Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, we have a humanitarian crisis at our border that challenges the capacity of the United States of America to address it from both a resource perspective and from a compassionate perspective.

Tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors are seeking entry into this country, children who are fleeing extreme violence in the northern triangle countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

Now, there are some in this institution who want to lay blame for this crisis at the feet of the Obama administration. This is not a surprising development because these individuals are members of the BBO caucus, the blame Barack Obama caucus.

Whenever anything happens in this country or in this world, they want to blame the President of the United States. Something goes wrong in Iraq, a war that was prosecuted, that was botched, that was mismanaged by the previous administration, the BBO caucus blames Barack Obama.

So we are seeing a similar phenomenon as it relates to this humanitarian crisis. First, they claim it was brought about by the President's decision related to deferred action connected to individuals falling into the DREAMer category.

But they failed to note that in order to be eligible for deferred action, you have to be in this country continuously since 2007. That claim has no basis in reality.

Then they say, well, the President refuses to enforce our Nation's immigration laws. How silly is that argument? Hundreds of thousands of individuals have been deported by the Obama administration each and every year in

record numbers, particularly when compared to the previous Republican President. The unenforcement argument has no basis in reality.

Then, lastly, they say, well, this has to do with comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive immigration reform is not the law of the land. The bill was passed by the Senate. It hasn't even been acted upon by the House, let alone sent to the President for his signature. And even if a pathway toward citizenship were created, if you look at the legislation, only individuals in this country since December of 2011 would be eligible.

Yet the blame Barack Obama caucus doesn't care about the facts. Well, here are the facts. The individuals, the children who are fleeing and who are coming to this country, are trying to escape extreme violence, gang activity, drug trafficking, sexual abuse, and intimidation. The Northern Triangle countries of Central America--El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras--are among the most violent in the world. Honduras is the murder capital of the world--number one. El Salvador is number four, and Guatemala is number five.

How do we know that this phenomenon is not simply Uncle Sam throwing his hands up saying come into our country? Well, here is another reason. All of the Central American neighbors to our south outside of these Northern Triangle countries have also experienced an exponential increase in unaccompanied minors. Mexico, Belize, Panama, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua have all experienced significant increases in children coming to those countries, more than a 400 percent increase collectively in asylum applications in 2012.

This is not a pull from the United States. These children are running for their lives. And so we have got to address it with an understanding of what is the root cause of the humanitarian crisis.

Several of us on the Judiciary Committee have introduced the Vulnerable Immigrant Voice Act because we believe that the unaccompanied children should have access to counsel. It would benefit the taxpayer in making immigration proceedings more efficient and ensuring expedited removal when merited and in making sure that unnecessary detention doesn't take place.

Now, many of these children will not have a valid legal basis to remain, but some will. Some will have asylum claims, U visa, or Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, and for that reason we should give them access to counsel and do what is right for these children.

Mr. Speaker, more than 3 million Americans have been left behind by the failure to renew unemployment insurance. These individuals live in urban America, in suburban America, and in rural America. They live in blue States and they live in red States. They are simply Americans in need.

As a result of the callousness of some in this Chamber, they have been put in great economic jeopardy, and we have cost the economy more than $5 billion. We should be extending a helping hand to these individuals, but instead we have slapped them in the face in a manner that is disrespectful of the compassion of the American people.

It is time to do the right thing and to renew unemployment insurance so that we can rescue those Americans left behind on the battlefield of the Great Recession.

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

Mr. Chair, let me first thank the distinguished chairman as well as the distinguished ranking member for their great work with respect to this legislation.

This amendment makes a modest adjustment to the bill that would increase funding for the Defense Health Program by $10 million. It is budget neutral by reducing the Department of Defense's departmentwide operation and maintenance funds by a corresponding amount.

Let me first take this opportunity to express my strong support for the critical work of the Defense Department overall. The adjustment made by this amendment will still leave the Department with an extremely robust amount of operation and maintenance funding while ensuring that necessary resources are available for vital research and development that will aid both servicemembers and civilians alike.

The Defense Health Program oversees all medical and health care programs for the Defense Department. DHP's research and development activities help advance medical research to provide innovative solutions for servicemembers and their families facing medical trauma as well as advance the state of medical science in areas that benefit our broader society.

Over the last 10 years, there has been a significant increase in the amount of reported cases of PTSD in servicemembers. These increases are seen in both those deployed overseas as well as in nondeployed servicemembers. For those servicemembers who are deployed, the number of incidents of PTSD has increased twelvefold over the last 10 years. For those not deployed, the number of reported incident cases has nearly doubled. The annual total for reported PTSD cases has remained at unprecedentedly high levels over the last 5 years.

While we are currently winding down the war in Afghanistan, American troops continue to see action on the battlefield. With more of these troops returning from deployments over the next several years, it is likely that the number of PTSD cases will hold steady, if not increase. Furthermore, increased international unrest and uncertainty may result in future troop deployments to other parts of world, making it likely that the number of reported PTSD cases will remain at a high level. This amendment will invest resources to help inform health professionals on how best to treat our military personnel moving forward.

Furthermore, the need for increased research concerning PTSD is not limited to our military. High levels of violence in many communities throughout America have induced PTSD-like conditions for some trapped in these unfortunate circumstances. Research undertaken by the Department of Defense can benefit families and community health professionals in treating our children and others impacted in this way. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support additional medical research to help the military victims of PTSD and our broader society.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the Chair for his work on this issue as well as the ranking member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me first just thank the chairman and the ranking member for their tremendous effort in connection with this bill. As well, I thank the chairman for his distinguished service and work as it relates to the issue of gun violence prevention, to which this amendment relates.

In order to address the growing problem of youth gang violence, this amendment sets a minimum allocation amount with respect to funds issued under the Department of Justice's authority to make public safety and community policing grants. It would do so by requiring that no less than $5 million of funding for COPS grants be used ``to establish and implement innovative programs to increase and enhance proactive crime control and prevention programs involving law enforcement officers and young persons in the community.''

This category is presently one of 17 uses of grant amounts authorized under law. However, there is no funding minimum set in law to ensure that these program grants are being allocated to address youth violence. With the growing amount of gang activity that involves young people throughout our country, funding in this particular area is essential.

There are currently at least 1.4 million criminal street gang members and 33,000 street gangs in the United States. This represents a 40 percent increase since 2009. Much of this rapid expansion of criminal street gang activity is caused by the active recruitment of juveniles. According to the FBI, almost 40 percent of gang members presently are young people under the age of 18.

In a report issued by the National Gang Threat Assessment report, criminal street gangs cause 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions. Consequently, there are neighborhoods throughout our country, including many in New York City, that continue to be plagued by violence attributed to rising street gang activity. This, of course, has led to increased drug trafficking, gun violence, human trafficking, and the prostitution of minors, as well as school-based assaults, robberies, and thefts.

The COPS grant program has been a tremendous success, but more must now be done in the area of gang-related youth violence. This issue presents a discreet problem that requires targeted law enforcement solutions. Accordingly, this amendment is designed to ensure that additional funding under the COPS program is allocated to proactive law enforcement programs targeted at the reduction of criminal street gang activity and youth violence.

