Floor Statements

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Unfortunately, this is a serious issue on which serious time has not been allotted because you put this on suspension. This is a serious issue. Our country is in crisis from a fiscal standpoint.

Now I wanted the gentleman to yield because I don't think the gentleman has any idea what the facts are. Eighty-nine percent increase in the debt under Ronald Reagan. He could have vetoed every one of those bills. Under George Bush, 115 percent increase in the debt. Under Bill Clinton, less than 40.

Ladies and gentlemen, this issue is an important issue that is being treated not as an adult. This is not the adult moment of which Speaker Boehner spoke. And you didn't mention that the budget you voted for, I presume, I'm not sure, increased the debt by $1.9 trillion between now and October 1 of this year.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not an honest debate. This is not an honest proposal. This is a serious issue. TARP was a serious issue, and the American public didn't want to see it passed. And had it not passed, we would have gone into depression. Who said that? George Bush, Hank Paulson, the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, and Ben Bernanke, the Republican appointed head of the Federal Reserve. It was a tough vote.

And so what did we do for America? We came together, Republicans and Democrats, more Democrats supporting the Republican President's request than his own party, to save America from depression.

We need to deal with this issue, ladies and gentlemen, of America seriously, not in 20-minute debates on each side, not as a simplistic suggestion that somehow President Obama caused this. One point three trillion in wars we haven't paid for, a drug prescription bill we haven't paid for, tax cuts that your party voted for--not mine--that we didn't pay for. Should we have tax cuts? That's fine. But we ought to pay for them, not have my great-grandson, who was just born a week ago, pay for it. That's what you're doing.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to vote ``no'' on this. We ought to vote for this. We ought to have a clean bill. And we ought to have both sides coming together and saying America needs this for debts that we have incurred. What I tell town meetings is, it's like you go to Macy's, you take out your credit card, and you charge $200 worth of goods. And then you go home that night, your husband or your wife and you sit down and say, look, we've got too much debt, we need to have a debt limit. Put a $100 debt limit on us. And then Macy's sends you a bill, and you send them back a letter and say, no, I've got a debt limit. It's 100 bucks. So you send them a check for $100. They send back a letter saying, hey, no more credit, and guess what? We're suing you.

This debt limit extension is for what we have already incurred. This debt limit extension vote is about whether or not we are going to pay our bills. But I will tell you this, we'll see how many of your folks vote for paying our bills.

I'm looking forward to seeing how many of your folks are going to say, yes, we need to pay our bills, America. We need to be a good debtor as well as a good creditor. We're going to see how many of your folks vote. I've got just a sneaking suspicion it's not going to be very many, if any. It's a good demagogue vote, frankly, ladies and gentlemen. And if we vote for it, guess what? Oh, you're for raising the debt limit without any fiscal discipline.

Well, when we were in charge, when the President of the United States wouldn't let you do some of the things you wanted to do, Bill Clinton was there to veto things, we had a surplus for 4 years in a row, and we didn't increase the debt once.

Under George Bush, we increased it seven times. I urge a ``no'' vote on this irresponsible piece of legislation that should have been handled in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Angela Z. McCollough, an employee of the Congressional Budget Office, who is retiring on June 3, 2011 after nearly 40 years of service to the Federal government. Angie started her federal career in 1972 when she began working for the Environmental Protection Agency. In August of 1975, Angie joined the Congressional Budget Office, just a few months after CBO was founded. From 1975 until 2008, she served as the secretary and administrative assistant to the Assistant Director of the Natural Resources and Commerce Division (since renamed the Microeconomic Studies Division). In October of 2008, Angie was promoted to Executive Assistant to the CB0 Director.

Angie has been an invaluable member of the CB0 team. She received two CB0 Director's Awards--in 1984 and again in 2003. She has also received several STAR awards for her work in the Microeconomic Studies Division and the Office of the CBO Director. Angie was honored in 2001 for her role in recreating CBO's timekeeping and payroll system and for ensuring that CBO's employees were paid during that difficult period in the Fall of 2001 when the Ford House Office Building, where CBO is located, was closed for the anthrax investigation in the weeks following the tragic events of 9/11.

