Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored this legislation with my dear friend Frank Wolf, with whom I have served for 33 years. He will be leaving. His father was a policeman in Philadelphia, so he has a strong attachment to this bill as well.

Our bipartisan bill would enable the construction, as has been said, of the National Law Enforcement Museum to move forward.

In 2000, Congress passed the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to authorize the development of plans for

and the construction of a museum to honor the nearly 20,000 local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers who have fallen in the line of duty since 1791.

All of them, Mr. Speaker, put their lives in danger to serve their communities and their country, leaving us with an enduring example of service and sacrifice. They are a part of our domestic defense corps.

While we honor their memory each year at the National Law Enforcement Memorial in May and on the west front as well, Congress agreed that a museum would be a fitting way to tell their stories year-round, especially to the many school children who are expected to visit us every year and who will visit this museum as well.

We extended the original authorization, as has been said, in 2010, and now, after years of work to obtain permits, receive design approvals, and secure outside funding, the National Law Enforcement Officers Museum Fund is ready to break ground. The funds, of course, are private, but this is a public good and a public end.

But first it is up to Congress, therefore, to reauthorize this project through 2016, so we can see this magnificent museum completed.

In closing, let me congratulate Craig Floyd, who worked in the Congress, who has spearheaded this effort for a very long time. His leadership, his vision has made it possible for us to be on the cusp of realizing this museum's establishment.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation; and, again, I thank Mr. Young and Mr. DeFazio for bringing it to the floor.

I have focused on them; how successfully is an item of debate with myself.

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

This Republican budget, as I have said before, is an exercise in how not to achieve fiscal sustainability.

Both the Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin-Domenici bipartisan commissions determined that the responsible approach to achieving fiscal sustainability is through a combination of balanced deficit reduction and strategic investments in long-term economic growth.

The Bowles-Simpson report says: ``We must invest in education, infrastructure, and high-value research and development to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it easier for business to create jobs.''

The chairman of the Budget Committee voted against Bowles-Simpson.

This budget disinvests in those priorities, which will help us create jobs and grow our middle class. It undercuts our ability to invest in economic competitiveness and the growth we need to secure the goal of a sustainable fiscal future.

At the same time, the Republican budget does not follow the bipartisan commission's framework for achieving deficit savings: a balanced approach that combines new revenue with spending reductions.

There are no new revenues in this budget, and its spending cuts are severe and irresponsible, cutting even deeper than the painful sequester.

As I said yesterday, GOP Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers called those sequester levels ``unrealistic and ill-conceived,'' to which the chairman then rose and said: He said that last year.

He may have said it last year, but the proposals you make are unchanged from last year, essentially; and this year, just a few days ago, he said your cuts were draconian.

He is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I regret the chairman was taking my remarks personally. Of course, they were meant simply from a policy perspective of how bad the policy is, not the chairman himself, who is a wonderful individual.

In closing, let me say I urge every one of my colleagues who is troubled about our deficits and debt and who is deeply concerned about creating jobs and growing our economy to do the right thing: oppose this budget.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has called the numbers in this budget draconian, apparently intends to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand that. If I thought, as I do, that these numbers were draconian, the only alternative I would have is to vote ``no.''

I lament the fact that we are not addressing in a bipartisan, comprehensive way putting America on a fiscally sustainable path. That would be the best economic stimulus that we could do for America. What a shame that, again, we have wasted that opportunity.

Mr. Chair, I was sitting in my office downstairs, and I heard Mr. Brady make the extraordinary claim that it was the Pelosi leadership that led to the doubling of deficits.

I would remind the gentleman, as he ought to know and I am sure he does know, not a single economic plan was passed in 2007 or 2008 that changed the Bush economic plan, not a single bill. And to make the assertion that the deepest recession he and I have experienced, Mr. Chairman, in our lifetimes, which occurred under the Bush administration with Bush economic policies was somehow the responsibility of a Pelosi-led Congress is absolutely absurd, incorrect, and the gentleman ought to know better.

Does the gentleman refer to 2007?

I tell the gentleman from Texas, I do know the statistics: 800,000 jobs lost in the last month of the Bush administration; 800,000 jobs in 1 month, the worst job production since Herbert Hoover under the Bush administration.

Yes, this administration has had tough times because we inherited such a struggling, devastated economy from the Bush administration. The gentleman knows those figures are accurate, and he ought to admit those facts.

The budget deficit went up 87 percent under George Bush when he inherited a balanced budget. He inherited a balanced budget. The gentleman ought to be truthful with the American people, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we don't have the time, but I would like to take the time at some point in time to discuss the facts with the gentleman from Texas, and I will take a Special Order out to do exactly that, to discuss the economic success of Democratic administrations and Republican administrations and bringing down the deficit.

And let me say further, I will repeat to the gentleman, no change in the Bush economic program was affected in 2007 and 2008 because George Bush was the President and would have vetoed anything we passed. So the representation to the contrary, Mr. Chairman, is inaccurate.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I would first observe, Mr. Chairman, that the American people ought to lament another opportunity missed, an opportunity to come together and adopt a big, balanced plan for investment and balance in our fiscal system in America.

Mr. Chairman, last year, we adopted a budget. During the course of its implementation with the consideration of appropriation bills, the Republican chairman of the committee called the sequester numbers adopted in the 2014 Ryan plan unrealistic and ill-conceived.

For 2016 through 2024, Mr. Chairman, this budget has numbers below sequester levels that the chairman said were unrealistic and ill- conceived.

Chairman Rogers has called the numbers in this budget draconian, Chairman Rogers, responsible for funding the operations of government and assisting and building our economy and its people.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is all that and a call to disinvestment. This budget is a call to disinvestment in America's growth and success.

We have heard a lot of claims, of course, about what the Republican budget will do for our country. I have heard those claims from previous Republican chairmen, frankly. They did not pan out.