By setting a funding floor of $5 million in total grants connected to a category already authorized under law, we can take an additional step toward providing State and local law enforcement with the resources needed to protect communities throughout America. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan objective by voting in favor of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Nevada, my good friend, Representative Horsford, for his eloquence and for his leadership, for anchoring today's extremely important CBC Special Order commemorating the 60th anniversary of this historic Supreme Court decision.

I look forward to our continued partnership as we move forward dealing with issues of significance, not just to the districts that we represent in Nevada and in Brooklyn, New York, and parts of Queens, respectively, but all across the country.

We really appreciate the opportunity that we have, each and every week, as part of the Congressional Black Caucus' Special Order, this hour of power, to come before the people of this great country and speak directly to them for 60 minutes about an issue of great importance.

We have heard a lot about the seminal nature of the Supreme Court's decision in 1954, Brown v. The Board of Education, an important decision, striking down this principle of separate but equal, exposing it for the fraud that it was, recognizing that, inherently, this doctrine was just designed to hold up the notion of segregation in this country, under a false premise that you can have institutions of learning that were separate but equal. Inherently, these institutions were unequal, as the Supreme Court found.

This reversed decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence that had been designed to uphold segregation and Jim Crow laws and racial hatred in America, first codified by the Supreme Court, we know, in 1857, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, where the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice held that Blacks had no rights, whether they were free or whether they were slaves, that the White man was bound to respect. In this country, that is what the Supreme Court concluded in 1857.

A war was fought as it relates to the conflict between the North and the South. Lives were lost, a lot of blood was spilled, and coming out of that conflict, of course, you had the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th Amendments.

There was still a lot of people in America that didn't want to accept the notion of all men being created equally, as had been written in that glorious document, that Declaration of Independence; so we got the Black codes, and we got lynchings in the South, and we got Jim Crow segregation.

Then again, in 1896, the Supreme Court felt the need, in Plessy v. Ferguson, to step in and raise segregation up to the constitutional level and conclude in this Supreme Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, that separate but equal--segregation--was constitutional in the United States of America.

So the NAACP was subsequently formed in 1909, and some brilliant legal minds, over time, came together to help bring to life the democratic principles and ideals contained in the Constitution of the United States of America, but not actually practiced in this great country.

Some of the names have already been called. Of course, Thurgood Marshall was the chief legal architect of the strategy that led to the dismantling of racial segregation in this country, but there were brilliant legal minds that he went out and recruited: Jack Greenberg; Constance Baker Motley, who

went on to become a Federal judge; and Robert Carter, who went on to become a Federal judge; and Spottswood Robinson, who, I believe, went on to become a Federal judge--brilliant legal minds that came together.

And in 1954, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, thankfully struck down this constitutionally upheld principle from Plessy v. Ferguson and decided that separate but equal was constitutionally suspect and shut it down.

But then there were a lot of folks in America who still had to try to bring this principle to life. You had the desegregation struggles that took place all across the Deep South; James Meredith and the University of Mississippi in the early 1960s; and you had the Little Rock Nine, who attended the segregated Little Rock Central High School. These are brave individuals, young people confronted by angry mobs, bloodthirsty hounds, firehoses, and all sorts of intolerable things here in America simply to get an education. And we know that education pays.

So we still have a long way to go. We have made a lot of progress.

I represent a congressional district in New York State, and I am disturbed by the fact that New York is a State that has some of the most racially segregated schools in terms of its racial composition in the country. California is at the top of the list. Illinois is at the top of the list. Maryland is at the top of the list. And so we have got to deal with the continuation of this legacy, not because it is legally sanctioned at this point, but we still have far too many children educated in schools all across this country who are not being exposed to the diversity of this gorgeous mosaic that we have in America. And perhaps as a result of being isolated into schools with a high concentration of poverty, a high concentration of racial minorities, those schools don't necessarily have the same level of resources as we might find in other more affluent parts of America. So we still have some barriers that we have to strike down.

The road to equality in America is still under construction, but I think we, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus, are hopeful because we understand that if you trace the progress that has been made, we have come a long way over a pretty short period of time. Yet we know we still have a long, long way to go.

With that, I believe we still have another distinguished member of the CBC who has joined with us this evening.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Oregon for yielding, for his support, and for his leadership, as well as to Mr. Young.

Mr. Speaker, the Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument pays homage to American Revolutionary War heroes and patriots who lost their lives while fighting for our Nation's independence.

This structure was first erected in 1908 to memorialize and contain the remains of 11,500 patriots from the Revolutionary War who died while in British custody on ships anchored in the East River, immediately adjacent to Brooklyn, New York. The British maintained approximately 16 prison ships during the war, which became necessary after the limited land-based prison space reached capacity shortly after New York City fell to the British in August of 1776. These prisoners of war were housed in inhumane conditions; disease was rampant; and food and water were scarce. Each ship typically contained more than 1,000 men and boys.

More Americans died in British captivity than in all of the battles of the Revolutionary War combined. Many perished on these prison ships. The deceased represent patriots from all Thirteen Colonies and of more than a dozen nationalities. Accordingly, this is one of the only international war monuments in the world. The individuals housed on the prison ships could have obtained their freedom had they acceded to requests to join the British forces. However, very few opted to save their own lives, instead believing in the promise of America.

According to a written newspaper account of the situation:

American prisoners suffered so egregiously, in part,

because the British refused to recognize them as enemy

soldiers, which would have, of course, amounted to

legitimizing the colonial government, and therefore denied

them the basic rights ordinarily accorded to prisoners of

war.

It was not until 1908 that their remains were properly memorialized in a 149-foot-tall Doric column atop a 95-foot hill in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, beneath which is the crypt.

During the Great Depression, the monument as a whole fell into disrepair due to a shortage of funds, neglect, and a lack of public interest. The monument originally had four bronze eagles mounted to the corner granite posts. After repeatedly being vandalized, these eagles were removed, never to be returned to the park again. This is emblematic of the overall treatment of the monument, treatment that continued for much of the previous century.

In 2005, as part of a $3 million reconstruction project, which took 18 months, the condition of the monument improved somewhat. However, it is still under great threat as vandals continue to deface the property. This monument should be a place to memorialize forgotten martyrs and Revolutionary War heroes. Instead, it is now more frequently used as a skate park and as a casual recreation space.

To that end, the potential designation of the crypt and the monument as a unit of the NPS should be studied given its national significance and the ability of the NPS to protect our national treasures. The story of these brave heroes--with the atrocities they suffered--has been described as one of the least known accounts of the American Revolution. I respectfully urge my colleagues in the House to support H.R. 1501. Preserve the Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument, and help illuminate the sacrifices made by these forgotten patriots and American Revolutionary War heroes.

Again, let me thank the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member, for his support and for his leadership as well as that of Mr. Young's.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to once again have this opportunity to stand on the House floor as part of the Congressional Black Caucus' Special Order hour.