Angie is one of the longest serving employees in the history of the Congressional Budget Office. Her tenure at CB0 spans the agency's lifetime. She has served under all 8 CB0 Directors. And throughout her time at CBO, Angie has exemplified the highest standards of dedicated public service. I thank her for her service and wish her all the best in her retirement.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I ask the previous speaker to go in his community to all those same institutions and see what they say.

I rise in support of this amendment as one who has supported this effort for all 10 years that we have been at it. In 2001, in response to the attacks of 9/11, the United States began a war in Afghanistan that targeted Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban, which provided bin Laden with sanctuary and aid. I supported that effort.

We have been pursuing this conflict for nearly a decade now. The death of Osama bin Laden was a landmark moment in our ongoing struggle to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat the terrorist networks that intend to do Americans harm, and that struggle has not ended with bin Laden's death. But his death is a moment for reflection on that struggle and how we can best equip ourselves to win it. Many of the terrorists against which we are fighting are no longer located in Afghanistan but are in disparate locations, from Yemen to Somalia to southeast Asia. And bin Laden was found in Pakistan.

I support this amendment, because it focuses upon adjusting to a world of changing threats. It is essential that we fight the smartest war possible against terrorists--but it is fair to ask how a massive troop presence in Afghanistan continues to help us accomplish that goal.

We must plan to transfer responsibility for security in Afghanistan to the Afghan people and government after 10 years' presence there, and it is important to make an assessment of how that best can be done. That's what the McGovern amendment does.

Therefore, this amendment requires a national intelligence estimate of al Qaeda's current leadership, locations, and capabilities. It requires the President to convey to Congress how he intends to meet the goal he stated in December 2009 of a transition for lead security responsibility to the Afghan people, where it belongs. It also asks the President to clarify plans for advancing a political solution in Afghanistan, which all of our military leaders have said is the only ultimate solution.

Finally, nothing in this amendment limits or prohibits the President's authority to attack al Qaeda or gather or share intelligence, nor does it require the administration to modify its military strategy, as it should not. This amendment, however, helps to meet our shared goal of defeating terrorists who wish us harm.

I have no doubt that President Obama and every Member of this House believes that their very first duty is to keep our Nation safe. We must constantly challenge one another and our Nation to fight smarter and harder to ensure victory in this broader struggle.

I rise in support of this amendment and urge its adoption.

Before I start, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I hope the words of my young friend, who is now leaving the floor, are adhered to by both of us. Too infrequently that is the case. The problems are serious. We must address them in a serious way.

Mr. Speaker, however, I raise a happier point of discussion now. I am a proud alumnus of the University of Maryland, and recent months, however, have brought some bittersweet news.

An era is coming to an end in the Terrapin athletic program as our successful coaches of basketball and football have left the school. I want to take this opportunity, therefore, to honor Coaches Gary Williams and Ralph Friedgen for all they have meant to the Maryland community, both on and off the court and field. Both of them are good friends of mine.

Gary Williams was my neighbor for a number of years. Gary retired as Maryland's basketball coach after 22 hardworking, successful college years in College Park and 33 years in college coaching ranks. At his retirement, Gary Williams ranked as the fifth winningest college basketball coach in America, with 668 wins stretching over his remarkable career. He is also the third winningest coach in Atlantic Coast Conference history behind two legends, Dean Smith and Mike Krzyzewski.

Gary Williams inherited a struggling program and turned it into a perennial national contender. Under his guidance, the Terrapins reached the NCAA tournament 14 times, 11 times consecutively, won three ACC regular season titles and an ACC tournament championship, made seven sweet sixteens, two elite eights, two final fours, and, in a memory that all Terrapins still treasure and I had the opportunity of attending in Atlanta, won the national championship in 2002. Coach Williams was honored as National Coach of the Year in 2002 and as ACC Coach of the Year in 2002 and 2010.

But numbers alone do not capture his impact on the lives of his players or on the life of the Maryland community where he stood out as a leader and as a philanthropist. Maryland's Athletic Director Kevin Anderson correctly summed it up best when he said ``Gary Williams is a legend.'' That is true.

Terrapins will also miss our football coach, Ralph Friedgen, who coached his last game with the program on December 29. Fittingly, it was a decisive win--a 51-20 victory in the Military Bowl in Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise and congratulate the North Point varsity basketball team on winning the Class 4A Maryland state finals. The narrow victory over Patterson High School on March 12th was not only a great achievement for the North Point Eagles but was the first time a Southern Maryland Athletic Conference team has taken the championship in 39 years.