Let me clear that fog away and get down to the raw numbers which reveal the magnitude of the damage the Republican budget will inflict. As a matter of fact, with all due respect, I call it a retreat--an alliterative retreat of course, the chairman's retreat.

First, the Republican budget would repeal the patient protections and other benefits of the Affordable Care Act, leaving millions without health insurance coverage.

Of course, it keeps the money; it just didn't give the benefits. It would turn Medicaid into a capped block grant program and cut its funding by $732 billion over the next decade.

That is from seniors who need long-term care. That is from people with disabilities who need medical services.

Two-thirds of Medicaid spending goes to low-income seniors, and the Republican budget cuts it by a quarter.

It would also end the Medicare guarantee and reopen the doughnut hole for prescription drugs, shifting costs back to seniors.

Secondly, the Republican budget disinvests, as I said, from many of the very important initiatives Congress has made a priority for the future growth and competitiveness of our economy.

It cuts over $120 billion from middle class college affordability programs like the Pell grant and will leave a college undergraduate taking out a student loan as much as $3,800 deeper in debt.

By eliminating funding for applied research, their budget will reduce Federal research grants by half--by half disinvestment. It could result in 2,400 fewer National Science Foundation research awards and 1,400 fewer National Institutes of Health awards.

The reality is, Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget would decimate pediatric research. We have heard a little bit about that. It would decimate pediatric research. It would decimate all other research as well and other medical research in the lifesaving diseases by billions of dollars, not just pediatric research: cancer, heart, lung, blood, Alzheimer's, and others. $173 billion will be cut from highway spending over the next 10 years, disinvestment, even though infrastructure investments are critical to the growth of our manufacturing sector and job creation.

Overall, the Republican budget reduces our long-term investments in education, research, infrastructure, and job training by over 15 percent over the next decade compared to the deal the Republican chairman negotiated just 4 months ago.

I will tell you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, our competitors around the world are not retreating in terms of investments. Perhaps the most egregious mark against this budget, though, is that it does not achieve the fiscal balance its authors give as the reason for these cuts in the first place.

Instead, it relies on ``dynamic scoring.'' That is, pretend something will happen. Now, if it happens, we would have a bonus and we could use that bonus. But if it doesn't happen, this budget will guarantee that we will be further in the hole.

It has an asterisk for $966 billion. It doesn't say what that $966 billion is about, at least two-thirds of it. But you guess, pretend, hope. If it doesn't happen, you are in the hole.

This budget, Mr. Chairman, is a blueprint for economic decline, for vulnerable Americans being left to fend for themselves, and for an America less equipped to protect its citizens.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution and send a message that our country will continue to invest in its priorities: opportunity, security, and growth. Let us not retreat. Let us serve this country and serve its greatness.

Never again. We intone those words, ``never again.'' We intone those words because we have seen horror and felt guilt that it happens on our watch, and so we say ``never again.''

Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of chairing the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. That commission was formed as a result of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975 by Gerald Ford and leaders of 34 other European nations, including the Soviet Union, including West Germany, including East Germany. Never again.

The extraordinary Holocaust that cost the lives of millions and millions and millions and millions more; not only in the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews were taken from us, taken from their families, taken from their countries, taken from life, but millions more in Russia, Ukraine, and literally in scores of other venues murdered.

They were murdered not because of their engagement in war, not because of their engagement in crime, but because of who they were, what religion they had, what ethnic background they claimed--murdered-- murdered because of what they were, and the murderers did not like what they were--not their character, not their intellect, not their conduct, but who they were.

So here we are, 20 years later, having watched as genocide was, again, perpetrated in Rwanda. The genocide in Rwanda, the 20th anniversary of which we mark this week, provided Americans with one of our most painful examples of a failure to act, but not Americans alone, Mr. Speaker. The entire civilized world waited, watched, lamented, but did not stop the genocide.

America and much of the world waited far too long to become involved in Rwanda, and even then, international peacekeepers were not given a mandate for the resources to stop the killing.

I am sure many of us, Mr. Speaker, saw the movie ``Hotel Rwanda.'' Nick Nolte played the blue-helmeted colonel who was in charge of the U.N. unit. When carnage was occurring and the colonel that Nolte was playing was watching, someone asked: Why aren't you doing something? And his response was: because that is not our mandate, it is to report.

I will say, in a minute, that thousands of lives were saved by the blue helmets and by others, but the U.N. mandate was not to stop it, but to report it.

President Clinton has expressed regret that the United States did not act in time to save lives, saying last year, ``If we'd gone in sooner, I believe we could have saved at least a third of the lives that were lost.''

Now, the figure of 800,000 is being used, but that is an estimate. It could be as little, perhaps, as 500,000 and as many as 1 million-plus. It is estimated that more than 1 million men, women, and children were killed in a span of--as my friend from Missouri, Reverend Cleaver-- Congressman Emanuel Cleaver has said. 1 million in 100 days, 10,000 victims every day, 7 people shot or hacked to death with machetes every minute, every minute, and the world watched and wrung its hands and said how wrong that was, and the machetes kept hacking.

More than just killing, the Rwandan genocide left hundreds of thousands of people infected with HIV as a result of another implement of war that those who perpetrate genocide have used, rape, a crime not of sexual desire, but of violence, of injury, of hate.

Widows of murdered men were infected and, in many cases, left to bear the children of their rapist. The children, of course, were infected, too.

The violence left 400,000 orphans, small children who then had to learn at a young age how to care for their younger siblings on their own.

Mr. Speaker, the Rwandan genocide provided the world with yet another lesson in our shared responsibility not just to say the words ``never again,'' but to mean them. Mr. Speaker, we are our brother's keeper, and our brother needs our vigilance and our help, as we need his; and we are our sister's keeper, just as well.