For the next 60 minutes we will have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people about an issue of great significance: the growing wealth gap in America that is stratified along racial lines. It is a wealth gap that should concern all of us here in the House of Representatives, and certainly people who are concerned about the well- being of this country in its entirety should be alarmed by any segment of this country being left behind across any measure of economic status.

We will get into that throughout the duration of this CBC Special Order. Certainly, I am glad to be joined by the distinguished gentleman from Nevada, my good friend, the coanchor of this CBC Special Order, Representative Horsford.

I will just begin by making the observation that it has often been stated that when Wall Street catches a cold, communities of color get the flu.

We know that in 2008, when the economy collapsed and plunged us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, Wall Street had a high fever; and as a result, as one might expect, communities of color all across the country have been suffering from economic pneumonia. In fact, a study that was prepared by the Center for Global Policy Solutions illustrates the point that communities of color were hurt the worst by the Great Recession and have benefited the least as a result of our recovery.

And so the wealth gap, broadly defined across measures such as home ownership and access to good-paying jobs, retirement savings, has gotten worse, exacerbated by the shock of the Great Recession and the disproportionate lack of certain communities benefiting from the recovery that has taken place. So these are some of the topics that we are going to explore during this Special Order.

I am pleased that we have been joined by a very distinguished member of the freshman class, my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, one of the best-dressed Members of the House of Representatives. I am surprised today that I do not see him with his classic bow tie. He is the ranking member of the CBC freshman class, but I believe he arrived here a little bit earlier.

I am pleased to yield to my good friend, Representative Payne.

I thank my good friend and the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for his very thoughtful and eloquent remarks and observations, and for pointing out that, while we can have disagreements, of course, here in this Chamber on matters of policy, we should all share the same objective as it relates to making sure that every American has got a robust, full, complete access to the opportunity to robustly pursue the American Dream.

As this report and the Color of Wealth Summit will illustrate later on this week, that is not necessarily the case right now in America, where you have such a disparate reality between the wealth in certain communities where the dividing line is race.

It is a wonderful thing that this great country is becoming increasingly diverse. I think our diversity is one of our great strengths.

But the reality of the situation is that if certain communities, the African American community, the Latino community, other communities of color, find themselves left behind, locked out, unable to advance economically in the numbers that they should because of barriers, institutional and historical, that have existed or been erected that we have yet to tear down, that is something that should alarm all of us because it relates to the ability of America to fulfill its promise as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have been joined by a very distinguished Member of the Congress, someone who has been a champion on issues of fairness and equality and justice for all Americans, and certainly for the district that he represents in Baltimore and in Maryland.

Let me now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for his very thoughtful remarks and observations, and for pointing out that if we can find a way to make sure that, collectively, the African American community is uplifted, the Latino community is uplifted, that we can close the racial wealth gap that exists in America across these different measurements, whether that is home ownership or access to good-paying jobs or retirement security, savings accounts, whatever the case may be, that if we can close this gap that exists, that America, overall, benefits, particularly as we become a more diverse country.

Now, 50 years ago our President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, came to this very floor and, before a joint session of Congress, declared a war on poverty. As a result of this legislative effort, there were several things that were put into place that have benefited Americans over time. Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, the school breakfast program, the Food Stamp Act, Job Corps, minimum wage enhancement, college work study--all of these programs were part of the effort to create a great society.

Over the last 50 years, as a result of the war on poverty, significant progress has been made. Tens of millions of Americans have been lifted out of an impoverished condition and set on a pathway toward the middle class. But we know that there is still a long way to go.

In fact, the middle class, broadly defined, has taken a huge hit in the aftermath of the collapse of the economy, and that hit has disproportionately and adversely impacted communities of color, and the African community in particular.

We are here to illuminate the fact that, in our humble opinion, that is bad for America as a whole.

I am pleased that my good friend, and the coanchor of this CBC Special Order, has joined us today, the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, who has worked incredibly hard on behalf of the district that he represents.

Let me now yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

I thank my good friend for that very comprehensive presentation and, in particular, for focusing in on the importance and the significance of investing in education in order to create a bright future for everybody.

Certainly, we cannot continue to allow so many people across this country to find themselves trapped in a dysfunctional public school system that essentially dooms them to life sentences of disadvantage and despair and fails to adequately prepare them for the challenges of a 21st century economy.

Now, we are here today talking about the racial wealth gap in America; and invariably, there will be some commentator who is going to make the observation: There they go again, members of the Congressional Black Caucus taking to the House floor, speaking about race.

Actually, it is not that frequent an occurrence, but we are compelled to do so today; and then, as my good friend made the observation: Who should we allow to talk about race in America? Should we just leave it to Paula Deen to talk about race in America? Does that reflect positively on this great country?

Should we just allow Cliven Bundy to talk about race in America? Does that paint our country in the best possible light? Or should we just leave it to Donald Sterling to talk about race in America? Does that reflect the views of the great many good-hearted people across this country? Of course we shouldn't. And so we are here today to illuminate a problem that we think America should deal with for the good of the country--not just the African American community, because there is a significant gap in terms of wealth generation, creation, and maintenance that threatens the economic security of this country.

Let me just briefly highlight a few points along this spectrum, one, in terms of the unemployment rate is a significant difference. The White unemployment rate is 5.8 percent in this country, as this chart illustrates. The Latino unemployment rate is 7.9 percent, and the African American unemployment rate is 12.4 percent.

In terms of annual median income, you see the same type of disparity. The average median income for White Americans is $57,009. The average median income for African Americans is $33,321. And in terms of overall wealth, for White families, $113,149, but for African American families in this great country, the average collective wealth is $5,677. That means for every $100 in a White household, a similarly situated African American household only has $5. That is a problem for America that we should all feel compelled to confront, and that is why the Congressional Black Caucus wants to invest in education and job training, invest in transportation and infrastructure, invest in research and development, invest in technology and innovation, and invest in preserving the social safety net so that you can lift up communities left behind by the recession, but also collectively lift up America for the good of everyone.

It is now my honor and my privilege to yield to the very distinguished gentleman from New York, a prominent member of the Ways and Means Committee, someone who has given so much of his life to public service and made such a difference for so many people in Harlem, in New York City, in the country, and, in fact, across the globe, the Lion of Lenox Avenue. I am proud to now yield to Congressman Charlie Rangel.

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

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his incredibly eloquent, thoughtful, and insightful presentation and analysis.

We have now been joined by a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, a voice for the voiceless, someone who has fought to promote justice and equality across a wide spectrum of issues but certainly in the economic arena in such a compelling way during her career in the House and throughout her entire career in public service. Let me now yield to the distinguished gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend for yielding.

The GOP budget is a product of the same type of extreme philosophy that gave rise to the reckless Republican shutdown last year. It is like a heat-seeking missile aimed directly at the American people. It is a parade of horribles too numerous to catalogue, but in the time that I have allotted I will try to highlight the most egregious aspects.

It will cut $125 billion from the SNAP program, making it difficult for millions of food insecure Americans to get access to the nutrition needed to live a healthy life. It will cut $260 billion from higher education spending, depriving young Americans of the opportunity to get a college education and robustly pursue the American dream. It will cut $732 billion from the Medicaid program, making it hard for older Americans to get access to this vital safety net program. It will turn Medicare into a voucher program--that is a Trojan horse--effectively ending Medicare as we know it. It will balance the budget on the backs of working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, and the afflicted.