This year's championship is the perfect ending to the perfect season. After months of training, practice, travel and games, the Eagles earned a number one seed and a home regional championship game against Glen Burnie. North Point put Glen Burnie to rest in one solid quarter, gaining a 29 to 6 lead from which Glen Burnie could not recover.

After 26 wins and no losses, North Point faced one last challenge--to beat Patterson High School in the state finals at the Comcast Center in College Park, Maryland. North Point took the lead early and then fell behind only to finish strong in dramatic fashion, triumphing by just 76 to 72 over their respectable opponents. The ``epic Blast at Comcast'' completed for a 27 and 0 record for these student-athletes, making them the only one in Maryland to have a perfect season.

Under the guidance of their coach, Jimmy Ball, this basketball team's strong defense made the difference. According to a recent news release, ``North Point led by as much as 16 points but found themselves trailing Patterson 66-65 with 3:20 remaining. Senior Gerel Simmons scored seven points in the final two and a half minutes to seal the title. Sophomores Naim Muhammad, who recorded a double-double (20 points, 11 rebounds), and Marquis Wright, who scored nine points and dished out 12 assists, paced the Eagles defensive effort against a Patterson team that averaged more than 80 points a contest this year. Senior captain Devonte Thomas scored 10 points and collected eight rebounds while Simmons finished with 19 points.''

Let me also honor the entire North Point High School community for they are an integral part of this team's victorious season. At every game the fans chant, in a unified voice, ``We are North Point.'' As Principal Kim Hill has said, the motto declares that ``We are many, but we are united as one.'' And as one team, one school, and one community they were able to accomplish victory. Congratulations to the North Point High School Eagles and the North Point Community.

Mr. Speaker, Ned Zechman's retirement as President and CEO of Children's National Medical Center reminds us of the debt of gratitude that we owe him and the institution that he has led for more than 16 years.

Children's National is an invaluable resource for the national capital area and an inspiring model for the entire nation.

Throughout Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, families appreciate that Children's National is the only exclusive provider

of pediatric care in the Washington metropolitan area. When children have illnesses or injuries that require specialized diagnosis and treatment, parents throughout the region can count on Children's internationally recognized team of pediatric healthcare professionals.

Families in my congressional district, including Calvert, Charles, St. Mary's, Anne Arundel, and Prince George's Counties know that friendly, smiling bear--the widely recognized symbol of Children's National--is looking out for our kids.

Over the past decade-and-a-half, under Ned Zechman's leadership, Children's National has expanded its services to our region and our Nation. Annual admissions increased by more than 28 percent to more than 13,000. Emergency Department visits increased by 35 percent to more than 83,000. Surgeries increased by an extraordinary 88 percent to more than 14,000. Diagnostic procedures increased by 36 percent to a remarkable total of more than 100,000.

During Ned Zechman's years as CEO, Children's National provided a model for the Nation in one more way. The institution is not only an example of social responsibility--it is an example of fiscal responsibility.

When Mr. Zechman arrived, Children's National, like many healthcare institutions, faced numerous threats to its fiscal solvency and found it difficult to compete in a changing environment. With Ned's leadership, Children's National adopted a new business model, increased fundraising, and stabilized its finances.

Ned Zechman's living legacy is a unique and thriving institution dedicated to providing the highest quality health care services to the Nation's children and their families: Children's National Medical Center. I wish Ned all the best and thank him for many years of service to our region.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the legacy of an extraordinary Marylander, Maryland Governor William Donald Schaefer. He died just a few weeks ago after a long time of public service.

William Donald Schaefer was one of the great American mayors. Few mayors can ever say that they transformed a city as thoroughly as did William Donald Schaefer transform Baltimore.

But over his 16-year tenure as mayor of Baltimore, he led a dramatic and

historic turnaround. In 1971, when his mayoralty started, Baltimore was a struggling city, a city plagued by population flight, crime, and decaying urban infrastructure. When so many had given up on Baltimore, Mayor Schaefer made it his mission to stand up to that decay. And we can still see his legacy today. It is a legacy that includes physical landmarks like Camden Yards, the National Aquarium, Baltimore's Harbor Place, and an outstanding light rail system, projects that he saw through to completion as both mayor and Governor of our state.