Just as the genocide displayed humanity's darkest side, it also provided us with proof of human courage and defiance in the face of evil. From the outnumbered U.N. peacekeepers who saved lives wherever they could--and that ability was far too limited--to the individual Rwandans who risked death and rape to protect their neighbors, we acknowledge those few moments of moral clarity in the midst of great evil.

I said that I was the chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mr. Speaker, 250,000 Bosniaks lost their lives in a genocide perpetrated by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

We finally acted in that case and saved literally hundreds of thousands of more, deposed Milosevic, and put him in the dock for war crimes in the Hague, but not before 8,000 souls in Bosnia were gunned down and murdered in Trebenista. The U.N. troops failed to stop that-- again, insufficient resources.

So, Mr. Speaker, as we mark this 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, I join my colleagues in mourning those who were killed and in recognizing the many changes Rwanda has undergone over the past two decades. We all wish Rwanda continued success in its efforts to take from the ashes a successful society and to protect the safety and freedom of its people.

I hope Americans across the country will take some time this week to reflect not only on the Rwandan genocide, but on all genocides, to remember its horrors and to promise never to let our Nation sit idly by as a genocide takes place. Mr. Speaker, it is a complicated conclusion, too long, too often delayed.

I want to thank my colleagues for joining me to recognize this solemn anniversary. I want to thank, in particular, my dear friend from Missouri, Emanuel Cleaver, who preaches to his flock, who preaches to his constituents and, yes, who preaches to all of us to look to the better nature of our souls, to reach out, to lift up, to protect, to give solace, to give sympathy, to give empathy, to give understanding, and to be our brother's keeper.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that information. It is wonderful news that that budget is going to do all of those things, I want you to know. And we are pleased that a budget is coming forward. We may not be pleased with the budget, but we are pleased that it is coming forward.

As the gentleman knows, we have already had the budget levels for fiscal year '15. You indicate that the budget will adhere to the Ryan- Murray agreement. I assume that also means that it will adhere to the firewall division between defense and nondefense discretionary spending as well.

Is that accurate, Mr. Leader?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

I will tell my friend, the majority leader, The Wall Street Journal had an editorial of about 13 or 14 paragraphs. I disagreed with the first 13 paragraphs, but I did agree with the last paragraph.

It said, ``But the Ryan outline does the service of showing the policy direction in which Republicans would head if they regain control of the Senate next year.''

Then it goes on to say, ``Senate Democrats don't want to declare themselves with any votes, but they favor higher taxes and much more spending for everything other than defense. Voters will have to decide on the direction they want Congress to go.''

So, Mr. Leader, as I said, we welcome a debate on this budget. We do believe it expresses the priorities of your party, and, as you know, we differ with those priorities in many instances. So I think the American people will get a spirited, informative, and educational debate on the Ryan budget, and I think that that will do much to inform them of the priorities of both parties. As I say, we look forward to that budget.

Unemployment insurance, Mr. Leader, is being considered on the Senate floor. I know the cloture vote has been taken. I don't know whether final passage has been taken.

Does the gentleman have any expectation that if the Senate passes that bill today whether or not that bill might be on the floor next week?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I am informed by the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee that we also have a letter from the Secretary of Labor, or one of the people that works with him, indicating that, in fact, they believe this would be workable. But very frankly, notwithstanding the letters, let me ask the majority leader: If, in fact, we made it prospective--which, of course, would clearly be workable--and made it 5 months prospectively, rather than 3 or 3.5 months retrospectively and a month and a half prospectively, as you know, through May 30, would that be an acceptable alternative, Mr. Majority Leader?

I thank the gentleman for his response, Mr. Speaker.

But it seems to me that it begs the question. The question is, yes, we want to get people back to work. Everybody on this floor wants to get people back to work. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Hopefully we would be at full employment, however one defines that-- whether it is 3 percent, 4 percent unemployment, which would be transition employment or unemployment. But yes, we want to have everybody back to work.

The issue that I ask about, Mr. Speaker, is that if we don't get everybody back to work--and we haven't gotten everybody back to work. There were 192,000 new jobs created this past month. That is good, but it is not good enough. And that is why we have a continuing 6.7 percent unemployment rate.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the majority leader was to assume, for argument, that the letter to which he refers is accurate. I don't accept that premise. But accepting that premise for the minute, would the majority leader be amenable to, rather than to do as the Senate does, making it retrospective so that the 3.5 months that would have gone from December 29 of last year to today and paying that back, simply extending for 5 months while people continue to look for employment but have been unable to find it because there are three times as many people looking for jobs as there are jobs available--and we are adding 72,000 people on a weekly basis to the unemployed roles. So if we made it prospective, that would save an awful lot of people the pain and suffering that they are experiencing because they can't find a job.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. As he knows, we have an agenda to do just that. It is called Make It In America, to expand manufacturing, create the kinds of jobs where people can make good salaries, have good benefits, and have good security for the long term. There is no disagreement on that, Mr. Speaker. The only disagreement seems to be, while we are trying to get that done, whether or not we try to assure that those who have fallen through the cracks do not find themselves in dire circumstances because we have eliminated the safety net that we constructed.

I would say to the gentleman, this is the longest time in history-- and we are going to hear a lot of information from members of the Ways and Means Committee--the longest time in history that we have had this level of long-term unemployment. One of the reasons for that is, obviously, the dislocations in the marketplace and that we experienced the deepest recession that anybody--maybe Ralph Hall is an exception-- that anybody in this body has experienced.

In other words, the last time we had as deep a recession as we had at the end of the last administration that carried over into this administration was the deep Depression, and you have to be 90 years or older to have really remembered and experienced that.

So there is a lot of pain out there. All I am saying is we agree there is no disagreement. We want to get people to work. We want to take actions that give them the skills.

As I have told you--and we haven't done this as vigorously, and that is as much my fault as anybody--I want to do that. You were focused on your SKILLS Act. Clearly, we want to make sure people have the skills to get employment.

