Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Mr. Gerald E. Bennett for over 43 years of outstanding service to the United States House of Representatives.

Jerry is retiring this week as Chief Logistics Officer of Logistics and Support, with more than four decades of House experience. He first started working for the House of Representatives in 1969 as part of a summer employment program under the Office of the Doorkeeper. From folding Member mailings to distributing paychecks, he provided a number of important services. Over the years, he moved up the ranks, holding positions as a Maintenance Supervisor, Assistant Deputy Director, Manager, and Director of Logistics. He then served as Assistant Chief Administrative Officer and Assets, Furnishings, and Logistics Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, before becoming the Chief Logistics Officer of Logistics and Support.

Throughout his career, Jerry's thoughtfulness and positive attitude has earned him the respect and confidence of countless employees. It is not unusual to see Jerry lending a listening ear or providing sound guidance to an employee. His caring and encouraging nature is valued by this institution and its employees.

Jerry has often said that he always felt a powerful sense of purpose and a role in something deeply important. His commitment to

public service extends into his community, where he serves as a deacon in his church, uses his vacation to chaperone youth trips, and donates his time to coaching soccer. His devotion to faith and family is recognizable to all who have had the privilege to know Jerry and work beside him. He attributes much of his success to his wife, Karen, his children, and his eight grandchildren, who have always been fully supportive of his career. Jerry once claimed: ``I don't come to work to work. I love what I do.''

On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, I congratulate Jerry on his retirement and thank him for his dedication and outstanding contributions to the institution. I wish him the best in all his future endeavors.

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

Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for his kindness. The American public must be thinking Geminis are, indeed, schizophrenic. I thank my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his good wishes. I thank him for the information. If I can ask him a question initially about the farm bill, which has obviously been very controversial in the past, still remains controversial in many ways, and I'm wondering, in light of the fact that the Senate passed a farm bill in a pretty bipartisan way, 66- 27, with 18 Republicans voting in favor, but I know the Speaker has observed the divisions within the Republican Conference, and obviously there are some divisions within our caucus as well, and I'm wondering whether or not in fact the gentleman is confident that we will get to completion and a vote on the farm bill next week.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comment. As the gentleman knows, on our side of the aisle, there is very significant concern about the status of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and I would hope that as a rule is considered on that bill, I don't know whether the gentleman knows at this point in time, that we would have an opportunity to have a significant number of amendments on that bill to reflect the House working its will, as the Speaker has so often observed, and I yield to my friend for whatever information he may have. I know that the rule has not been written, and I don't know whether he has any insights on how much flexibility there will be on the rule.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that and look forward to that because I know on both sides of the aisle, this is a bill that has strong feelings among different perspectives on this bill and with respect to different subjects. And so I think as open a rule process and debate process as is possible will be helpful to the final product. I would hope that we can follow that.

Mr. Leader, you mentioned the Unborn Pain bill. I understand and I have some information that says that the text of that bill coming out of committee may be modified in the Rules Committee. Is the gentleman aware of that? And if so, is the gentleman aware of what textual change there may be from the bill that was reported out of the committee?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. His comment reflects what I've heard. There is a lot of discussion going on about this. Hopefully we would get significant notice of what changes there might be. Can the gentleman tell me, would it be safe to assume that this bill will be considered, when and if considered, no earlier than Wednesday, and will be considered Wednesday and Thursday? And I say that, I will tell you, some of my Members who are very concerned about this bill are very concerned about when it might be brought up, the timing from their perspectives. This is a very serious piece of legislation, as the gentleman knows, again from all perspectives, and I would hope that this bill would be, in light of the fact that the Rules Committee will probably deal with it--I'm not sure whether they'll deal with it on Tuesday; my presumption is they'll deal with it on Tuesday--but there will be time for proponents and opponents of whatever changes might be recommended to prepare their arguments for the floor.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that answer, and I thank him for the fact that you will be following the notice rule that has been discussed. I would ask the majority leader, could I be confident in advising people who are very focused on this bill, that if they are here Wednesday, that they will be in time to consider that bill? In other words, do you expect that the Rules Committee would consider this bill before tonight?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his answer. So that in an abundance of caution, proponents or opponents would need to be here by Tuesday. I thank him for that answer.

Let me ask an additional thing that is similar to my question on the farm bill. We are very, very hopeful that the bill we have just been discussing, whether it's considered Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, is subject to a somewhat open rule. I don't expect it to be fully open, but that amendments will be made in order. There are very strong feelings on both sides. That's why the gentleman has indicated there's a lot of discussion going on on his side and on my side. I would hope that we have the ability again for the House to work its will and that we would have the ability to offer such amendments as would be relevant, and important amendments, not specious amendments but very important amendments, to be considered by the House, and I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman, and I feel constrained to add, however, on the defense bill that we just considered, yes, it was bipartisan to the extent that both sides agreed on a formulation on the sexual assault issue within the military.

Very frankly, there were two very substantive, widely supported, widely discussed amendments that were requested, one by Ms. Speier from California and one by Ms. Gabbard from Hawaii. Neither one of those was made an amendment so that the only alternative that we had available to us was the committee agreed-upon alternative with respect to sexual assault complaints that women in the military or men in the military might have.

Then a very substantive and, I thought, well-thought out motion to recommit, which was deemed by the individual on your side of the aisle who opposed it, in an almost cursory fashion, less than, I think, 120 seconds, dismissed as a procedural motion.

With all due respect to the majority leader, and it was not the majority leader, obviously, it was anything but a procedural motion. It was a very substantive motion. It would have, in my opinion--of course we can differ on that, but my opinion, would have made a very positive improvement in the piece of legislation we were considering.

Now, I voted for the piece of legislation, the defense bill. I've never voted against a defense authorization in my career here. The national security of our Nation is critically important.

But we had somebody offer that amendment who served in the military, who gave two of her legs for our country, and who has been honored for her service, both in the military, as an officer, a helicopter pilot, and for her service to veterans, both in Illinois and in our country. And very frankly, that was rejected as a procedural motion.

I understand the gentleman's representation that we follow the tradition of giving a full and fair--but if, I say, with all due respect to the majority leader, if the motions to recommit are to be considered simply as procedural motions, which the gentleman will observe we did not do when we were in the majority, we understand, and some of our Members understood, that these amendments made a difference.

And once we got rid of the procedural impediment that a motion to recommit would send the bill back to committee, which is no longer the case, then we should consider very legitimate alternatives on a substantive basis, not the procedural objections that we were confronted with today.

I say that all to say this is a critically important bill, very strong feelings on all sides, and I would--the gentleman has said this, and I take him at his word, that we allow alternatives to be considered on this floor as amendments that are not perceived as procedural, but are perceived as substantive attempts to improve, from the offerer of the amendment's perspective, the piece of legislation before us.