Just as importantly, Mayor Schaefer's legacy came in thousands of gestures that showed just how deeply he cared about the people he represented and how seriously he took his work: Personally addressing illegal dumping in alleys or broken equipment at parks, driving through the city at night on the lookout for everything from potholes to crime trouble spots, and even jumping into the aquarium's seal pool, complete with a rubber ducky, when the city failed to complete the aquarium on time.

My colleague from Oregon is shaking his head because we all know that famous picture.

Above all, his colorful, passionate, and dedicated leadership added up to the change, not just in Baltimore's appearance and infrastructure, but in the mindset of the words of the Baltimore Sun when they said he ``changed the way the city felt about itself.''

How important leaders are to make that happen in the minds of their people. We have an agenda, by the way, that is Make It In America, that is trying to change that psychology as well, that we're going to make it, we're going to succeed, we're going to expand.

William Donald Schaefer brought that same dedication to his two terms as Maryland Governor. His trademark, no-nonsense style--``do it now'' was his byword--was on display in Annapolis, where he pursued an agenda focused on job creation, strengthening Maryland's schools, which, by the way, now rank number one in the country, and protecting Maryland's natural heritage, including our beloved Chesapeake Bay.

After reaching the highest point in Maryland politics, many would have ridden off into the sunset. But not William Donald Schaefer. He couldn't get enough of the work he loved, and he ran for State Comptroller, and won twice. In his last job he was one of our State's most respected voices for fiscal responsibility.

Before he died, Governor Schaefer was asked how he'd like to be remembered, and he answered, ``There are two words: `He cared.' People,'' he said, ``mock me and make fun of it. But it's the truth.''

And as someone who worked closely with William Donald Schaefer throughout his years as mayor and Governor and comptroller, I can say, without any hesitation or fear of contradiction, William Donald Schaefer cared. He was a man of the people. He listened, he acted.

It is the truth and it mattered because, at the time when so many wrote off our cities, caring took remarkable courage and strength.

A great architect, Mr. Speaker, was once laid to rest in a building he himself had designed. His tombstone read, and I quote, ``If you seek his monument, look around you.'' Those words apply just as well to William Donald Schaefer, and I hope that the people he served will bear him in mind whenever they enjoy the best of the city of Baltimore and the best of the State of Maryland.

Well done, our good and faithful servant.

I'll be very brief.

I thank the gentleman for his continuing focus. If I am the corner of the phrase and the focuser of Make It in

America, you are its chief spokesperson and salesperson, so I thank you for that effort.

It's so important because, clearly, Americans are rightfully very concerned at the fact that we don't have enough jobs for the people who are looking for jobs. We've got to have a growth agenda in America. We've got to have an agenda in America that focuses on expanding opportunities. We've got to have an agenda that gives to Americans the sense that they and their families and their children can make it in America.

You have been focusing night after night, week after week, month after month on a jobs agenda, which we call ``Make It in America.'' We've introduced over 25 bills that are focused on trying to help us focus on that agenda, on trying to help business--small, medium and large--expand their businesses and on trying to give them assistance in doing so.

I want to say to the gentleman that, in his continuing to focus on this jobs agenda, it is critically important that Americans understand what the Make It in America agenda is all about so they can contact their Members of Congress and Members of the United States Senate and say, Look, we support the Make It in America agenda. We believe that it's an agenda for our opportunities and our children's opportunities.

I want to say something about the statement, to which the gentleman referred, made by the president of Conoco, a statement that apparently indicates he believes that his company is entitled to a tax preference and that if we did not give that tax preference that somehow it would be un-American. Of course, life, as I like to say, is a series of trade-offs: if we're buying things; national defense; defeating terrorism; making sure our seniors are secure in their pocketbooks and in their health; making sure that we participate in helping young people, particularly disadvantaged young people, get the educational start that they need; making sure that our college students can develop their talents so they can make us a more competitive Nation; and that the innovation, an innovation to which the gentleman referred earlier, will still be done in the United States. Then we need to make sure that the products and technologies that are developed through that enterprise are, in fact, then subject to a Make It in America reality.