The Democratic plan is designed to create progress for the greatest number of Americans possible. The Republican plan is all about prosperity for the few, and for that reason we should vote it down.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady, my good friend, from the Badger State for her leadership.

Mr. Chair, 50 years ago, President Lyndon Baines Johnson came to this very Chamber and declared a war on poverty, and as a result of the legislative efforts that were brought about in connection with the Great Society vision, tens of millions of Americans were lifted out of an impoverished condition and set on the trajectory toward the middle class.

The CBC is here today because we recognize that there is still a lot of work that needs to be done, particularly in the aftermath of the collapse of the economy, the Great Recession, the worst economic condition since the Great Depression.

That is why the CBC budget invests in the American economy, invests in job training and education, invests in transportation and infrastructure, invests in research and development, invests in affordable housing, invests in creating manufacturing jobs.

The CBC budget would renew unemployment compensation in order to make sure that the long-term unemployed, who are collateral damage of the Great Recession, can get back into the mainstream of our economy.

The CBC budget will give Americans a raise to $10.10 an hour by lifting the

minimum wage. By the way, that will help grow the economy because we have a consumer demand problem, and as a result of the increase in spending resulting from the minimum wage increase, everybody in America will benefit.

The CBC does this in a fiscally responsible way that will reduce the deficit, but it does it in a manner that does not balance the budget on the backs of working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, and the afflicted; and that is not even an exhaustive list of what the Ryan budget does.

So I am urging all of our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the CBC alternative, invest in America, invest in our economy, and invest in our workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Ryan Republican budget and in support of the alternative budget plan that has been submitted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

The CBC budget is an effort to take a balanced approach to deficit reduction; the GOP budget balances itself on the backs of children, college students, working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, and the afflicted.

The CBC budget would move America forward; the GOP budget would take us backward.

The CBC budget is designed to create progress for the greatest number of Americans possible; the GOP budget is designed to promote prosperity for the few.

As we engage in this budget debate, we should be here on the floor of the House of Representatives trying to find ways to promote the American Dream for the middle class and for those who aspire to be part of it. Instead, the Ryan Republican budget is a nightmare for far too many Americans.

My good friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, may suggest that when we use language such as that, it is hyperbole. Let's examine what the Ryan Republican budget actually does, because I believe, when you put it to an evidence-based analysis, one can come to no other conclusion than it will result in a nightmare for far too many Americans.

The Ryan Republican budget would cut more than $125 billion in food and nutritional assistance for food-insecure Americans. In this great country of ours, the richest in the world, there are more than 50 million Americans every day who wake up hungry and food insecure. Approximately 16 million of those hungry Americans are children. Yet the Ryan Republican budget would cut $125 billion in assistance to these Americans. That is a nightmare.

The Ryan Republican budget would also cut approximately $260 billion in funding for higher education, essentially robbing the capacity of so many younger Americans to pursue the American Dream of getting a college education.

In this country, there is already more than $1 trillion in collective student loan debt. That is more than $1 trillion. That reality, Mr. Speaker, means that so many younger Americans have an inability when they graduate from college to purchase a home, to start a family, to create small businesses. We are robbing these Americans of a viable future. And $260 billion in cuts to higher education funding, it seems to me, is a nightmare for younger Americans.

The Ryan Republican budget would also cut $732 billion from Medicaid. Almost two-thirds of the recipients of Medicaid are actually seniors, the sick, the disabled, and the afflicted. Don't believe this caricature that people like to create as it relates to Medicaid. Seniors, the sick, the afflicted, and the disabled benefit from Medicaid, and the Ryan Republican budget would cut $732 billion over a 10-year period from this vital social safety net program? That is a nightmare for the American people.

So this is not hyperbole. Unfortunately, this is reality.

I would urge my colleagues to take a real close look at the Congressional Black Caucus alternative, a fair and balanced alternative, a budget that would invest in job training and education, invest in transportation and infrastructure, invest in research and development, invest in technology and innovation, invest in the American people and our future.

That is why I am urging a ``no'' vote on the Ryan Republican budget and a ``yes'' vote on the CBC alternative.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill. Dynamic scoring, as contemplated in this legislation, is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is a desperate attempt to revive a failed theory of trickle-down economics that has been widely discredited by academics but, more importantly, has been discredited in practice.

Let's just look at a side-by-side comparison: Eight years under Bill Clinton, he raises the top tax rate to 39.6 percent, and 20.3 million jobs were created. George Bush comes into office. He lowers the top tax rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and what happens? Did the economy grow? Did the rich invest more in the economy? Does the economy take off? No. We lose 650,000 jobs. A side-by-side comparison.

Dynamic scoring is just designed to revive a theory that has hurt the American people when put into practice by a Republican Congress and George Bush.

We should be investing in job training, investing in education, investing in transportation and infrastructure, investing in research and development, and investing in technology and innovation. Instead of trying to promote progress for the greatest number of Americans possible, this budget, this bill, this Republican majority is simply trying to protect prosperity for the few. And that is why we should reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from the Silver State, Representative Steven Horsford, for his tremendous leadership in anchoring the CBC's Special Order and for the tremendous advocacy that you have consistently provided to the people of the congressional district you so ably serve back at home in Nevada and indeed to people all across this country.

It has been an honor and a privilege to serve as a coanchor during this CBC Special Order, this hour of power where for 60 minutes members of the Congressional Black Caucus have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people about an issue of great relevance.

Today as you have heard, we today stand here on the floor of the House of Representatives to celebrate the role that women have played throughout

the tapestry of the American people from the beginning of the Republic to where we stand right now in 2014.

Representative Barbara Lee spoke moments earlier about the Women's History Month theme, involving courage, character, and commitment. As I reflected upon that theme, several individuals came to mind. Certainly when it comes to courage, I think no one meets that threshold in American history perhaps more than the great Harriet Tubman, a conductor on the underground railroad.

Harriet Tubman is someone who displayed tremendous courage throughout her time here in this country. She was known for having a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other. Harriet Tubman freed herself from slavery.

At that point, after settling in New York State she could have simply gone on to try and live out her life with relative tranquility, having escaped the harshness of human subjugation down in the Southern part of this country.

Instead, Harriet Tubman, we know as history records, went back down South an additional 19 times and freed more than 200 Black slaves, risking her life, her well-being, her freedom each and every time she crossed the Mason-Dixon line to try and liberate those who were subjected to slavery in this country.

What is interesting about that life story and the courage that Harriet Tubman displayed, the selflessness and the sacrifice as this prominent conductor on the underground railroad, stations exist in the district that I currently represent in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, at the Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church.

What was tremendous about Harriet Tubman is that later on in life she was apparently asked about her heroics, the sacrifice, the selflessness, the courage, the willingness to risk life and limb to free others after she had already liberated herself. She made an observation that has always stuck with me. Harriet Tubman said: I could have freed more, if they only knew that they were slaves. I could have freed more if they only knew that they were slaves.