If the gentleman wants to make any additional comments, I'll yield.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I understand that you do view the motion to recommit as procedural. We disagree on that.

The motion would make a substantive difference in the piece of legislation. It would have set up a different scenario. To that extent, it was clearly substantive and not procedural; and it would have, I think, comported with, from many on our side's perspective, a better process to protect women and men from arbitrary and perhaps, at some point in time, unfair treatment and would give them a choice of what avenue they would pursue to protect themselves.

And as Ms. Duckworth, Captain Duckworth, Congresswoman Duckworth so aptly stated, would give more confidence, particularly to women, but men and women entering into the service that they would be protected.

We don't need to debate the substance of the issue, simply to say that giving us the alternative, and the MTR gave us the alternative, but it was not considered, on your side, as a substantive alternative.

Therefore, my point being, on the bill that we're talking about, the Pain Bill, referred to shorthand as the Pain Bill, that we be given substantive amendments that are not perceived as procedural, so that the House, not 20 percent of the House--the Armed Services Committee is less than 20 percent of the House--not the Armed Services Committee, or any committee, for that matter, dispose of the issue and preclude the other 80 percent of us from participating in making that decision.

So I would urge my friend to urge the Rules Committee and the leadership, of which the gentleman is a principal leader, to allow substantive amendments, good-faith amendments to be made in order.

Two more things if I can, unless the gentleman wants to say something further. Let me say something on immigration reform. Paul Ryan, leader on your side, a Vice Presidential candidate, said of the bipartisan effort in the Senate on immigration, he said, ``I do support what they're doing. I think they've put out a good product. It's good policy.'' That was reported on June 6 of this year in The Hill newspaper.

Immigration, obviously, nor did I expect it to be on the list for next week. But I want to ask the gentleman--in light of the fact that comprehensive immigration reform, by many on both sides of the aisle, including Mr. Ryan, but obviously in a bipartisan way in the United States Senate, has been something that's been viewed as a priority item--can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is a near-term, and by ``near-term,'' I mean prior to the August break, expectation that we will have any movement in this House on immigration reform?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for those comments, and I look forward to us doing that and, hopefully, doing so in a bipartisan fashion because he and I both agree that the system is broken, needs to be fixed.

And my view, and I think the view of many, and certainly the Senators who came together and offered the bill that's now being considered on the Senate floor, believe that a comprehensive plan was the best answer. And I agree with that.

Lastly, if I can ask the majority leader, the student loan program, which has capped interest on student loans at 3.4 percent, expires the end of this month, and therefore we're weeks away from having a substantial increase, a doubling of student loan costs.

The President has a proposal. We passed a proposal through this House, as you know, Mr. Leader. Both of those proposals were defeated on the Senate floor for lack of 60 votes. The Senate alternative, which Mr. Bishop has now introduced, got 51 votes, but neither of them got 60 votes.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not--it's not on the calendar for next week--there's any plan to address the issue, beyond what we've already done and which has been rejected in the Senate, to ensure that students do not see a doubling of interest rates in the near future?

And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you know--and I'm sure the American public knows as well, Mr. Speaker--the reason the Senate hasn't acted is because, although they have a majority for an alternative, frankly, they can't get cloture. They can't get 60 votes. Frankly, Mr. Reid doesn't have 60 votes in order to move legislation.

So, while it's well and good to say that we have acted, we have acted on a vehicle that the Senate has rejected. And they've rejected our alternative as well. They didn't reject it by a majority vote. A majority voted for our alternative. Frankly, the House would not be able to act if 60 percent of the House were necessary to pass something, and the majority leader and I both know that. We would be in gridlock. Frankly, I think it's unfortunate the Senate has a rule which allows a minority to control. I think that's not good for the country, I think it's not good for democracy, and I think it is not good for policy. I think that's demonstrable and, unfortunately, being experienced by the American people.

But I would hope that within the next 2 weeks, or 8 legislative days that we have left, that the gentleman's efforts will bear fruit and that we can do something--not that we'll beat ourselves on the chest and say the House acted.

That's the problem with the sequester. The House acted in the last Congress, and we're not acting now because a bill that's dead and gone and cannot be resurrected was passed in the last Congress as a pretense of--not a pretense. It was real at the time, but now claiming that that is the reason we're not acting on the sequester. Hopefully, that will not be the reason we do not act on the student loan.

I thank the gentleman for his efforts at wanting to get us to a compromise which will assure that students do not see, on July 1, an increase in their interest rates.

Unless the gentleman wants to make additional comments, I will yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to join the leader. I rise to join Congresswoman Esty and Congressman Thompson in recognizing this sad anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that we mark the 6-month anniversary tomorrow of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

On that day, as has been repeated and must be remembered, Americans were united in shock and grief at the senseless murder by a crazed gunman of 26 innocent people--of 20 innocent first graders and six courageous school staff members--who tried to protect them and helped save the lives of others. Since that day, approximately 4,500--the leader mentioned 5,000, but it's a figure in excess of 4,500--Americans have died as a result of gun violence, according to the Newtown Action Alliance.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just a tragedy; it is an epidemic, one that Congress has a moral responsibility to address. When nine out of 10 Americans support stricter background checks to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness, there is no reason why Congress shouldn't be able to take swift and decisive action to enact tougher protections. I was deeply disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate failed to move forward with legislation to protect Americans from gun violence by enacting effective background checks that safeguard the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners and safeguard Americans.

The American people are demanding action, and the House now has a chance to succeed where the Senate failed. Demonstrating that commonsense proposals to reduce gun violence can, indeed, command bipartisan support, Democratic Representative Mike Thompson of California, who chairs the House Democratic Task Force on Gun Violence, and my friend Republican Representative Peter King of New York have joined together to introduce legislation in this Chamber similar to that which was blocked in the Senate. There is not a single provision in their bill that should be worrisome to those concerned about our longstanding tradition of protecting Second Amendment rights--not a single provision.

It will help us keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous and mentally unstable individuals likely to do harm to others or themselves. Will it keep all of us safe all the time? It will not. We know that. That is the tragic fact of life. But will it help? It will. If we can help, should we? The answer is an emphatic ``yes.''

This proposal contains commonsense proposals that I strongly support and that most Americans have supported, as well.

Congress has the opportunity to get this right by considering the Thompson-King legislation in the House and sending it to the Senate for consideration.

I congratulate Congresswoman Esty in particular, as well as Congressman Thompson, for their leadership and efforts in this regard. After the backlash many Senators received for opposing expanded background checks, I suspect that a number may be ready to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to come together, as Representative Thompson and Representative King have done, to advance this bipartisan solution to this pressing challenge facing our Nation--not just the Congress, but every American.