As for the gentleman from Conoco, I don't know him, but I applaud the oil companies, and we need the energy that they give us. The fact of the matter is we gave subsidies, and we give subsidies in various areas, as the gentleman from California knows, to encourage doing things that are not now profitable but that will have a long-term payoff for not only the companies but for America. That is why the government invests its money, as governments all over the world do, in developing emerging technologies. The gentleman spoke, of course, of solar, wind and other renewable technologies that will have a tremendous payoff but not in the short term; therefore it's hard to get investors to put money in. That's why governments, not just in this country but all over the world, have done this in the past: for instance, when the prices of gasoline were not such that they provided the resources to encourage research, which we knew we needed, and drilling, which we knew we needed.

Yet now, when you have the profits of the product, I am shocked, frankly, that those who promote the free market system, which ought to be driven by the markets, driven by demand, driven by profits, would now say, notwithstanding the fact that oil profits among the Big Five, in particular, are up to historic levels, that we should still continue to ask our taxpayers to subsidize them even further. That seems to me to make no sense.

But back to the principal focus of making it in America: The gentleman has been so right in his focus of making sure that we create the kind of environment in this country that will empower people to make things in America, to grow things in America, to sell them here, but also to sell them around the world. The President has indicated he wants to double exports. The only way we're going to double exports is if we make things in America to sell overseas. That's the only way you can get exports whether they be goods, frankly, or services. We ought not to preclude the growth of the service sector in our economy servicing overseas, whatever that service agency might be.

So I want to thank the gentleman for continuing to keep the focus on an agenda that, I hope, our Republican colleagues will embrace as well. This is not a partisan agenda. I don't think there is a Member of this Congress who doesn't want to grow the economy and create jobs. We believe that the Make It in America agenda is focused on doing just that, and I would encourage our Republican colleagues, our Democratic colleagues, our brethren in the Senate to join together to pass this Make It in America agenda so we can see a resurgence of the manufacturing might of this great country that when we continue to be the inventing, innovative, developing center of the world's economy that we also, once we've done all that, then bring it to scale, or make it in America.

Andy Grove of Intel, as you know, has observed that if, in fact, what we continue to do is do the voltaic cells, do the chips, do the other technologies and if we then take the products to scale overseas, inevitably, Andy Grove believes--and I share this view--that our inventors, innovators and developers, themselves, will go overseas. The American public, by large numbers, understands that that's not a policy that is defensible or profitable for them, for their families or for America in the long term.

So I thank the gentleman from California for his focus, for his tenacity and for his compelling advocacy of the Make It in America agenda.

Mr. Chair, all Americans are concerned about high gas prices and the growing cost they are imposing on our families. We should also be concerned that those high prices might stall our economic recovery. So what can we do to reduce the burden, both for families and for our economy as a whole?

I support safe, responsible drilling. So does President Obama: his administration has already set us on course to re-issue three out of four of the leases in question in this bill. Domestic drilling is definitely part of the solution to meeting our energy needs.

But I also know that offering drilling as the only solution is simply not up to the scale of the challenge we face. Consider that the United States already produces about 1.5 million more barrels of oil per day than it did in 2005. And last year under President Obama's watch, domestic oil production rose to its highest level since 2003. If Republicans were right, that increased production would lower prices-- but in fact, oil reached a record of $147 per barrel during the same period.

Consider the fact that Canada, unlike the U.S., produces about 1.1 million more barrels of oil than it consumes each day. Canada produces far more oil than we do--and if Republicans were right, Canadian gas prices wouldn't be rising at the same rate as ours. But they are-- they're feeling the effects, just as we are.

So while I am a strong supporter of drilling, and making use of our natural resources, the fact remains that the issuing of four leases, even in the very near term, will have little to no impact on gas prices today.

In the wake of the devastating BP Gulf oil spill, we need to focus on responsible drilling as we work to increase production. We should not auction off more leases to oil companies without adequate consideration of whether offshore drilling in those locations is safe and without environmental consequences.

That's a reckless course to take, especially when the effect on today's gas prices is essentially nonexistent. While the American people want us to do everything in our power to lower gas prices, they also don't want us to set up a process that could lead to another BP Gulf oil spill.

