with what is going on in terms of the White House and its execution and implementation of the laws. I recall, Mr. Speaker, a prior conversation that my friend, the Democratic whip, and I have had on this floor about the trust factor. I in one instance even indicated to the gentleman that the comprehensive health care law that was passed, now in the vernacular known as ObamaCare, is an example of where we have seen that the White House has by whim, seemingly, chosen to either waive provisions, extend deadlines without consultation with Congress, seemingly without awareness of what the law says. That is not a good way to operate. It is not something that increases the confidence and trust of the American people. So I would say to the gentleman, there is no interest in picking up a comprehensive bill like that if we can't trust that once the law is set, that the White House is going to necessarily implement the law as it stands.

So I am sorry to say to the gentleman that the situation of trust is how it is, but perhaps he could do some good by talking to the White House and telling the White House the law is the law, and for their unilateral actions taking place and failing to implement the law is a very troubling thing for a lot of us and a lot of the constituents that we represent.

Mr. Speaker, all I would like to say to the gentleman is

he and I disagree that there would be a majority of votes for H.R. 15. It is a reflection of the comprehensive Senate bill, and I don't believe we have a majority in this House for that bill.

I would furthermore ask the gentleman whether he thinks--or I would just say that perhaps it would be more constructive that we sit down and begin to talk about where we can go in a direction that we have in common, that we feel that we can agree on things rather than differences; rather than filing discharge petitions, perhaps it would be a little more constructive to sit down, instead of demanding our way or the highway.

Again, too much of that has been the way this town has worked over the last several years, and it is unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday, April 1, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Goodlatte from Virginia for his leadership on this effort.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the ENFORCE the Law Act. Our Founders created a series of checks and balances for our democracy, to prevent any one of the three branches of government from becoming too powerful. This separation of powers has always been one of the most important pillars of our political system and an example of good governance for the world to follow.

For over 200 years, America has prospered because we adhere to a Constitution that makes each branch's role explicitly clear: the elected representatives in Congress pass laws, the President faithfully enforces them, and an independent judiciary adjudicates disputes.

This lesson is so important that we teach it to our school children and articulate it to our citizens, so they understand the rules of the road.

When we fail to uphold this system and one branch of government begins to tip the scales of power in its favor, we descend towards chaos. Today, we are seeing the system break down.

This administration's blatant disregard for the rule of law has not been limited to just a few instances. From gutting welfare reform and No Child Left Behind requirements to refusing to enforce immigration and drug laws, the President's dangerous search for expanded powers appears to be endless. Whether one believes in the merit of the end goal or not, this is not how the executive branch was intended by our Founders to act.

These actions not only weaken the credibility of our political institutions, they also threaten our chances of returning to a time of robust job growth by creating uncertainty in the economy.

This has become most evident with the implementation of the President's disastrous health care law, which is wreaking havoc on small businesses, which is wreaking havoc on wage earners and families. Even The Washington Post ran a story this weekend detailing how arbitrary changes to ObamaCare are creating mass confusion for consumers. Our constituents deserve better.

Steps taken by this administration show that it doesn't care for the rule of law or for the balance of powers designed by our Founders. The only way to reestablish the intent of our Constitution is to create a process by which either Chamber of Congress can take the matter to court, which is what this legislation does. It goes hand in hand with the Faithful Execution of the Law Act, which we will consider later today. That bill requires the administration to tell Congress when they have decided that they don't like a law and are refusing to do the constitutional duty and enforce it.

These bills are not just about President Obama. What if future Republican Presidents decide that they don't like the tax increases enacted by Democrats in Congress or by a past Democratic President? Can that President just refuse to collect those taxes or resist enforcing laws he doesn't like? No. Any future President must work with Congress to seek changes in laws that need to be reformed. As James Madison said, ``To see the laws fruitfully executed constitutes the essence of the executive authority.''

We have an opportunity today to stand together in a bipartisan manner and put mechanisms in place to prevent the executive branch from continually abusing its power, and they will remain in place no matter which party controls the White House. So let us pass this legislation and show the American people that we are committed to a government that functions the way it was intended to--within the framework of our Constitution.

I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Representative Gowdy, Representative DeSantis, and the rest of the Judiciary Committee, who have worked so hard on this very important issue. I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to support the bill.