It should not take and it must not take another tragedy such as Newtown for us to act. We have a responsibility to keep our neighborhoods and our schools safe. I urge Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor to allow this bill to come to the floor for a vote.

The Speaker often says that he wants to allow the House to work its will. That's why the people of Newtown sent Congresswoman Esty to Congress. That's why the people of my district and every district represented in this House, people sent them here to vote on policies, policies to make their country better, policies to make their country more safe.

The memories of those children, the memories of those teachers, the memories of those 26, and, yes, the memories of those 4,500-plus who, since the Newtown tragedy, have lost their lives to violence, their memory, Mr. Speaker, demands and deserves action by their representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this rule as it fails to make in order several important amendments, including ones from Representatives Speier and Gabbard, that would have continued a critical debate on the urgent problem of sexual assault in the military.

The previous speaker has pointed out how important an issue this is. If it's such an important issue, it really deserves broader debate in this House fully. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee saw fit not to allow those amendments in order.

But I want to thank the Rules Committee for making in order by the ranking member, Mr. Smith, to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I've been to Guantanamo--I don't know how many of my colleagues have been there, but I've been to Guantanamo--and Guantanamo is a significant drain on the Department of Defense's resources.

There are other reasons to close Guantanamo, which I will speak of, but the numbers speak for themselves. It costs us $1.6 million per detainee. That's versus $34,000 for Federal prisoners. $1.6 million per detainee. $247 million authorized in this bill to replace temporary facilities at Guantanamo. Overall, $264 million a year to keep this facility operational for 166 people. For every dollar spent on a detainee we spend one less dollar on our troops in the field. At a time of great fiscal uncertainty, it is astounding that this facility stays open.

Guantanamo costs us not only in economic might, but in moral might as well. We are a Nation of laws, and it is our continued adherence to the Founders' vision of a lawful society that allows us to lead the world in confronting threats to peace and stability.

I urge all of my colleagues to think about the damage Guantanamo's continued operation causes to our national security as our moral might slips, as terrorists continue to use Guantanamo as a recruitment tool, and as our allies grow leery of cooperating with us for fear that a transferred detainee could end up at Guantanamo.

I also urge all of us to remember that hundreds of terrorists-- hundreds--have faced justice in civilian courts and are currently serving time in prison in the United States. Among them are Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber; Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; Zacarias Moussaoui, who conspired to kill nearly 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11--all of them in our prisons here.

We don't have to worry about these individuals because our system works. Not a single terrorist--not one--or anyone else has ever escaped from one of our maximum security prisons.

Since 9/11, 494 terrorists have been convicted in our civilian court system. In stark contrast, there have been only seven terrorists convicted by the military commissions in Guantanamo. Five of these, by the way, were pleas.

To quote General Colin Powell from 2010:

We have 300 terrorists--it's now less--who have been put in

jail not by a military commission but by a regular court

system . . . We ought to remove this incentive that exists in

the presence of Guantanamo to encourage people and give

radicals an opportunity to say, ``You see? This is what

America is all about.''

That's Colin Powell.

We should be proud of our Nation's long history of bringing to justice those who commit crimes that threaten the peace and freedom of innocent people around the world. Guantanamo is a stain on that record. It should be closed.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Additionally, let me say there are a few other amendments that, I hope, Members will support.

One is the amendment from my friend Jim McGovern--a sense of Congress that this body should have the right--indeed, the duty--to engage in a debate about the continued path forward in Afghanistan.

I urge my colleagues to support that amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with the 15th week of the Republican policy of sequester, this House continues to avoid taking the steps it ought to be taking to replace the entire sequester with a balanced alternative.

Instead, House Republicans have fully embraced the sequester's draconian cuts, which slash funding from our highest and lowest priorities equally and put our economic recovery and national security at risk.

Last week, they approved a rule deeming the Ryan budget's caps for next year, which locks in the sequester cuts. This is a blatant violation of the Budget Control Act agreement reached between the two parties in August of 2011.

Now we're about to consider a defense authorization bill that shifts $54 billion in sequester cuts from the Pentagon onto domestic programs which were already cut by sequester, like Head Start, Meals on Wheels, and rental assistance for low-income families. How shameful.

This follows the passage of two appropriations bills last week as part of a strategy from Republicans we've seen before. It came as no surprise that they chose to consider two of the most popular bills first, those that fund programs that protect our homeland security and provide care for our veterans. I'm glad there's bipartisan consensus that these bills represent important funding priorities.

But let me quote from an Associated Press article from June 4 which sheds some light on their strategy:

The boost for veterans came even as Republicans controlling

the Chamber marched ahead with a plan that would require most

other domestic programs to absorb even deeper cuts next year

than those in place now after the imposition of across-the-

board spending cuts.

This refers, of course, to the sequester. The article continues:

Republicans are coping with the shortfall by slashing

across a broad swath of domestic programs, forcing cuts in

the range of 20 percent, for instance, to a huge domestic

spending bill that funds aid to local school districts,

health research, and enforcement of labor laws.

The article goes on to say, ``The GOP strategy is to, early on, advance popular bipartisan bills''--for which almost all of us voted-- ``and then bring up bills making deep cuts later in the summer, if at all.''

In fact, I predict that they will not bring up most of the bills, notwithstanding their discussions about regular order.

By insisting on budget numbers that not only include the sequester but cut even further into domestic priorities, in clear violation of the Budget Control Act and the agreement that we reached between the two parties, Republicans are torpedoing any chances of reaching a big and balanced solution to deficits.

The longer we wait, Mr. Speaker, to forge a compromise that can replace the entire sequester with a balanced alternative, the more pain will be felt across our economy and the greater the risk will be to our national security. Just ask the joint chiefs, not us.

Let me review just some of the sequester's many effects: 70,000 kids kicked off Head Start; 10,000 teachers' jobs at risk from title I cuts; furloughs to cause delays in processing retirement and disability claims; 4 million fewer meals for seniors; 125,000 less HUD rental assistance vouchers; emergency unemployment past 26 weeks cut 11 percent for 2 million Americans out of work; 2,100 fewer food safety inspections; longer waits to approve new drugs; furloughs equivalent to 1,000 fewer Federal agents, FBI, Border, et cetera, on the job.

We talk about border security while, at the same time, slashing border guards.

One-third of combat air units are grounded in America.

It has now been over 70 days since the House passed its budget and since the Senate did the same. Regular order. Yet, Speaker Boehner, who claims to wish regular order for this House, will not appoint conferees. Or shall I say, he is unable to do so as a result of a severely divided caucus.

The Washington Post reported on June 3 that the House Republicans have ``disintegrated into squabbling factions no longer able to agree on, much less execute, some of the most basic government functions.''