That suggests to me that sometimes people who find themselves in life in a certain station and notwithstanding their talents or their ability, the fact that someone has put before them a pathway towards success, an opportunity to move forward in pursuit of the American Dream, that there is something that constrains them and keeps them standing in place.

I have always looked to those words of Harriet Tubman and the great heroism that she displayed as a source of tremendous inspiration and something that should inspire all Americans--Black, White, Latino, Asian, men and women, older Americans, younger Americans--like courage, character and commitment. I certainly think in terms of courageousness you can find no one who had that quality in greater abundance than of course Harriet Tubman.

Now, Representative Lee also referenced Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm. I stand here today proud of the fact that I represent many of the neighborhoods that Congresswoman Chisholm once represented in this Congress.

She was elected in 1968 and became the first African American woman ever elected to the House of Representatives in the history of this great Republic, served seven terms, 14 distinguished years. She retired in 1982. At which point, there were parts of her district that were subsequently represented by Congressman Ed Towns, who served for 30 years in the Congress and whom I had the opportunity to replace.

Then there were other parts of her district subsequently represented by Congressman Major Owens, who served for 26 years and who Congresswoman Yvette Clarke subsequently represented.

For a great while there was a tremendous debate as to who actually held the legacy of Shirley Chisholm's seat. Well, I think Congresswoman Clarke and I worked it out. She was such a tremendous Member of the House that it actually takes two Members of Congress to replace her. I proudly acknowledge that I serve in one of the two Shirley Chisholm legacy seats here in the House of Representatives.

Of course when she got elected in 1968 there were some folks in this Chamber not used to seeing an African American woman, with very prominent hair, who was ``Unbought and Unbossed,'' and comes into this Chamber. Tradition says that she was assigned by the Speaker then to the agricultural committee as a punitive measure, because obviously in this urban district that she represented it seems to a lot of folks that appointment to the agricultural committee would not necessarily be the committee of relevant jurisdiction for the issues that she was elected to Congress to fight for.

Shirley Chisholm took that assignment and quickly recognized that while in this country you had surplus, abundance of food that was being created, you also had a lot of hungry folks, many of whom lived in the district that she represented.

So she began to work on expanding the food stamp program and championed, in fact, increasing supplemental nutritional assistance to at-risk, expectant mothers and helped lead the charge in the House of Representatives for the Women, Infants, and Children supplemental nutritional assistance program.

She partnered with then-Senator Bob Dole, who was over on the other side of this Capitol. She took what was meant as a punitive assignment and turned it into something transformative for the people that she represented, as well as those across the country.

So, from a character and a commitment standpoint, she demonstrated, again, that there is opportunity in the face of adversity. That is what she did here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Earlier today, the League of Women Voters acknowledged Shirley Chisholm for her accomplishments in the district that I represent, in fact, in the Shirley Chisholm State Office Building that I was proud to have authored the legislation, when I was in the New York State Assembly, that transformed that Kings County State Office Building into one named on behalf of Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm.

We stand on the shoulders of a lot of giants, but I certainly acknowledge that I am standing on the shoulders of Representative Shirley Chisholm, as so many folks are all across the city, the State of New York, and certainly this country. She inspired generations of people to believe what was possible.

I was talking to one of the women who, in the seventies, began to work closely with Congresswoman Chisholm, and she explained to me that Shirley Chisholm was such a forceful personality that her group of young women who, in the seventies, she would work closely with, that they were called Shirley Chisholm and the Chisettes.

Sounds to me like a Motown group, but these were transformative individuals, Shirley Chisholm and the Chisettes, who believed, perhaps back then, that when women succeed, America succeeds, and understood that there was still work that needed to be done to shatter the glass ceilings that had been erected all across this country.

Shirley Chisholm did just that in 1972, when she ran for the Democratic nomination for the United States Presidency. What I find fascinating is that her theme at that point was ``catalyst for change.''

In many ways, this was a prophetic theme, ``catalyst for change,'' because she was that catalyst for a whole lot of things that were to have occurred decade after decade, when she made that first run for office.

As has been mentioned on the floor of the House of Representatives, many could argue that there would not be a President Barack Obama had Shirley Chisholm not taken that bold step forward in 1972.

We have a whole lot of things, of course, that still need to be addressed, and I look forward to dealing with some of those issues.

As has been pointed out, women simply make 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes in America, and that hurts our overall economic productivity because 40 percent of the households in this country, women are the predominant primary breadwinner.

So we have got some economic issues to work out to continue the work that had been done by so many in this country, Shirley Chisholm included, and I look forward to continuing that discussion with Congressman Steven Horsford.

I want to thank my distinguished colleague for his comprehensive presentation as it relates to the economic trauma that many women find themselves in, given the pay disparities that continue to exist in America.

Mr. Speaker, the President came to the House of Representatives earlier this year to deliver a State of the Union Address and pointed out the fact that women, of course, make 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes and indicated the outrageousness of that in modern-day America.

It is a moral outrage, and for that reason alone, we should seek corrective action by moving forward with the Paycheck Fairness Act here in the Congress.

But aside from it being a moral outrage, as Congressman Horsford has pointed out, it has economic consequences. Because 40 percent of households in America are headed by women as the primary breadwinners, if you have such a significant portion of households led economically by individuals who are receiving disparate pay, you are hurting American families.

Now, one of the ways in which we can remedy this situation, of course, is to move forward with H.R. 1010, the minimum wage increase legislation authored in the House of Representatives by Congressman George Miller, cosponsored, of course, by Congressman Horsford, myself and many other Democratic Members of the House of Representatives.

We are of the view that both America needs a raise and women in America need a raise. 66 percent of minimum wage earners in this country are women.

Now, the minimum wage in America right now, the floor that is set by Congress, $7.25 an hour, means that someone can work 40 hours a week, each and every week throughout the year, go to work, and still fall below the Federal poverty line in attempting to raise a family. That is disgraceful, the classic definition of working poor, and it should not exist.

I thought the American ideal was that if you get up for work, you work hard, you punch the clock, that at the end of the day, there should be a pathway toward meaningful success in the context of the American Dream.

Right now, we have got a minimum wage that keeps individuals trapped in poverty, and the overwhelming majority of those individuals are women in America. So when we talk about an agenda that we have put forth--when women succeed, America succeeds--that is not just hyperbole or something designed to make folks feel good. It is an economic reality. That is why we are so committed to that agenda.

We are committed to making sure that child care in America is affordable because of the fact that so many women, thankfully, are part of the workforce; but as a result of their participation in the workforce, they need to find affordable, quality child care for their children.

That is one of the things that we, as House Democrats, continue to try and put forth, and we are just hopeful that our friends on the other side of the aisle will realize that moving forward with an agenda that uplifts women in America honors the great contributions of women in this country, decade after decade, century after century, from the founding of the Republic; but more significantly, will empower women and, in doing so, empower America to continue to forge forward into the future as the greatest Nation in the world.

So I am thankful to my colleague for his leadership tonight in connection

with this Special Order, and I look forward to continuing to work on a progressive Congressional Black Caucus agenda for women, for men, for America, and for our future.