I would hope that we could look at--assuming the Senate passes this bill--to give relief to 2.8 million people who are in dire straits, increasing by 72,000 a week, give them some support while we are trying and, hopefully together, create the kind of jobs and skills necessary to get them out of the hole that they are in.

If I might note, there are 193 Democrats who have signed a discharge petition to bring the unemployment insurance to the floor. If I might do one other issue, last week, we had the sustainable growth rate. We extended it. We worked together to get that done.

Without going into it at length, I know the gentleman and I have had discussions about the sustainable growth rate, the so-called doc fix. We put a temporary patch on it.

That was, in my opinion, the wrong thing to do. It was the right thing to do temporarily, but it was the wrong thing to do. The gentleman knows that fixing the sustainable growth rate is now, from a scorable standpoint, less expensive to do than it has been in over 5 years.

I would hope that, Mr. Leader, working together, that we could address this issue at some time before this Congress adjourns sine die. We need to fix this, and we need to fix it permanently.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I look forward to working with him. I would observe, as he well knows, and I have discussed with the Speaker, the pay-fors that were included in the temporary patch were as elusory as any other pay-for we could find.

We simply accelerated dollars. We didn't have due dollars. We didn't really pay for it. We just simply put the debt off a month or so and collected the money early and pretended that that was going to pay for it.

Whether that is any more real than doing any of the other options that have been suggested, I think, is questionable, but I look forward to working with the gentleman.

Because I mention it every time, but I want to mention it in a slightly different context, I will bring up comprehensive immigration reform again. The majority leader says it is a broken system. We all agree on that, and we ought to move forward.

We are going to be considering the budget. The budget, we don't think is paid for. We will have a discussion about that as we go down. We think it increases the deficits; it is not balanced in 10 years.

But that aside, comprehensive immigration reform, the CBO released its score on our bill H.R. 15, which we think is a bipartisan bill, found it would reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the next 2 decades, including $200 billion over the first 10 years.

Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform, in our opinion, is not only the right thing to do, it is economically the smart thing to do. That is in the context of a bill that was brought to the floor this week that increases the deficit by nearly $74 billion, dealing with the

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I want to say on border security, H.R. 15, we refer to as a comprehensive bill, as you know, included the border security provision passed out of the Homeland Security Committee, chaired by your Republican chairman, passed out on a voice vote, essentially unanimously, is included in our bill.

So, on the border security issue, we apparently have a very broad- based agreement on that issue. The gentleman says you want to do it individually. The gentleman knows that the Judiciary Committee has passed out individual, discrete bills dealing with discrete parts of the immigration issue, what you say is a broken system.

Bring out discretely those bills. The bill that the Homeland Security reported out unanimously has not been brought to the floor. The four bills that have been reported out of the Judiciary Committee have not been brought up to the floor. They were passed months and months and months ago.

So that if you don't want to do a comprehensive--if that is the view of the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, then I would suggest to the majority leader that he bring out discrete bills, individual bills, not comprehensive, and see if we can deal with those.

I will tell you our disappointment also is that it was not only the Senate bill that was rejected, but the Speaker put out some principles with respect to comprehensive--or immigration reform, I won't call it comprehensive, put out some principles.

We received those positively. We thought that was a positive step. Unfortunately, those--the Speaker's proposal were rejected apparently by a very large number of your party in and outside of this institution. As a result, 6 days after he issued the principles, he said that they were not going to be pursued.

Yes, we were frustrated and disappointed with that because we thought the Speaker had taken a positive step forward. I don't know whether the majority leader was, Mr. Speaker, part of those principles, but in any event, we accepted them as good-faith efforts to come to an agreement, and we were prepared to pursue discussions on those principles. Unfortunately, as I say, the Speaker withdrew them.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time, unless the majority leader wants me to yield to him.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the baseball season begins this week, so I will quote the great Yogi Berra. ``It's deja vu all over again.''

This year's Republican budget, which Chairman Ryan unveiled yesterday, is more of the same we have, unfortunately, come to expect. It is an exercise in partisan messaging, not a serious and honest attempt to invest in our priorities and pursue compromise toward a sustainable fiscal outlook.

Their budget rejects the balanced approach of spending reforms, new revenue, and investments in our economy called for by both the Bowles- Simpson and the Rivlin-Domenici Commissions, as well as by the Gang of Six in the United States Senate and by virtually every economist. The Ryan budget cuts $5 trillion without a single penny of new revenue, not even a hint of balance.

Moreover, Chairman Ryan's budget once again relies on the magic asterisk of hundreds of billions of dollars in spending cuts to important domestic programs. He doesn't say what programs we are going to cut; he simply says we are going to get the money.

He said that last year, of course, and it didn't happen. He gives virtually no details about the policies through which he expects to achieve these savings. To that extent, it is radically different from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee's tax reform plan, which made real choices, showed real courage, and was a real document.

The Republican budget continues their obsession with repealing or undermining the Affordable Care Act, their 53rd attempt to do so. However, of course, they keep all the savings and revenues that the Affordable Care Act is scored as giving.

It would furthermore kick millions off their health insurance and turn Medicaid into a capped block grant, decimating the program and making life more difficult for all those millions who rely on it.

Once more, they are seeking to end the Medicare guarantee as we know it. They will say it is a choice, that at 55 you can make a choice whether you want to have private insurance with a voucher that you get from the Federal Government or go into Medicare. That's what they say.

The reality is, however, they would make traditional Medicare far, far, far more expensive, driving people out of that program and eliminating it over time.

Their budget, in addition, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to invest in our economy and our people by driving domestic discretionary spending well below the sequester's harmful level.

The American people ought to be outraged but not surprised. We have seen this movie before, and it never ends well for Republicans or, tragically, does it end happily for the American people. The new plot twist in this year's budget is that Chairman Ryan is going where no budget chairman has gone before, relying on the spurious gimmickry of so-called ``dynamic scoring'' to pad his numbers with budget savings that simply do not exist.