I believe we can drill and do so responsibly, and we can expedite leases responsibly. Rather than Republicans' one-dimensional approach of simply issuing new leases, let's also ensure that oil and gas companies are diligent about producing on the leases they already own. Let's expedite leases without disregarding the environmental impacts. Let's invest in clean energy technology and efficiency to break our oil addiction--not defund those investments, as Republicans demand. Let's crack down on the financial speculation that drives gas prices up for American families.

And--when even Speaker Boehner agrees that the oil companies ``ought to be paying their fair share''--let's end unjustifiable subsidies to some of the world's most profitable companies, subsidies that are only driving our nation deeper into debt.

That's what a real, responsible energy policy would look like--not this bill. I would have supported it if amendments had passed to ensure environmental and safety reviews to prevent another oil spill, and to ensure that offshore drilling does not conflict with military training operations off our coasts. But because Republicans rejected those amendments, this bill remains flawed. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Two minutes, of course, is not time enough to discuss this issue, but I rise in opposition to this piece of legislation.

With millions out of work, the American people sent Congress a strong mandate in the last election: take action on jobs. Yet after 4 months in the House majority, Republicans have yet to put forward a jobs agenda. What are they doing instead? They are pursuing a controversial social agenda, one that is far too extreme for most Americans.

Let me say something to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my friends on the other side of the aisle. Some of you, I think, probably characterize yourselves as libertarians, or close to libertarians. You believe the government ought to stay out of people's lives. I think that's a worthwhile premise. I have been here for, as some of you know, a long time, some 30 years; and I have heard Republicans say so often, it's their money, let them keep their money, they know better how to spend their money.

So what do you do today, my friends? What you say is, well, it's your money, and, yes, we'll give you a tax credit, if you spend it the way we want you to spend it. That's what this legislation says: it's your money, but if you don't spend it the way we want you to spend it, we will not give you the tax credit that every other American can get.

How far can you take that, my friends? In tax preference after tax preference after tax preference, we can say, you don't get it if you don't spend it the way we want you to spend it. I want you to think about that. I want you to think about the precedent that you're setting here, the social activism that you are embarking upon, on the imposition of your views on others through the Tax Code.

My friends, this bill undermines, more than any bill that I have seen, the rights of women under the Constitution of the United States.

May I have 1 additional minute?

Stingy, aren't you? I miss my 1 minute, ladies and gentlemen, I tell you that. The public won't know what I'm talking about, of course.

But the fact of the matter is this bill is bad public policy, it's bad for women's health, and it's bad for America. Vote ``no'' on this bill. Let freedom ring.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, this week, Sidney Harman--a good friend to me and to so many--died at the age of 92. Sidney was the husband of my friend, Congresswoman Jane Harman; he lived a full, rich life, and he will be deeply missed. Sidney was a pioneering entrepreneur in the field of hi-fi stereo systems--but after his business success, he went on to make outstanding contributions to our country's civic life for decades. He was a strong advocate of civil rights who pitched in as a public school teacher; he was Under Secretary of Commerce under President Carter; he was a dynamic philanthropist who made his mark as a patron of education, the arts, and journalism. His many accomplishments, and the admiration of so many who knew him, are certain to long outlive him. But in the wake of his loss, my sincere condolences are with his wife, Congresswoman Harman, his children; and all those who mourn his passing.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the record these remarks I gave at a Capitol Hill ceremony commemorating the 96th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Tonight we commemorate a truly unjust and tragic chapter in human history--and just as importantly, we acknowledge that chapter as an historic fact. From 1915 to 1923, officials of the Ottoman Empire carried out a systematic campaign of massacres and forced deportations of Armenians from their historic homeland. In the end, this genocide cost the lives of one and a half million murdered men, women, and children. Another half million lost their homes.

In a July 24, 1915 cable, American Consul Leslie Davis said of the genocide, ``I do not believe there has ever been a massacre in the history of the world so general and thorough as that which is now being perpetrated in this region or that a more fiendish, diabolical scheme has ever been conceived by the mind of man.''

We commemorate the 20th century's first genocide not only to honor the lives of the dead, but because its effects are still very much with us. The Armenian Genocide has been a terrifying inspiration for mass murderers from Cambodia to Rwanda to the

former Yugoslavia to Darfur. As early as 1897, a French Jew named Bernard Lazare reflected on the massacres of Armenians that had already taken place and speculated that the Jew-haters of Europe might one day turn to an ``Armenian solution'' of their own. Four decades later--the Holocaust.