I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the Badger State, for yielding some time, as well as for the leadership that you have continued to provide, week after week, in the context of this Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order, and on behalf of the people that you represent, and indeed, people all across America, in bringing issues to the forefront that we, in this House of Representatives, should be dealing with in order to improve the quality of life of everyone who we represent.

Now, unfortunately, I stand today on the House floor again, finding myself in a situation where the only obstacle to progress is the House GOP majority. Once again, we are placed in a situation where the American people could stand to benefit from congressional action, but, because of obstinacy and obstruction on the other side, you have got close to 2 million long-term unemployed Americans who find themselves in a distressed financial situation.

Now, earlier today we were informed that a bipartisan agreement was reached in the Senate and, hopefully, that means we will see progress in that Chamber at some point this month, which means that we have a real opportunity here in the House of Representatives to act in a manner that would benefit long-term unemployed Americans.

Why should we do that?

Well, because there are many individuals all across this country, in the district that I represent in Brooklyn and in Queens, but all across America, who find themselves unemployed, not because of their lack of interest, not because of lack of effort, not because of an unwillingness to work, but because of structural changes that have occurred in our economy, particularly in the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008.

We know that when the economy collapsed in 2008, that didn't have anything to do with folks on Main Street America. That didn't have anything to do with folks in urban America, in the district that I represent. That didn't have anything to do with folks in rural America who are struggling.

It was because of the behavior of some reckless institutions on Wall Street and connected to the financial services industry whose actions collapsed the world's economy, and Americans have suffered as a result, so those consequences are still being felt.

We are no longer technically in a recession. This is one of the arguments that our good friends on the other side of the aisle point out. So what is the emergency? The emergency is you still have an unacceptably high unemployment rate, and a disproportionately high number of those individuals happen to be long-term unemployed.

Now, the argument that is often advanced by our good friends on the other side of the aisle, as they attempt to justify the obstruction that has taken place in blocking unemployment insurance from being extended, is that we are enabling these individuals--enabling these individuals. What kind of myth is that? There is no evidence to support that argument.

First of all, it is important to note that, in order to qualify for unemployment insurance, as the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin knows, you have to demonstrate conclusively that you are actively engaged in an employment search. Otherwise, you are ineligible.

There is this caricature that has been created, as if these are these individuals who are sitting at home like couch potatoes, channel surfing, whose only exercise is when they run outside of the house in order to pick up the unemployment insurance check from the mailbox, and then run back in and continue to channel surf.

Can't we have an evidence-based discussion, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to fictional caricatures created to justify your harshness and refusal to move forward and provide assistance to these unemployed Americans? We know it is a fictional caricature that you have created to justify your indifference because the facts suggest otherwise.

We know that, for every 258 Americans who are searching for employment, only 100 jobs exist. I am no mathematician, but it suggests to me that, given the nature of the economy, it is impossible for every one of those individuals who would otherwise be eligible for unemployment insurance to secure employment because of structural realities in the economy.

That doesn't even account for the fact that, often, there will be a skills mismatch as our economy continues to change, a shift away from manufacturing jobs and a shift into technology and innovation. That is a good thing, but there is a skills mismatch that has to be dealt with.

So the choice that we have been given is to deem these individuals and brand them as lazy Americans when the facts are to the contrary? Why? Why would we leave these unemployed Americans on the recessionary battlefield?

We know that there has been a very schizophrenic recovery. Corporate profits are way up. Unemployment is still up, but the stock market is up, and CEO compensation is up; yet middle class families and those who aspire to be part of the middle class are increasingly struggling in America.

Whenever I am back home in Brooklyn, I am often approached by individuals who are in fear that they could lose their home, given the reality that they have been harshly and callously cut off by the obstruction of the House GOP majority.

I am just hopeful that for the good of America--because there are unemployed in blue States, and there are unemployed in red States; there are unemployed individuals in urban America, in suburban America, in rural America, all across this great country. Can't we find the compassion and the will to address this issue?

As I prepare to take my seat and yield back to the distinguished gentleman, I would also point out that what has occurred here is another example of us here in this Congress doing things affirmatively to prevent jobs from being created.

We allowed sequestration to take effect on April 1 of last year, notwithstanding the fact that independent economists suggested that we would lose 750,000 jobs in America if we allowed it to occur; yet the majority steadfastly stood behind sequestration. Then in October of 2013, we had a reckless, unreasonable, unnecessary government shutdown.

It cost the economy $24 billion, according to Standard and Poor's, in lost economic productivity. Well, you complain that Americans are supposedly sitting at home channel surfing, staying on the couch, not looking for work while you affirmatively damage the economy.

Now, as a result of your failure to deal with the unemployment insurance issue, if this were to continue throughout this year, you will cost us another 200,000 jobs.

I will just say that for a wide variety of reasons--because it is in the best interests of the American economy, the best interests of the people that we represent, and that it represents the best values of America--that we allow a vote to take place on the floor of the House of Representatives because I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that if you do, the votes exist to pass this into law, and we can put this sad chapter in the 113th Congress behind us.

I thank the distinguished gentleman again for his continued leadership.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to a bill that perhaps could more appropriately be called the ``Failure to Execute Our Legislative Responsibilities Act.''

This bill is a legislative solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence, there is no basis, there is no record to rationally conclude that the President of the United States has breached his obligations under the law in a manner that is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Now I recognize, Madam Speaker, that there are some individuals in this town who believe that the President of the United States broke the law in January of 2009 when he first took the oath of office, but there is no room for hyperbole or hypocrisy or hysteria in the legislative process.

This matter is another diversion from the business of the American people that we actually should be doing. We stand here again today wasting the time and the treasure of the American people. We should be dealing with comprehensive immigration reform, but House Republicans are blocking it. We should be increasing the minimum wage, but House Republicans are blocking it. We should be extending unemployment insurance, but House Republicans are blocking it. This bill is a distraction.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and let's get back to doing the business of the American people.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, the people whom I represent at home in Brooklyn and in Queens have been hit hard by the devastation of Superstorm Sandy, and many of these working families are still struggling to recover from this vicious storm. Homes were destroyed. Businesses were ruined. Lives have been turned upside down.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we need to deal with the issue that has been brought before the people who have suffered from this storm and who now face significant flood insurance rate increases as a result of the Biggert-Waters law passed in 2012. The people who were victimized by Superstorm Sandy are now facing the prospect of significant flood insurance premium rate increases that are heading directly at them like an out-of-control freight train, and this House should be stepping in to stop that freight train dead in its tracks. That is why I support the reform of the Biggert-Waters law. We should suspend the flood insurance increases that are heading towards these Superstorm Sandy victims. We should allow for FEMA to conduct an affordability study. We should give Congress the opportunity to get this issue correct.

The failure of this House to act on flood insurance reform is yet another example of the delay and the dysfunction in dealing with the real issues that confront the American people, and our inability to move forward as previously planned is just yet another time when a manmade disaster from this House is being imposed on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor and a privilege to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and to anchor this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order in partnership with my coanchor, the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), where for the next 60 minutes members of the Congressional Black Caucus will have the opportunity to speak directly to the American people about an issue of great consequence and great significance for our country, for our economy, for our future, and for our well-being, and that is the debt ceiling.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a Yogi Berra moment. It is deja vu all over again.