It seems what matters is only a commitment to deep austerity and a weakened government. This ideology has achieved a dangerous manifestation in the sequester, which has been the Republican policy all along, and which, as I have pointed out in the past, was included in their Cut, Cap and Balance bill passed in July of 2011, when 229 Members of their caucus voted for sequester as an option.

Now we have further evidence the sequester is their policy, as Republicans double down on these irrational cuts and refuse to negotiate.

There is, however, Mr. Speaker, an alternative. That is a balanced bill that will replace the sequester entirely. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, has put forward a proposal that deserves a vote.

The Speaker so often says, ``Let the House work its will.'' In fact, he has asked for a vote on it six times, Van Hollen has, and will ask for a seventh time at the Rules Committee today, but Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader Cantor have so far said, no, the House cannot work its will; the House cannot consider this option.

The American people deserve to see where their representatives stand on a balanced alternative to the sequester, and they deserve a Congress where real compromise proves stronger than partisan maneuvering.

If the Van Hollen alternative were to come to the floor for a vote, I would hope that a majority of Members would vote for it. A majority of Democrats certainly would and I believe a substantial number of Republicans who are concerned about our fiscal future.

Hal Rogers, in fact, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has opined how much pain the sequester would be causing and how much dysfunction it would be causing. It's exactly the kind of compromise approach we need, the Van Hollen alternative.

All we're asking to do, in the immediate term, is for Speaker Boehner to let the House work its will and have a vote on Mr. Van Hollen's alternative, and to follow regular order and agree to go to conference. That's what they said they wanted to do. That's what they said they would do, but they're not doing it.

It's time for Democrats and Republicans to work together, in a bipartisan way, to rise to our budget challenges and set our country back on a sound fiscal path.

Let us have regular order. Let us have a vote, and let us restore sanity to this House, and replace the sequester with a balanced solution.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my friend for next week's schedule, I would like to join, I know, with all of our colleagues in wishing him a happy birthday. It is the majority leader's birthday today, and because I don't want him to retaliate, I'm not going to mention which birthday it is, but I want to congratulate him and wish him the very best. We'll have a birthday colloquy today.

I thank him for his leadership, and I yield to him to explain our schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

We have started the appropriations process. We did two bills this week. They were relatively bipartisan in nature.

I regret, of course, the adoption of the King amendment, which we thought was a very bad policy. It precluded us from voting for a bill that we otherwise would have voted for and that we failed to reach bipartisan agreement. I think there were some on your side who did not want the King amendment offered which precludes any discretion for prosecutors, which I think is bad as general policy and certainly bad as it relates to the DREAMers.

I would hope that as we move forward on the appropriation bills, that we would be able to do those as we did the Military Construction, Veteran Affairs, and Related Agencies bill on which we passed on an almost overwhelming vote on both sides of the aisle.

One of the problems, Mr. Leader, is going to be the amount of dollars that have been made available to the nine remaining bills--perhaps Agriculture--so the eight remaining bills after we do MilCon and Homeland Security, which essentially were done at the agreed-upon levels of the Budget Control Act, similar to what the Senate is marking their bills to. I'm not sure what the defense number is going to be, but our fear and concern is that these bills will be marked so that substantial dollars that would otherwise have been available to other subcommittees will not be available because, in effect, we front-loaded spending on the first three bills.

The Ryan budget, as the gentleman knows, is almost $100 billion less than the agreement of August 2011 on how much dollars would be available for priorities on the discretionary side of our budget.

Can the gentleman give me any information with reference to whether or not we may still be going to a budget conference where we perhaps could reach elimination of the sequester and a new number that could be agreed upon between the Senate and the House, as we always have to do? Whether there's a budget or not, we have to agree on the numbers. We are about $100 billion apart, and that has to be overcome if we're going to pass bills.

Can the gentleman give me any thoughts on whether or not we're going to go to conference? There is nothing on the schedule for a motion to go to conference or appointment of conferees.

I yield to my friend.

In other words, I think the gentleman is saying there is not going to be a conference because there is disagreement on what the result of that conference will be? Is that what I'm hearing you say?

I yield to the gentleman.

I would say that we have indicated on a number of occasions that we would love to see some growing-the-economy legislation on the floor, jobs bills on the floor, bills that the administration and Republicans and economists on both sides say would grow the economy. We haven't seen those, and we're concerned about that.

First of all, let me make the observation that we don't believe the first three bills that you're bringing out--you've brought out two defense bills--are being brought out at the Ryan-budget levels. In fact, they're being brought out substantially above the Ryan-budget levels, if, in fact, you perceived equal distribution under 302(b) of the allocations of discretionary money.

We don't share your view that the two bills we voted on--the two bills we voted on, frankly, have been at the Senate level, essentially, which is why they were relatively bipartisan. Not only was it at the Senate level, but it was at the level we agreed to in 2011, and August of 2011 would, in fact, be the discretionary number for fiscal year 2014.

There's not anything on the schedule with reference to the debt limit. As the gentleman knows, the debt limit was extended until May 19. That is now 3 weeks past, and we have not dealt with the debt limit.

Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any plan to deal with the debt limit extension, which the gentleman and I agree must be done if we're not going to destabilize the economy and grow the economy?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would say that he mentioned two bills with reference to jobs--the SKILLS Act. Unfortunately, the SKILLS Act suffered from the same thing that the Homeland Security Act just today suffered from, as the gentleman knows. Contrary to what we could have done on a bipartisan basis in the SKILLS Act, diversity, a small number was inserted into that bill, reducing diversity visas to this country, which was highly offensive to many, many Americans who saw that as a direct attack on their ability to get family members to come to this country, particularly from Africa and the Caribbean. It was well known on your side that if that was put in, it was going to undermine our ability to have a bipartisan agreement.

The same thing occurred with Homeland Security. The gentleman knew full well that the inclusion of the King amendment, which we felt was a very negative amendment and put Dreamers in particular at risk, but whether or not that was the case, it undermines very, very substantially--excuse me, I was incorrect. Staff corrects me, it was the STEM bill that I was talking about. You did not mention that bill. But the point is the same: in moving ahead on a bipartisan fashion, the committee did come out with a bipartisan bill on Homeland Security, you're absolutely correct. And Mr. Price, the ranking member, was prepared to vote for that. He was going to urge the caucus to vote for it, and we were going to vote for it until, with very few exceptions, your caucus, your side of the aisle, voted overwhelmingly to put in a piece, an amendment, which you knew would undermine the bipartisanship that had been arrived at by the committee. That's unfortunate.