We have talked about this a lot. The 1981 tax cuts were supposed to boom the economy. In fact, we increased the national debt by 187 percent. In 2001 and 2003, we were promised that the tax cuts would grow the economy. In fact, during those 8 years of the Bush administration, we had the worst economy that anybody in this Chamber has experienced and, indeed, I would presume, in the gallery as well.

While Chairman Ryan claims his budget balances in 10 years, in reality, his projection for revenues in 2024 is less than his projection for outlays. In other words, no balance. That is the simple budget math. The only way Chairman Ryan can pretend his math works is by using Republicans' dynamic scoring trick.

This is the same trick that paved the way for the Bush tax cuts to turn record surpluses into record deficits, as I have said. It is sort of like a family making its budget and projecting: well, we are going to get a big raise because the boss is going to be doing better, the economy is going to be doing better, and we will get a big raise, so we will budget as if we had already gotten the raise. What happens is you don't get that raise and you are deeply in the hole. Americans get that. It is a shame their Congress doesn't get that.

Republicans have a bill on the floor this week to force the nonpartisan CBO to use the Republican math. The virtue of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was that it would give us honest numbers, but now the Republicans want to force them to give them their numbers that they want that make it easier for them to pretend that things are going to get better with their policies rather than putting their policies in place and then seeing if it does get better, and if it does, we have a bonus. Of course, if it doesn't, we run up large deficits as we did in the last administration, as we did in the Reagan administration, as we did in the first Bush administration, and, yes, slightly in the Clinton administration. But in the Clinton administration, over every Republican's objections, we balanced the budget for 4 years.

We need a budget, Madam Speaker, that reflects our real challenges and recognizes that we must compromise to make the difficult choices necessary to meet them. The American people deserve a budget that focuses not on gimmicks but one that promotes opportunity, growth, and security; compromise, not confrontation; pragmatism, not partisanship; what works, not what sounds good.

Our budget proposal should reflect our priorities and enable us to rise to meet our challenges. The Republican budget that is going to be voted on today in the Budget Committee does not do that.

The Wall Street Journal, Madam Speaker, wrote an editorial about the Ryan priorities, most of which I disagree with because I think their reliance, as Ryan does, on dynamic scoring is a ``fool's errand'' and has been proved to be such over the years that I have served in Congress over the last 33 years. But I do agree with their conclusion, and they say this:

But the Ryan outline does the service of showing the policy

direction in which Republicans would head if they regain

control of the Senate next year.

I agree with that. I think this is a litmus test for the American people. They can review the Ryan budget. They can review its consequences to them, themselves, their families, their children, and their community. They can see the adverse consequences of a plan that will not work.

I predict, as I predicted last year, Madam Speaker, the Appropriations Committee, headed by Hal Rogers, Republican chairman, will not bring appropriation bills to the floor that will pass on this floor that will implement the Ryan budget, notwithstanding the fact that Ryan's party controls this House. I predicted that last year, and I was right. As a matter of fact, no bills passed this House at the Ryan budget numbers last year--none, not one. Sadly, I think that is what is going to happen this year--sadly, for the American people; sadly, for this Congress; sadly, for our children.

Madam Speaker, we can do better. We can be real. We ought to do the job that the American people expect us to do and get this country on a fiscally sustainable path, not with smoke and mirrors but with sincerity and courage.

Mr. Speaker, I might say that the chairman in exile of the Ways and Means Committee and his confidence in my ability to change minds is wonderful, but probably overstated. I regret that, but I will try anyway.

The previous speaker said that people will be forced to reduce hours. Now, they will only be forced to reduce hours from 40 to 39, as opposed to 30 to 29. In other words, if you work 39 hours a week, you won't have to be covered.

You won't have to have health care insurance, and somebody else will pay their bill, maybe Medicaid, depending upon how much they make. Maybe all of us will pay that extra thousand dollars in our premium so the uninsured can be funded; or maybe the other employers who do, in fact, believe it is good to offer their employees health insurance, even though they only work 39 hours a week, somebody else will pay the bill.

That is what has been happening with employers who don't provide health care insurance. Their competitors who do are in an unfair position.

Why did we choose 30 hours a week? We chose 30 hours a week, Mr. Speaker, because in surveying the private sector employment field, we found that 29 hours was perceived to be the litmus test for 29 hours or less being part time; so we picked 30 hours, which was more than the average in the private sector.

Now, we have a bill that is the 52nd vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, this obsession with undermining the access to affordable, quality health care by the American people.

This bill changes the definition of full-time employee in a way that would make approximately 1 million Americans lose their employer- sponsored coverage.

Do we care? Do 1 million Americans make a difference to us? Do 1 million Americans not having the availability of the assurance that they and their families have health coverage, does that matter to us?

Or are they all part of the 47 percent who aren't going to vote for some of us anyway--the proposition is--so why worry about them?

In addition, it would increase the number of uninsured by as many as half a million people, and it would increase the deficit by $74 billion. A million people lose their employer-sponsored care, half a million people would continue to be uninsured, and $74 billion is the loss in revenue.

Mr. Speaker, this is because the legislation provides an incentive for some employers to redefine work hours, so that more employees would be categorized as part-time.

In other words, you work in the United States of America 39 hours, and you are part-time.

Under this bill, more than five times as many workers would be put at risk of having their employers just slightly reduce their hours to avoid providing them with health insurance.

That would be a change that subverts the goals of the Affordable Care Act, and it is not going to help grow our economy either; but more importantly, it subverts the quality of life, the confidence, the assurance, if you will, of millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this legislation. I urge us to confirm the fact that we believe Americans in the richest country on the face of the Earth ought to have access to affordable, quality health care and that everybody would participate in that objective.