Time and time and time again we have been forced to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to plunge this country into a painful default and risk the full faith and credit of the United States of America for the first time in the history of the Republic.

Whenever we have been forced to have this conversation, we are always put into a position where we need to clarify what the debt ceiling is really all about because it has been subject to a lot of misrepresentation. The debt ceiling is not a forward-looking vehicle that is designed to give the President the opportunity to spend more; it is a backward-looking vehicle designed to give the President the opportunity to pay bills that the Congress has already incurred: bills that were incurred during the previous decade, bills that were incurred during the 8 years of the Bush administration during which time our good friends on the other side of the aisle were in control of both the House and the Senate, and we will go into that in greater detail as we move forward.

Let's have an honest conversation about the realities that we face concerning the debt in this country, in excess of $17 trillion. There is reason for us to be concerned about it, but let's not manipulate the facts as to how we got ourselves into this situation.

I am pleased that we have been joined by a very distinguished Member of the Congress and of the freshman class. In fact, we affectionately refer to him as the ranking member of the freshman class of the Congressional Black Caucus in the 113th Congress, and I am very pleased to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for walking us through some of the episodes that the American people have been subjected to as a result of the extreme behavior that has been articulated and enacted, in fact, as part of the agenda put forth by the majority over the last two terms.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, to end the irresponsibility, end the recklessness, end the extremism, and end the brinksmanship so we can get back to doing the business of the American people with a fiscally responsible, sustainable course; but one that recognizes that here in this Congress, time and time again we have inflicted wounds on the economy and on the American people. We did it last spring in advance of sequestration taking effect. We were warned by independent economists that if you allow sequestration to take effect, $85 billion in random cuts spread out without reason across the economy, it would cost us approximately 750,000 jobs, but yet it happened.

Then we were warned that it would be problematic if you allowed the government to shut down. Nonetheless, some people couldn't help the recklessness, the irresponsibility, the extremism, and so the government was shut down for 16 days. Standard & Poor's estimated that it cost us $24 billion in lost economic productivity.

Yet here we are again, a Yogi Berra moment, deja vu all over again, confronting an unnecessary, manufactured crisis. Just lift the debt ceiling, consistent with what has happened time and time again across Democratic and Republican administrations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the coanchor of the CBC Special Order, the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, my good friend, Representative Horsford.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for pointing out some of the catastrophic consequences that the American people will be forced to endure if we fail to raise the debt ceiling and force a default and threaten the full faith and credit of the United States of America for the first time in the history of the Republic.

I just want to go over some of the things that would be at stake as a few of my colleagues have already laid out, but it bears reemphasis:

Social Security payments owed to the American people will be jeopardized by a failure to raise the debt ceiling;

Veterans benefits will be jeopardized by a failure to raise the debt ceiling;

Mortgage interest rates could increase as a result of a failure to raise the debt ceiling;

Automobile loan interest rates could increase as a result of a failure to raise the debt ceiling;

Credit card payments as a result of an increase in interest connected to debt that is held on American Express or MasterCard or Visa, or any of the other credit cards that the American people have, could increase as a result of a failure to raise the debt ceiling.

This is not an esoteric concept. This is something that will have a real impact on the American people. That is why we need a debt ceiling increase consistent with what every Congress and every American President has done since the founding of this country.

I want to read into the Record, and then perhaps have my good friend react to it, a Presidential letter that relates to this debt ceiling issue, and it reads in part:

This country now possesses the strongest credit in the

world. The full consequences of a default--or even the

serious prospect of default--by the United States are

impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration

of the full faith and credit of the United States would have

substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the

value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill-

afford to allow such a result.

This is a letter that was written on November 16, 1983, by President Ronald Reagan, addressed to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker. President Reagan, I believe, my good friends on the other side of the aisle, have deified him as a ``fiscal warrior,'' a ``true conservative.'' Yet we know that Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his Presidency, and in this letter to Senator Baker lays out in bold, uncompromising terms the consequences of a failure to raise the debt ceiling.

This is not a partisan issue. We as Democrats are not standing here on the floor of the House of Representatives because we want to beat up the other side. We are here to defend the best interest of the American people--east, west, north, south, rural America, urban America, and suburban America--because the consequences of a failure to raise the debt ceiling will hurt everybody.

If the distinguished gentleman from Nevada could just react to the notion that this is somehow a partisan issue that needs to be discussed so that President Obama is being fiscally irresponsible by requesting that Congress do its constitutional duty.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for a very thorough explanation and for the illustration as it relates to the state of denial that, I think, some individuals within this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, or throughout the Capitol are in as it relates to the real consequences of a default and what it really means to threaten the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Now, this denial syndrome is not really a strange concept. It is something that, unfortunately, I have had to familiarize myself with since being sworn in as a Member of Congress on January 3 of 2013.

Weather patterns are shifting. Global warming appears to me, based on the scientific evidence, to be a reality, yet there are people in this Congress who persist in denying that climate change is a reality. In advance of sequestration, notwithstanding the fact that independent economists warned that randomly spreading out cuts across the American economy, given the fragile nature of the economic recovery, would be a harmful thing and would threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs moving forward, there were people who denied that sequestration would be a tough thing for the American people to have to absorb. Yet, at the end of the year, wisdom prevailed because people saw that it actually was something that was problematic for the American people and our economy.

I guess, a long, long time ago, there were people who denied that the Earth was round, who believed that it was flat. So the denial syndrome is something that throughout time has been commonplace as it relates to individuals who want to articulate a particular agenda. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but it is a dangerous game to play--to deny the reality of the catastrophic impact that would occur as a result of a default on our debt for the first time in our history. It would be another self-inflicted wound, as my distinguished friend from Nevada has indicated.

I was interested in a study that I came across a few days ago that I wanted to highlight and bring to the attention of the American people, and perhaps my colleague can react to it.

There is a new study, the Times reported, from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington, D.C.-based research group, that indicated that all of the theatrics--all of the drama, all of the brinksmanship--that occurred in this Congress last year around the government shutdown and the potential debt ceiling default and whether we would be able to come together and reach an agreement--have cost us about $150 billion in lost economic productivity. It shaved off about a percentage point in economic growth, and it may have cost us approximately 750,000 jobs. That is not our saying it; that is an independent research group, the Peterson Institute for International Economics. So there is a price to pay for the theatrics, and that is why we have come to the floor of the House of Representatives today to say we need a clean debt ceiling increase and that we need to do it now.

Secretary Lew has indicated that his ability to use extraordinary measures will run out by the end of the month. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are some on the other side of the aisle who are in disbelief as it relates to that statement. We have heard individuals make the representation that that can't be accurate. There is a logical reason why in this particular instance the capacity for the administration to use extraordinary measures to get us beyond the debt ceiling cap is only weeks in this particular instance and not months as it has been in the past. It is because the Treasury of the United States in February and in March and in April and, perhaps, even into May, returns a lot of money--billions of dollars--to the American people who have filed taxes and are owed money in connection with a tax return.