The gentleman, ironically from our perspective, I tell my friend with great respect, we think that the Family Flexibility Act was the Family Income Reduction Act. We think what it said to an awful lot of working people: you're not going to get paid overtime. If your colleague will work for free and get comp time at some point in time that the employer decides, we're not going to pay overtime. So you're right, we respectfully disagree. As I said, we think that was the Family Income Reduction Act. Families are already struggling. Middle-income families' income has been stuck in the mud, and we think that exacerbated it further. And, very frankly, as the gentleman knows, that was a bill that was offered some years ago with very substantial opposition and didn't become law, as this one is not going to become law.

But in any event, let me close with this question. There are three bills which are being marked up. Maybe Ag was marked up or is going to be marked up soon. Does the gentleman expect that all 12 appropriations bills will be brought to the floor? He talks about priorities. Our priorities are different, although ironically, the gentleman has expressed in his memos and in his agenda that he has announced a desire to focus research on biomedical research to keep Americans healthier, children and others. Ironically, the 302(b) that he talked about earlier suggests, to be exact, a 26.5 percent cut in the bill that funds NIH. That's going to result in a very substantial reduction in basic biomedical research at NIH, and the leaders at NIH have made that very clear that not only that bill but the present sequester is undermining their ability to conduct biomedical research. I know the gentleman feels strongly about that, as I do. Let me ask him: Do you think that bill will be brought to the floor? It was not brought even to the full committee last year, much less to the floor. Therefore, no one had the opportunity to have a vote on those priorities. Can the gentleman tell me whether he thinks those nine remaining bills will be brought to the floor?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. I look forward to seeing the Labor- Health bill on the floor and seeing how he comes to those priorities because I think it is very important.

Before I close--and I think he has left the floor--but I do want to mention that today is the day on which John Dingell of Michigan becomes the longest-serving Member of Congress in the history of the Congress, since 1789. He is one of the great legislators with whom many of us have served, and I know that next week we will be having an opportunity on the floor to have all Members, or many Members, participate in recognizing his service.

My staff tells me maybe we're going to do it tomorrow and not next week, but most Members will be here next week, and I expect that they'll be saying something at that time as well.

I know the majority leader joins me in congratulating our colleague and our friend, John Dingell, on his extraordinary service to not only the Congress of the United States, but to the American people.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

I thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, what's before us is before us. What's before us is a rule, not the MilCon bill, not Homeland Security.

What's before us is the bill. And what does the bill do?

It doesn't have an open process. It doesn't allow us an amendment. Mr. Van Hollen wanted to have an amendment and say let's go to conference on the budget; let's decide what these numbers ought to be. No, it's our way or the highway.

You've passed a budget. You're going to stick with those numbers. They won't work. You know they won't work. That's why you don't go to conference, because Mr. Ryan knows he couldn't make a deal that he could bring back to this House and your side would vote for, I tell my friend on the Rules Committee.

So what's before us is before us, a ratification of sequester, which starts with ``S,'' which stands for ``stupid.'' It is a terrible process. It is an irrational, commonsense-defying process.

And yet my Republican friends continue to demand that we mark to figures that were contrary to the understanding, agreement--deal, if you want--that we made.

In August of 2011, we made a deal and we said these are going to be the numbers, and the ink was not dry on the paper until such time as you violated that agreement. And the Ryan budget violates it once again and is $91 billion, almost 9 percent, less than the deal we made.

What's before us is before us, the gentleman says. What's before us is the rule to ratify the sequester.

Now, your side blames the President for it. The President doesn't want the sequester. We don't want the sequester. Mr. Van Hollen, who's sitting here, doesn't want the sequester, and he's tried to offer amendments to obviate the sequester and hasn't been allowed to have those amendments on the floor, I tell my friend on the Rules Committee.

And I congratulate him for his position, but he ought to allow the Van Hollen amendment so the House can, in fact, work its will, so that we can, in fact, have a process that will work.

Now, my friend says he's been here for some time and he's participated in another legislative body. Well, I've been here for a long time myself, as the gentleman knows, some 33 years, and 12 years in the Maryland Senate, President of the Senate for the last 4 I was there. So I've been around for some years myself.

The fact is, I will tell the gentleman, there is no possibility you're going to consider all 12 bills because, as the gentlelady said, you're going to run out of money. Why? Because you're front-loading that which you like, and that which you're not too happy about is going to be not only breaking the agreement we made, but far below your own budget numbers because you didn't want to mark to your 966 with this bill.

Why? Because you want to make sure the veterans were taken care of. God bless you. I agree with that. But there's only X number of dollars in that pot, and somebody's going to lose.

What the President is saying is let's consider them all together. That's what we ought to be doing. Reject this bill, reject this sequester, reject this deeming resolution, and let us have a rule that makes common sense for our country.

I thank the gentleman for taking the floor, and I thank the gentleman from New York for joining in. I think that we are on the cusp of a real expansion and reinvigoration of our manufacturing sector in this country for a lot of reasons that I point out around the country, and I know the two of you do as well.

First of all, salaries are going up overseas. That's good news for them and, frankly, for us.

Furthermore, as we all know, it's costing a lot more to ship goods back to the biggest market in the world than it used to.

Thirdly, I think both of you have talked about energy. We are about to become an energy-independent Nation with energy that has a cost less than most of our competitors around the world, so we have become, in a relatively short period of time, I think, in many respects, the venue of choice for someone who wants to either expand or establish manufacturing here in this country or, frankly, continue to grow things in this country.

As you know, our Make It in America agenda really has four component parts. One is having a plan. Nobody talks about this more than John Garamendi of California, and God bless you for that. Thank you so much for your leadership on this issue. And Paul Tonko from New York also has been very focused on this issue, and I thank him for that.

The second part of the agenda is to not only have a plan, but be focused on exports, be focused on building markets for small, medium, and large businesses. Large businesses have the resources to look for markets themselves. In many respects, small- and medium-sized businesses do not, but they are producing products that they can sell not only here but around the world.

President Obama was in Baltimore not too long ago at a relatively small company, Ellicott Dredges, in Baltimore. They have sold dredges to over 100 countries in the world, and they are making those dredges in America.

The third part is to encourage bringing jobs home, not sending them overseas. It makes no sense to have a tax policy that gives benefits to people who are sending job overseas while we have millions of Americans who can't find jobs. So what we want to do is incentivize bringing jobs home by giving a tax break for not only bringing jobs home, but creating jobs here in America.

Lastly--you both referenced this--we need to make sure that we have a 21st century workforce. As a result, we need to invest, as the gentleman from New York just said--I am just repeating his words, but I use them all the time as well--we need to invest in education, innovation, and infrastructure. That's what helps you grow American manufacturing jobs. And Americans, when they're polled, over 85 percent of them say, if America is going to be the kind of country we want it to be, it will be because we make things here in the United States of America. And the ``Made in America'' label is seen all over the world. In fact, the ``Made in America'' label is a very popular label all over the world.