I want to thank Mr. Carson and Mr. Barletta for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for the 23rd straight year, I am proud to sponsor this resolution that allows the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to hold its 73rd annual race on the grounds of the United States Capitol on June 14, which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, happens to be my birthday. As Mr. Carson pointed out, and as Mr. Barletta has said, this is a longstanding tradition that brings young people from around the area to the Capitol for a fun and educational achievement.

In 1938, Mr. Speaker, Norman Rocca beat 223 other racers to win the inaugural Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, which was held on New Hampshire Avenue. Over the years, thousands of the region's young people have participated in this great race. Dozens of boys and girls, ranging in age from 8 to 17, are divided into three divisions: stock, super stock, and masters. The local winner of each division will qualify to compete with racers from around the world in the All- American Soap Box Derby in Akron, Ohio.

America's soap box derbies have been called the ``greatest amateur racing event in the world.'' Every year, they bring young people together with their parents and teach sportsmanship, hard work, and pride of accomplishment, not to mention engineering and the awareness of how you make something that makes a difference. The spirit of competition that fuels these racers is the same spirit that has long energized our Nation's businesses and innovators, which all of these young people are and, hopefully, will continue to be. The young participants in these derbies are often sponsored by community groups, police departments, fire departments, and others who recognize in them great promise for the future.

I continue to be incredibly proud of those from Maryland's Fifth District who participate. We have celebrated a number of soap box derby champions from the Fifth District, including the winners from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2013. You can see that the soap box derby is very important and popular in my district. The winners in 2007 and 2008 went on to prevail in the national championship. All of last year's winners were from Maryland's Fifth District: Aspen Tomasello, who won the stock division; Brittany Sorli, who won the super stock division; and Jay Warnick, who won the masters division and who went on to become the third St. Mary's County resident--the county in which I live, the most southern county in our State--to win the All-American Soap Box Derby in 6 years. We are very proud of them all.

I want to thank those Members who have cosponsored this resolution: Representatives Gerry Connolly, John Delaney, Donna Edwards, Jim Moran, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chris Van Hollen, and my dear friend Frank Wolf.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to come and see the soap box derby in action.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we ought to have a criteria of everybody who has read this bill can vote on it. My bet is there would be very few Members who would be able to vote on this bill.

This is an 8-page summary of this bill with probably 50 paragraphs in it about changes that have been effected in the Medicare system. None of us know what the substance of this bill is.

We had a lot of rhetoric in 2010 about reading the bills. I challenge any Member to come up here and say: I have read this bill.

I am for a permanent fix in the sustainable growth rate for doctors. I have pledged that for the last 4 or 5 years. We have a bipartisan agreement to effect that exact end; but, as so often is the case, we do not have the courage to rationally fund that agreement. That is why America is in trouble fiscally. This is a game unworthy of this institution and of the American people.

It is unfortunate that we have been put in this position with less than 48 hours' notice of what is in this bill to do something that all of us know needs to be done.

The doctors of America, at least the organized doctors of America, have said vote ``no'' on this bill because they know, we know, The Wall Street Journal knows, we have to fix this permanently, not patch it every year. It is a fraud. Both sides have committed that fraud, and we ought to stop it.

We ought to fix this. Americans ought to expect us to fix it. The doctors expect us to fix it. Seniors expect us to fix it. What a lamentable fact that we cannot summon the courage and the judgment and the wisdom to do just that.

I thank my friend, the ranking member, Mr. Engel from New York, and I thank Mr. Royce, the chairman of the committee, for bringing this bill to the floor and working in a bipartisan fashion to effect an objective that I strongly support. I thank both of them for their work.

Mr. Speaker, the ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine is unacceptable and a gross violation of international law. I agree with President Obama that Russia is acting from a position of weakness, however. Strong nations do not invade and annex territory from their smaller neighbors by force, and strong nations do not suppress the free expression of ideas and the voices of dissent within their own society. Those are the hallmarks not of a great nation but of an insecure bully.

Great nations are those that stand together to reaffirm the principles of liberty and international order. Great nations are those that commit to peaceful diplomacy while protecting free and open debate among our citizens.

The American people continue to stand with the people of Ukraine, Mr. Speaker, because we believe they have a right to join the nations of the world that are free and able to shape their own future. That is why, through this bill, we pledge our support as the new government in Kiev works to stabilize its economy, provide security to its citizens, and ensure that all Ukrainians are afforded the opportunities that come with vibrant, democratic institutions and basic freedoms. That is what this bill offers the people of Ukraine.

What it offers President Putin and his associates is an opportunity to end their misguided, unjustified, and the illegal incursion into Ukraine's internal affairs, because it affords them a choice, Mr. Speaker: adhere to international law and end their aggression or face increasingly punitive sanctions that will further isolate Russia from the global community.

The one item missing from this otherwise strong bill, unfortunately, is ratification of IMF quota reform, and I hope the House will take action on that piece soon.

However, this is a good bill. We ought to support this bill. We ought to pass this bill and send Mr. Putin a clear message that the United States Congress and the Nation we represent will not stand for Russia's actions and that we are ready to help Ukraine reach for the future it so richly deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I am pleased to yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

The gentleman released an agenda memo about a week ago and talked about a budget coming to the floor of the House of Representatives. My understanding is that the budget will be marked up in committee next week, and my presumption is when we come back, the budget will be on the floor. Is that correct? And if the gentleman can give me maybe some week that it will be on the floor, if not the day.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for those comments.

Further, it is my understanding, Mr. Leader, that the budget number that the committee will mark to is the budget number that was included in the Ryan-Murray agreement that was adopted by the Congress and signed by the President at $1.014 trillion in discretionary spending. Is that accurate?

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that that is being honored. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not the firewall that is also included in the Ryan-Murray agreement will be honored as well? The firewall, just an explanation, and I know the majority leader knows, but the firewall between discretionary defense spending and discretionary nondefense spending.