I believe that we would all conclude it is a good thing for the American people who are owed money by the Federal Government to be able to get that money back in return. That is why, in February, the capacity at this moment for extraordinary measures to be used is extremely limited. It is because we don't want to short-circuit the American taxpayer. It is bad enough that we are threatening to short- circuit Social Security beneficiaries or veterans and others, but now we are potentially risking withholding money from the American people that belongs to them. We hear that refrain all of the time, but that is what we are faced with right now.

Let me yield to my good friend, Representative Horsford.

I thank my good friend and colleague for that thorough explanation again as to why there is such urgency in terms of our acting now.

Throughout my time here in the Congress, we consistently hear about strict constructionism and adherence to the

Constitution. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution reads in part: The validity of the public debt authorized by law shall not be questioned. That is a constitutional principle, and it is the reason the brinksmanship that we have seen time and time again is so reckless and threatens the well-being of the American people.

Earlier in my remarks, I referenced this being a ``Yogi Berra moment,'' that great Yankee catcher having once made the observation that he feels like it is deja vu all over again. There is another contemporary, urban philosopher I want to quote. Her name is Mary J. Blige. She said: No more drama.

I think that the American people are tired of drama and theatrics. If they want theatrics, they can go to Broadway in New York City. If they want drama, you have got Hollywood, but Congress is here to do the business of the American people, not to entertain, but to do the business of the American people. The matter before us that, hopefully, we will deal with this week--not with unnecessary ideological demands that we attempt to inflict on the American people--in order to do what our constitutional responsibility says Congress should do is, again, a clean debt ceiling.

I want to explain as best I can to those who are interested in understanding how we arrived at this moment. When you hear characterizations about what is at stake, why we can't just simply raise the debt ceiling without going through the drama and the theatrics, the representation that is made, which seems reasonable to many, is that we have a $17 trillion-plus debt. That is a very significant number, and we can't just simply give the President the unfettered ability to continue to drag this country further down a debt hole. That is the argument that is advanced by many, Mr. Speaker.

It is just fundamentally inaccurate. The debt ceiling is not a forward-looking vehicle designed to give the President the ability to spend more money.

It is a backward-looking vehicle simply designed to give the President the capacity to pay bills that the Congress has already incurred. And if you actually were to inspect what those bills actually were, many Americans would be surprised to know that it was incurred often by those same individuals who now claim the mantel of fiscal responsibility.

And so let's go through this chart. What it does is illustrates both the projected debt under current policies, largely enacted during the administration of George W. Bush, and what the debt would have been without these factors.

So the top line is an illustration of what the current debt is and what it is projected to be over time in advance of 2019 as a result of things that this Congress has already done that were not paid for, and the lowest line on the chart is an illustration of what the debt would be had these things not be done, Mr. Speaker.

What is interesting is that a significant part of the debt, as this chart illustrates, resulted from the war in Iraq, a completely unnecessary war, chasing down weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Lies were told to the American people and hundreds of billions of dollars unnecessarily spent and debt incurred under the previous administration.

The war in Afghanistan was inappropriately prosecuted. Even if it was, in the beginning, a necessary one in response to the tragedy on 9/ 11, it was inappropriately prosecuted because we were distracted in Iraq. We didn't pay for that war either. It is responsible for the debt burden that we now have.

The Bush-era tax cuts. A tax cut in 2001 largely and disproportionately benefited the wealthy and well-off, not paid for. It is responsible, in part, for the debt burden that we now confront.

Another tax cut enacted by this Congress in 2003 largely benefiting the wealthy and the well-off was not paid for and responsible, in part, for the debt that we have incurred.

Of course, there was the economic downturn. That occurred in 2008. It resulted, in part, from the failed policies of the previous administration.

And we allowed some on Wall Street to run wild and to plunge us into the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. That, in part, is responsible for the debt that we have incurred. We had to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There was the TARP bailout.

Then, of course, there were the recovery measures enacted in response to this horrible collapse of the economy inflicted upon the American people.

These are the policies that are largely responsible for the debt that we find ourselves in, and that is why we find it a bit curious that President Obama is often blamed and we have got to have this drama connected to the debt ceiling, when, in fact, much of the debt, the bills that he is trying to pay now, he wasn't even responsible for. In fact, when a lot of these policies were enacted, the current President of the United States was in the Illinois State Legislature, yet you want to blame him for the out-of-control spending. It is not just factually accurate.

I will yield to the gentleman from Nevada.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

As you have pointed out--I think this was very important--in terms of the explosion of the public debt that has taken place over the last decade or so, the most significant factor, as this chart illustrates, is the Bush-era tax cuts.

And so the question, then, that many people back home in my district are asking is, What was it all for? Because now we know that income inequality has exploded out of control. The middle class is being left behind.

What was it all for?

Well, we were told, based on a very stale, old philosophy, that these type of tax cuts help to generate economic activity. They create jobs. Okay.

In the previous 8 years prior to the Bush administration, during the 8 years of the Presidency of Bill Clinton, the tax rate for the highest income bracket was 39.6 percent, and 20.3 million jobs were created during those 8 years. And then we have a new President who comes in and, by the way, he inherits a surplus. And then immediately, as a result of these reckless policies, foreign and domestic, creates deficit after deficit after deficit. That didn't happen under this President. It happened under the previous President.

But the American people, the people whom I represent back at home, say, What was it all for? A tax rate of 39.6 percent under the administration of President Clinton and 20.3 million jobs created. We get tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 as a precursor to the recession, and during the 8 years of the previous administration we lost 650,000 jobs here in America.

What was it all for? We lost jobs. Income inequality has grown. You add it to the debt. And yet folks on this side of the aisle are supposed to be fiscally irresponsible.

Let's just have a reasonable, evidence-based conversation. That is all we want. That is what the American people are asking for.

And so as we prepare to close, let me just yield to my good friend for any parting remarks.

I think that is a very appropriate question. We are going to have to have a broader conversation about some of our policies that have resulted in the exportation of middle class American jobs to other parts of the world; and for the life of me, I haven't been able to figure out why anyone in Washington thinks that that is a good idea.

We have had an economic recovery under this President, and I believe more than 7 million private sector jobs have been created, but we still have a long way to go. And we certainly cannot afford to engage in the type of policies that, as you have pointed out, have led to the transfer of American jobs overseas.

Why? Because we are incentivizing companies to ship jobs abroad as opposed to incentivizing American companies to keep jobs here at home in the great United States of America. And I certainly hope that that is something that can be reversed as we move forward and enter into a discussion about some of the agreements that will be pending before this Congress.

I thank my good friend for his very thoughtful and comprehensive remarks and analysis of the situation that we find ourselves in and his very clear-eyed plea that we in the Congress simply do our job and raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default and threatening of the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states, in part, that the validity of the public debt of the United States enacted into law shall not be questioned.

No more drama. No more theatrics. No more brinksmanship. No more extremism. Let's raise the debt ceiling and get back to doing the business of the American people.

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