So I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) and the gentleman from New York for their leadership and their focus on what is critical: if the next generation of Americans is going to make it, that we provide the kinds of jobs and opportunity, as well as education and investment in innovation, that they need to continue to live in the most successful economic country on the face of the Earth. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Amen.

Mr. Speaker, I know that Members want to catch planes, and I will be brief; but I did want to take this opportunity.

From time to time we, in sadness, see one of those people leave who have served this institution very well, and served me, both in my role as majority leader and as Democratic whip. But I wanted to rise at this point in time to say thank you--and I know you want to join with me--to Austin Burnes, who is leaving as my floor director and as a valued friend and staff member.

At the same time, I want to thank those on Speaker Boehner's staff, on Majority Leader Cantor's staff and on Whip McCarthy's staff who have worked so well and positively with Austin Burnes, for helping us to do our job better. Obviously, there were differences from time to time-- well, maybe all the time--but I thank you for that.

Austin, I want to thank you for the service you have given to this institution, to your country, to me, and to all the Members who appreciate very much your advice and counsel.

Mr. Speaker, as the sequester's effects continue to place our economy and national security at risk, the news that 650,000 civilian defense workers will be forced to take unpaid leave ought to alarm all Americans who are concerned about our military readiness and national security. These furloughs will affect thousands who live in my district and thousands who live in the districts of every Member here.

After Congress voted earlier this month to end furloughs for air traffic controllers that had caused flight delays, one would have expected there to be a unanimous outcry for the rest of the sequester to be replaced.

The best way to do that, of course, Mr. Speaker, is with a big and balanced agreement, but, instead, Republicans in this House don't seem interested.

It's not just Democrats who are taken aback by their silence. Republican Senator and former Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, John McCain, said on May 14, just a few days ago, about these furloughs for civilian defense employees:

Nobody seems to care. It's amazing. It's one of the most

amazing things I've seen in the years I've been in the

Senate.

So said John McCain.

Democrats continue to call for the sequester to be replaced with a balanced approach to deficits that restores fiscal discipline, preserves our ability to pay for our military readiness, and invests in a strong economy.

The sequester, on its own, is not a solution. It has been, however, Republican policy all along and is now in effect because they refuse to compromise in a bipartisan way to find a real solution.

If you go back to July of 2011 and look at the Republican offer of the Cut, Cap and Balance bill, you will see that sequestration is in there. It is the alternative that Republicans put forth as policy; 229 Republicans voted for that policy.

Well, they got what they wanted. On April 27, a report in The Hill said:

GOP leaders in the House said they have no plans to bring

up broad legislation to replace sequestration, according to a

leadership aide.

The men and women who are hard at work supporting our troops and protecting our Nation are set to be furloughed for 11 days this year-- an unfair, unplanned, undeserved pay cut, while, frankly, the leadership of this House sits idly by and takes no action to replace the sequester.

The same goes for the other terrible effects sequestration could have: 70,000 eligible children kicked off Head Start; 10,000 teachers' jobs at risk; retirement disability claims delayed; 4 million fewer Meals on Wheels for seniors; 125,000 fewer rental assistance vouchers; 2,100 fewer food safety inspectors.

Surely, if those were on the floor for a vote, most of us would not vote for them; but that's what's happening as a result of the sequester.

We know, Mr. Speaker, what the Republican plan is for these defense cuts, to pass appropriation bills in the House that shift those cuts so that domestic programs, those education, Head Start, food safety that I've just mentioned, basic biomedical research, are cut more deeply than the parties agreed to in the Budget Control Act in 2011.

We also understand, Mr. Speaker, and everyone recognizes, that the domestic cuts Republicans want to impose, instead, couldn't even pass the House, let alone make it through the Senate or survive a certain veto.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, we have only one reasonable option before us, and that is to work together, to set our differences aside for the good of our country, and to achieve real compromise.

A big, balanced, bipartisan approach that replaces the entire sequester is the only way to protect our defense workers against these furloughs and end the uncertainty that they and their families are facing.

Let's have a vote, Mr. Speaker, on a balanced alternative, not another vote to repeal health care reform that's not going anyplace, not another vote to roll back the rights of workers, not another vote to strip away safety standards or environmental protections.

Let's stop wasting time and get to work on the most pressing challenge we face, and make the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal stability and invest in our economy and in our national security.

Mr. Speaker, apparently the Republicans are opposed to ObamaCare.

I know that comes as a shock to America, so we need to tell them one more time or 37 times or maybe a 38th or 39th or 40th or 100th time.

I don't know how many times we have to replay the election. There was an election in which this was one of the principal issues, and the proponent of health care for all Americans was elected by most Americans.

Mr. Speaker, this vote, as we all know, is a waste of our time; it is, however, a political exercise. This will be the 37th vote to repeal health care reform since the Republicans took control of the House. It's exactly the same as the bill that we considered in July. That partisan bill was dead on arrival in the Senate, just as this one will be; and everybody knows it.

In fact, The New York Times reported that since 2011:

Republicans have spent no less than 15 percent of their

time on the House floor on repeal in some way.

Since 2011, they've spent 15 percent of their time on this House floor trying to repeal health care for all Americans.

When President Obama was reelected after campaigning on the Affordable Care Act as a major first-term achievement with the unanimous opposition of Republican colleagues and after the Supreme Court said, yes, this is a constitutional exercise of the Congress' authority, Speaker Boehner said, ``ObamaCare is the law of the land.''

I had hoped that would be the end of wasted time and $52.4 million in taxpayer money on legislation to nowhere that would strip away benefits for millions and millions of Americans. Sadly, however, this vote is more of the same.

It would increase out-of-pocket costs on preventive services for 105 million Americans, including 34 million seniors on Medicare and 71 million Americans covered under private plans.

It would allow insurance companies to reimpose arbitrary lifetime limits on coverage for more than 100 million people.

It would allow insurance companies once again to discriminate against and deny care to as many as 17 million children with preexisting conditions. CantorCare tried to reverse that and had to be pulled from this floor because even a Republican-sponsored attempt at dealing with preexisting conditions was rejected by our Republican colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, the clock will not be turned back. ObamaCare is the law of the land. Those are not my words, but Speaker Boehner's.

You say this vote is necessary so that freshman Members have a chance to get on record on a major issue. If they haven't gotten on record now, they're not going to get on record.

If that is the standard for getting a vote on the floor, then let us have a vote on replacing the sequester which you have denied freshmen the chance to vote on all year. That is what we ought to be spending our time on, getting our country on a sound fiscal path, creating jobs and growing our economy. Instead, we tread water; we waste time as we continue to debate for the 37th time the repeal of health care for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, this week the House will be voting for the 37th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

This vote comes at a time when we are facing serious and pressing challenges, one of the most important of which is the operations of the sequester. That is 37 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Let us set aside for a moment the important issue of how health reform is working and making quality care accessible and affordable for more Americans. I'll be speaking more about that from this floor in coming days, as I know some of my colleagues will.