I thank the gentleman.

Just to make it clear, as I know he would want me to do: I am opposed to the sequester because I think the sequester damages our national security and domestic investments. Frankly, although the 1.014 number is not the sequester number, as the gentleman knows, the following year will be the sequester number because the agreement only lasts for 2 years. My own view is that the number that we are marking to in 2015 is not substantive enough, not sufficient funds to fund the kind of national security that we need in this country, so I am in agreement with the gentleman, but it is a direct consequence, in my view, of the fiscal policies that we have been pursuing. So I want to say to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side-- certainly me for 33 years, I have been a very strong supporter of a robust national security because I believe that is essential if we are going to maintain freedom around the world, as well as safety here at home. I know the gentleman and I share that view, and I appreciate his view on that.

Unless he wants to respond, I will go to another issue.

As you know, we filed a discharge petition on H.R. 15, which is the comprehensive immigration bill that we have introduced that reflects, we think, a fix of a broken system, which the majority leader has made clear he shares the view that the system is broken. We would hope that that bill could be brought to the floor. We would hope that at least 218 Members would sign that. We have approximately 235 Members who have said publicly to the press and to the public that they are for comprehensive immigration reform. We would hope that that would lead them to sign the discharge petition so we in fact could bring that bill to the floor.

Does the gentleman have any idea when or if some immigration reform legislation will be brought to this floor so that we can deal with a system that is obviously causing a great deal of difficulty in our country and is, in fact, a broken system?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, when I ask this question we usually do change the subject to get on the Affordable Care Act. There is hardly any subject that motivates my friends on the other side of the aisle more to say something than the Affordable Care Act.

If the gentleman believes that trust is the issue and that we can't trust the President to do any of the laws that we pass, then we ought to just stop doing things. As a matter of fact, that is just about what we have done, Mr. Speaker. Maybe that is the strategy--to pass message bills with no expectation that they will pass either the Senate and be signed by the President, and maybe all we are doing is treading water.

My own view would be that the American public expects more than that. If it is broken, as the gentleman says it is, and he says just now a significant number, I don't know if it is a majority of his caucus, believe it is broken, then they have passed out bills out of their committee. This is not a question of trust; this is a question of can this House act. We can't control what the President does. We can't control what the United States Senate does. But as the majority leader well knows, Mr. Speaker, in times past I have said what we can control is what we do. What we can do is pass policy that we think is good policy, or at least that a majority of us think is a good policy, to fix a system.

We believe strongly that a comprehensive immigration bill is good for this country. Not only do we believe it is morally right to do, but we also believe that economically it is right to do. In fact, CBO scores the passage of a comprehensive immigration bill as a substantial help to the budget deficit. That we take people, put them on the tax rolls, make sure they are paying the taxes that are due, and make sure that our country is getting the revenues that it should be getting from those who are working in our country.

In fact, of course, in addition to that, if you talk to many people in industry, that is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has urged us to pass a comprehensive reform bill, it is why the AFL-CIO has urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and it is why the agricultural community, the growers of America, have urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration bill, and it is why farmworker representatives have urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and why most faith-based organizations in America have urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration bill.

I know there are some Members who would vote against it, but I urge my friend, the majority leader: bring it to the floor. I have said this before, but the Speaker made it very clear that he was going to lead this House in a way that would allow the House to work its will. If the majority of this House doesn't trust the President and they don't want to vote for H.R. 15, so be it. They will do that; they will vote ``no.''

But I believe there are the votes on the floor to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and the only reason it is not passing is because it is not brought to the floor. For that reason, Mr. Majority Leader, I would ask you, as respectfully as I can, to put the bill on the floor. You may well be right. Your party, which if it all votes together, could defeat a comprehensive immigration bill. If your party believes that is good policy and because of a lack of trust of the President, that should be the road that you go down, then fine. Let the American people see that.

If, however, there are at least very close to half of this House who are going to be signing that discharge petition, believe that it is good policy, and if, in fact, Speaker Boehner meant what he said, that he was going to allow the House to work its will, I would urge the majority leader to let the House work its will and bring that bill to the floor. Open it up for amendments. If the gentleman's party wants to offer amendments or my side wants to offer amendments, let that be the case. But let us let the House at least have the opportunity to work its will on this very, very important bill that we think is one of the most critical issues that we ought to be addressing.

I yield to my friend if he would like to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. He and I have a difference of opinion. We discussed this the last time, as I recall. We have a difference of opinion. He thinks it would not pass. I think it would pass.

The good news for America is there is a very easy way to determine who is right and who is wrong. Put the bill on the floor, give the House a vote, give America a vote. If I am wrong, I will stand up on the floor of the House and say I was wrong.

I am sure that my friend, the majority leader, will do the same if, in fact, he is wrong, but we have an easy way in America to resolve such differences because we all have differences of opinion.

In a democracy, you vote. In a democracy, you resolve differences by coming together. I look forward to sitting down with the gentleman on this issue. I would reiterate I look forward to dealing with him on other issues as we have been able to do in many instances. I thank him for that opportunity.

We can resolve this difference by simply bringing the bill to the floor, giving America a vote, and letting the House work its will. Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor this morning to express the gratitude of the House for this morning's opening prayer by one of Maryland's most dynamic and inspirational faith leaders, my dear friend, Pastor Jonathan Leslie Weaver.

Pastor Weaver likes to share with visitors to his church this verse from Psalms 68: ``Blessed be the Lord, who daily loads us with benefits.''

For the past 25 years, Mr. Speaker, Reverend Weaver has been sharing the benefits of his care and his wisdom with his flock at Greater Mt. Nebo African Methodist Episcopal Church in Bowie, Maryland.

Pastor Weaver has overseen its growth from 100 members in 1988 to more than 1,600 today. It now has more than 50 ministries serving the church and our wider community.