What I find--and I believe most Americans find--incomprehensible is how this House could waste its time on such a blatantly partisan vote when the effects of sequestration are having a growing negative effect on our economy and on the lives of so many American families. That ought to be our focus this week and every week until we find a solution, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Boehner has said that this 37th repeal vote is justified because freshman Members have not had an opportunity to vote on that issue. If that is his view, then, by the same reasoning, he should allow a vote on a balanced alternative to the sequester. Freshmen have not had a chance to cast their votes on whether to replace the entire sequester with a big and balanced solution to deficits.

If the House proceeds with a vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that Members deserve an opportunity to be on the record on such an important issue, surely, Mr. Speaker, we also ought to have a vote on replacing the sequester, which we know is having adverse effects on our economy and on our national security.

American families and businesses are facing greater and greater uncertainty as the result of the sequester and the unwillingness on the part of Congress to take a meaningful, bipartisan action to stop it. With this uncertainty, businesses have slowed hiring and in some cases have even begun to lay off workers.

This indiscriminate and irrational nature of the sequestration means that it's ill effects will be felt across our economy and society without regard to our priorities. It also means that none of us, not one of us in this Chamber, is immune in our own districts where constituents will see a reduction in services and dislocation.

Because of the sequester, we are at risk of 70,000 young people kicked off Head Start; 10,000 teacher jobs at risk for title I cuts; 4 million fewer Meals on Wheels for seniors; 600,000 women, infants, and children dropped off the rolls; emergency unemployment insurance cut by 11 percent for 2 million out-of-work Americans; 2,100 fewer food-safety inspections. That's a drop of 18 percent to make sure that our food is safe. And one-third of combat air units are grounded.

The responsible path forward is for Democrats and Republicans to work together on a big and balanced approach to deficits that restores certainty to our businesses and families.

Four times Mr. Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, has offered an amendment to the sequester, which would get to the same deficit reduction, but in a way that was prioritizing those things that are important in our country and eliminating those that are not, and raising some additional revenues, as well.

Not only has that not been considered, but the Republicans have refused to allow that amendment on the floor. Yet we have the 37th time to repeal the health care bill, which is already benefiting millions of Americans. It's not a responsible use of congressional time.

I urge the Speaker and the Republican leader to cancel this repeal vote and get back to business by allowing us to consider a balanced alternative to the sequester this week.

I also urge them to bring to the floor a motion to go to conference on the budget. My Republican friends pleaded for the Senate to pass a budget. The Senate passed a budget; we passed a budget. Regular order is going to conference where we could, in fact, come to an agreement on a big and balanced deal to replace this negatively impacting sequester.

There is nothing on the schedule to do that, either to repeal the sequester

and change it or to go to conference, but a 37th vote that will go nowhere. And everybody who knows that to be the case is on the floor this week. How sad.

``Address us'' overstates what I'm going to do, but I'm always so pleased to be with all of you. And I was kidding on saying that.

I want to tell you frankly, on the Republican side, you guys look so much better than you did when we served together, and we want all of you back on our side of the aisle. We're voting to reelect you.

But I am so pleased to be here with all of you. I had the opportunity to say just a few words yesterday, but I particularly wanted to be here, and I don't

see my Republican Speaker here. I think some of you know that story. Ray LaHood was presiding, and it was the nineties, '95, early '95, and I went up to Ray. We had about--I forget exactly--199 Members at that point in time. I went to Ray and I said, ``Ray, if you can get 20 votes, I will get 199, and we'll elect Bob Michel Speaker.'' But we didn't do that, as you noticed historically.

But I fondly recall with you the days when we really did sit down and work together on a lot of things in a positive way and get things done for our country. We're not doing that as well this time, as you know. Ray would tell you that, working in the administration, but I particularly wanted to be here this morning.

I don't see Bob here. Is Bob coming?

Okay. Well, he is not here.

I'm a huge fan of Bob Michel's, but I'm also a huge fan of Ray LaHood's, and I know you're honoring Ray today, and I want to join with you in honoring him. Not only did he serve as a staffer in the House of Representatives, upholding what we're not upholding as much today, the integrity and the self-respect of all the Members here, to some degree denigrating this institution and Members--I lament that.

But Ray LaHood, as a staffer and as a Member of Congress and as a member of the President's Cabinet, has done some extraordinary work.

Ray, I want to congratulate you and thank you for all the positive roles you have played in moving this country forward. We're going to miss you from the Cabinet, but we don't expect to miss you from our lives, as so many here see. I want to wish you the very best.

Jack tells me he's now the president of a community college in New York. I said, ``Well, are you watching what we're doing?'' He said, ``Not much.'' That's why he's got such a happy look on his face--hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Some of you were here when I came to the Congress in 1981, and some came with me. I came 5 months after you did, Dennis, and just a few months before Barbara came to the Congress.

So I want to say on behalf of all the leadership--hopefully on both sides of the aisle--I know that's the case.

And remember, I'm not going to drag my leg, but do you remember John Rousselot? Does that name ring a bell with you? Well, when I came to the Congress, John Rousselot probably was the Member that I had the most negative feelings about: John Birch Society, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Into about a year, I got to really think, John Rousselot is not a bad guy at all.

I don't recall whether you recall, but he used to smile at all of us as if to say, Okay, I've come over to your side and now I'm really gonna give it to you. And he did it with such a twinkle in his eye and such a positive. Jim Blanchard--Governor Blanchard, Ambassador Blanchard, all things Blanchard--is shaking his head. But that was a lesson to me, as it should be a lesson for all of us, to take people not on which side of the aisle they're on, not which side of the liberal-conservative range they may fall, not on some simplified newspaper story that you read, but on, as King said, the content of their character.

I think the more that we get to know one another, the more we understand why this body really does over the long term work. The only way you can get here is be elected by your neighbors, and they do pretty well. They're not perfect, we're not perfect, but they do pretty well, and they elect some really fine people Representatives of their districts.

The trick is for all of us to come together and work together. Your efforts here, I think, help in that regard. So, welcome back, and I look forward to seeing you, not just when the former Members come back. I see Connie all the time and Bev all the time, my colleagues from Maryland. And I saw Jim the other day, and we had a good talk. But come back, visit; and if I can help in any way, I want to do it, just as I will want those who succeed me after I leave to do the same.

So, Ray, congratulations to you. Thank you very much. And, to all of you, thank you for all you have done through the years, and thanks for remembering and coming back and helping our institution be all that it can be. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember Vincent Roper, who passed away on April 4 of natural causes at the age of 79.

For decades, Vince and his wife Roberta worked tirelessly to advance victims' rights in Prince George's County and throughout Maryland, advocating for rights and support services for crime victims and their families as they heal and seek justice.

Vince and Roberta suffered an unimaginable tragedy in 1982 when their daughter, Stephanie, was murdered. Following this tragic crime, the Roper family wasn't permitted to observe the trial and was denied the right to address the court at the sentencing. Their frustration led them to establish the Stephanie Roper Committee and Foundation, Inc., which is now known as the Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center. The Center actively lobbies legislators in Annapolis and played a significant role in the passage of the Federal Crime Victims Rights Act, the Maryland Crime Victims Rights Act of 1997, and other legislation that is making a substantial difference in the lives of crime victims and their families in Maryland.

Born in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, in 1933, Vince later enlisted in the U.S. Navy at the age of 17 and was selected to attend the U.S. Naval Academy. A graduate of the class of 1956, he served our nation for thirty years as a naval officer and retired as a Captain. In addition to serving as the Treasurer of the Stephanie Roper Committee and Foundation, he served our community as a member of the Knights of Columbus, the Most Holy Rosary Council No. 11511, and the Naval Weather Service Association.

Prince George's County and the State of Maryland owe a great deal to Vince for his hard work and dedication to ensuring that every crime victim in Maryland is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. I join our community in mourning his passing, and my thoughts and prayers are with Roberta and their family.

I thank my friend, the ranking member.

I rise partly in sadness, wholly in disappointment, that we are playing this game. How sad. I tell my other friend from Michigan, his amendment is sad, too, I want to say. It's a device to try to get people to vote for a bill that has no merit by making Members' pay somehow present in this bill. We ought to consider things on their merit, not on this political gamesmanship.

Madam Speaker, for the second time, House Republicans have decided to put our country at risk by defaulting on its obligations. They know this bill is not going anywhere. They know the President would veto it, and they know Republican economists think this bill makes no sense. I won't ask the gentleman who chairs the Ways and Means Committee his real view on this bill.

This so-called ``debt prioritization'' bill mandates that, in the event we hit the debt limit, we will pay China first, not our contractors doing business with us, not our Federal employees, not veterans--yes, Social Security is taken care of--not our military. We'll pay China first. That's what this bill says. No major creditor in this country would have a debt prioritization. Now, the secondary lenders and tertiary lenders, yes, have prioritization, but no major lender, no big corporation. They say, if we incur a debt, we'll pay it--not we'll pay this one first and you second or third or fourth. We'll pay China first and other creditors before we pay our troops, seniors, health care and veterans benefits. Yes, you've made an exemption for Social Security, not in the original bill, but politically that was too hot to handle, so you added Social Security.

Just yesterday, Speaker Boehner admitted that this bill means the United States of America will voluntarily act like a bankrupt corporation and pay China before we pay our troops. How sad. How patently political. How transparent that we are trying to give a fig leaf so that we can play around with the national debt. Ronald Reagan would be deeply disappointed, and he expressed that.

Speaker Boehner said:

Those who have loaned us money, like in any other

proceeding . . . the bondholders usually get paid first. The

same thing here--pay China first.

This partisan bill is not a feasible solution to our debt problem, and even Republicans recognize this won't work.

Tony Fratto, a former Bush administration spokesman on economic policy--this is a Republican spokesman--said:

Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really

going to be in the position of withholding benefits,

salaries, rent, contract payments, et cetera, in order to pay

off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political

catastrophe.

Former Bush chief economic adviser Keith Hennessey--this is an economic adviser, not a spokesperson--said this:

If the U.S. Government legally commits to paying someone a

benefit or agrees to pay a firm for a good or a service, the

U.S. Government should fulfill that agreement in a timely

fashion. To do otherwise is taking the first step to becoming

a banana republic.

That's Hennessey, not Hoyer, not a Democrat. That's a Bush economic adviser.

Madam Speaker, we should not be admitting defeat and ranking the losers as this bill would do. Instead of choosing to pay China or any other holder of our debt before we pay our troops--and we ought to pay them, and we ought to pay them on time, but that's not the issue. The issue is the United States of America, the most creditworthy Nation on Earth, ought to pay all its debt in a timely fashion--all--not prioritize--all--across the board. For our wounded veterans and for the seniors who have worked hard to build this country, we should be working to fix the problem by coming to a consensus on a big and balanced deal to reduce our deficit, including tax reform, which the chairman is so assiduously seeking.

Playing politically motivated games with the creditworthiness of the United States will only risk another downgrade.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have already spoken about this amendment. I think this amendment is as sad as the bill.

We continue to play games because we think that, in a way, we will compel people to vote for something they don't want to vote for--and, in my view, are not going to vote for. I think it's sad. I think we continue to demagogue this institution and its Members. That's sad. We leaders should not do that. This is a serious bill.

Now, I want to tell the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, I know what the debt is. And I know that debt has been incurred because we bought a lot of things we didn't pay for, including over $1 trillion of Afghanistan and Iraq, including a prescription drug bill that projects over $2 trillion, including tax cuts that were $2.3 trillion that not a penny were paid for. I understand, and I think it's serious.

The sad thing is that this is not a serious response. This is an irresponsible response. This is a response that, as I said earlier, says that we will pay some people first, but we won't pay all our debts. The richest country on the face of the Earth, the most creditworthy nation on the face of the Earth, we won't pay all our debts.

There is a simple way to do this: stop demagoguing one another. And I want to say to the gentleman, as he knows, Democrats have demagogued this issue when we've had Republican Presidents and Republicans have demagogued it when we've had Democratic Presidents.

We all know that we've incurred debts and we're going to pay them. That's all this is. It's very simple: we're either going to pay our debts or we're not.

Now, I want to tell my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, I know about the debt. The gentleman refers to $5 trillion. I'm sure the gentleman knows these statistics:

Under Ronald Reagan, the debt was increased 189 percent; under George Bush, 55 percent--the first George Bush, 55 percent; under this President so far, a little over 40 percent.

Every Republican President with whom I've served, Madam Speaker, every Republican President has increased the debt as a percentage of GDP higher than either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Bill Clinton was the lowest, 37 percent. This President is a little over 40 percent of GDP. It's just like saying the minimum wage now is $7.25, which is so much higher than it was in 1970--which is not the case. Now, as a dollar, a nominal figure, it's higher, and the gentleman knows that very well. He is my friend and I have great respect for him. But this bill is unfortunate. This amendment is--I won't characterize it as harshly as I feel about it.

We have to stop playing games. We have to be serious. We need to come together and adopt a big plan that's balanced, that can pass and will put this country on a fiscally sustainable path; and, in the process, we ought to pay our bills because we incurred them. We incurred them honestly for objectives that this House, this Senate, and the President of the United States signed for.