Under the pastor's leadership, the church is engaged in numerous charitable works, including reentry programs, community-based violence prevention, and antihunger projects.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, Pastor Weaver has been at the center of an economic empowerment effort which has advantaged literally tens of thousands of people in our area and now has five chapters throughout our country.

I thank Pastor Weaver, along with his wife, Pamela, for their many years

of service. They are a blessing to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the important role that the Boys & Girls Clubs of America play in communities across the country. This week, in celebration of National Boys & Girls Club Week and to highlight their successes in the areas of academic achievement, good character, citizenship, and healthy lifestyles, representatives from Boys & Girls Clubs will be here in Washington for their first annual Boys & Girls Clubs Day of Advocacy.

Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the local Boys Club in my youth, as were many others who have served in government and as leaders in our economy, the law, the arts, the sciences, education, and the military. Like mine, their Boys & Girls Clubs experiences instilled lessons about citizenship, character, and both personal and social responsibility that continue to guide them today in their careers and in their service to our country. Those who participate in the Clubs today are given the opportunity to learn about their country, community, and the world, to develop positive behaviors that nurture a healthy life and outlook, and to challenge themselves as future leaders.

Every year, I am proud to join the Boys & Girls Clubs for their annual gathering, where I have the opportunity to meet those who are named Youth of the Year finalists and hear about their service projects and their aspirations for the future. I look forward to joining them again this year to reflect on my own experiences as a Boys & Girls Club alumnus and to meet the next generation of leaders for our country.

Frederick Douglass, from my State of Maryland, once said: ``It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.'' This continues to be the guiding principle behind the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. It is more than an organization; it is a movement to inspire young people to recognize the potential in themselves and the contributions they can make as members of their communities, as citizens of our country, and as citizens of the world.

I join once again in saluting the Boys & Girls Clubs of America for the extraordinary work they do across our country every day. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking the organization and in sending a strong message of support for our Nation's youth.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Chairman Royce for bringing this bill to the floor and Ranking Member Engel, and my good friend from Massachusetts for his great leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for this resolution. Hopefully, it will pass unanimously.

Russian forces continue to occupy Crimea in gross violation of international law and binding agreements signed between Ukraine and Russia in 1994 and 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I chaired the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe from 1985 to 1995. It was an extraordinary era, where the Soviet Union crumbled under the weight of its bad economic system and its political terrorism. It is starting to rear its ugly head again.

President Obama and Secretary Kerry have made it very clear--and we need to make it very clear--that Russia cannot interfere in Ukraine without serious costs; and when I say, ``serious costs,'' I mean exactly that, it cannot be empty words. It cannot be ``you ought not to.'' It needs to be ``you must not,'' and ``we will not allow.''

Last week, the President proposed sanctions and travel bans against Russian leaders complicit in their military's intrusion into Crimea. If Russia were to annex Crimea, those costs would rise. A referendum has no legitimacy when there are military forces in the streets.

In any event, as I said, I chaired the Helsinki Commission. The Helsinki Final Act, passed in July of 1975 and signed by President Ford, said emphatically and explicitly that borders cannot be changed other than by political and peaceful means. Military incursion is not an option.

This resolution will send a powerful message on behalf of the American people. The people of Ukraine who want to build a future based on democracy and freedom will hear us and be strengthened by our support.

How do I know that? Because Vaclav Havel, the leader of Czechoslovakia, a Helsinki Final Act activist, spoke from that podium where the President of the United States gives the State of the Union and said the Helsinki Final Act made an extraordinary difference.

Us speaking out will give courage and encouragement.

Those who undermine that project and who threaten Ukraine's territorial integrity or its economic activity will hear us as well.

As I understand the 1994 agreement, Great Britain and the United States, two of the great powers in this world, said that we would protect and come to the aid of Ukraine when they gave up their nuclear weapons in consideration, in part, of that representation, made by us and made by the Russians.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to approve this resolution and send a strong and unmistakable message of solidarity with the people of Ukraine and of unity in defense of democracy in Ukraine and, indeed, throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for bringing this bill to the floor in a very timely fashion.

Mr. Speaker, Congress is coming together today to support loan guarantee authority for Ukraine that will be instrumental in stabilizing its economy and showing Ukraine's people that the United States stands with them.

I view this as a first step in what, hopefully, will be a series of actions to support the people of Ukraine, including IMF ratification authority.

I also support, Mr. Speaker, President Obama's action this morning to impose sanctions again Russian and Crimean officials who are exacerbating the crisis and put in place visa restrictions.

Mr. Speaker, I chaired the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe from 1985 to 1995. The final act says that borders cannot be changed other than by political means. The Russians need to comply with that admonition. I commend the administration's efforts to broker a diplomatic process that can resolve this dangerous situation in Ukraine.

The steps taken today are integral to that effort. We will stand hopefully as one in this Congress on behalf of this bill.

Russia has violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine in its unlawful and unwarranted military occupation of Crimea and its threats against the government in Kiev.

I do not purport to say this is a simple situation that we confront. I would commend to my colleagues an article by Henry Kissinger in today's Washington Post.

The complexities of this situation are real, but the actions of the Russians are an unacceptable response and we must take action. As a former chairman of the Helsinki Commission during the waning days of the Cold War, I have seen firsthand the yearning for freedom by the people of the former Soviet Union.

There are deep linguistic and political divisions within Ukraine. Frankly, that is true of many other countries as well. Democracy by its nature provides an avenue to overcome those differences through peaceful cooperation and dialogue. That is what must prevail in Ukraine, and what must guide all parties forward. Not force, not intimidation, and not separatism. The United States remains committed, Mr. Speaker, to standing with all of the people of Ukraine as they seek the better future they deserve.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly support this resolution and again thank Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Lowey for bringing this to the floor so quickly and decisively.