At the same time, the Armenian Genocide reminds us of our collective responsibility in the face of such crimes. In fact, it was in a statement from the Allied Powers denouncing the massacres that the phrase ``crime against humanity'' first appeared. The Armenian Genocide helped set a precedent that a murderous crime against a minority is a crime against us all--that there is a collective responsibility to prevent genocide.

That precedent and that responsibility came too late to save 1.5 million Armenians--along with all those killed in genocides that stopped too late. We have lived up to the responsibility first formulated in the wake of the Armenian Genocide all too imperfectly. But may this commemoration remind us of that responsibility--as the United Nations Genocide Convention tells us, a responsibility not only to address genocide after the fact, but to prevent it. We have a responsibility for action, not apathy: action to end crimes against humanity and punish the perpetrators.

We share the same goal: seeing the truth of the Armenian Genocide recognized by Congress. I hope to see a bill recognizing the genocide pass, and I wish that had happened in December. Unfortunately, by our count, the votes were not there--and in our opinion, a loss would have been a set-back cheered by genocide deniers. But I applaud the work you to do preserve the memory and the lessons of this historic truth. And I believe the day will come when Congress recognizes that truth, as well. You can count on my vote.

The evil of the first recognized crime against humanity can never be undone, and the dead cannot be restored to their families and their homeland. But may the memory of their lives inspire us to speak out and take action against crimes against humanity in our own time, and to pursue the justice that was denied to those 1.5 million.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This piece of legislation will provide for the funding of our government from now until September 30 of this year.

While I do not want to engage in a debate looking at the past, we are here because we did not fund the government in the last Congress through September 30. And, frankly, there is not much use in pointing fingers at one another as we've been doing. There was an omnibus that was on the floor at the urging of the leader in the Senate, and it was not able to get the 60 votes necessary because those of you on the minority side in the Senate did not give votes to do that. Notwithstanding that, the issue today is not what happened yesterday, but what's going to happen today.

We have a choice to make. We have a choice to make in a divided House, in a divided Congress, in a divided government--the Speaker talked about divided government--and that choice is whether we will come together, work together, try to make the best possible agreement that we can make and then move together. I think the American public expects us to do that.

During the course of the debate some days ago, I referenced with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who comes from Kentucky, another famous Kentuckian, Henry Clay. Henry Clay came to this Congress and was elected Speaker on the first day of his service in this Congress. Interestingly enough, he was Speaker during the 8th Congress, during the 10th Congress, and during the 13th Congress. He served for some 10 years as the Speaker. He served also in the United States Senate and in fact was deemed to be one of the most outstanding Members of the United States Senate.

He is unique in history. And he said this, and I will repeat it: ``If you cannot compromise, you cannot govern.'' And what he meant by that, of course, was that the American people, in 435 districts and 50 States--not 50 States, of course, when he was Speaker--go to the polls and they elect people to come to Washington to represent them. And not surprisingly in a democracy they have different points of view. They have different perspectives. They have different priorities. They come from different geographical locations. Their States have different interests. Their districts have different interests. So it should not shock any of us that there is not agreement in 100 percent of the cases, or sometimes 70 percent, or sometimes 60, and perhaps not even in 50 percent. But there does come a time when the American public expects us to be able to act. Gridlock is not what they voted for.

Madam Speaker, I will vote for this resolution. I do not vote for this resolution anymore than anybody else on this House floor will vote for or against this resolution because they like everything that's in it or dislike everything that's in it. If I were writing this resolution, the priorities would be different. I heard my friend, Rosa DeLauro, who is now the ranking Democrat on the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee. Very frankly, if I were on a committee--I am the second ranking member of the Appropriations Committee--I would be the ranking member of the Labor Health Committee--and I would share her views. I do share her views. I think the priorities that we have agreed to in this resolution are not my priorities.

But we have reached agreement. The President of the United States, elected by all the people, the majority leader of the United States Senate, and the Speaker of this House worked for literally weeks to try to come together to forge an agreement so that we could fund government for the balance of this year. It's not useful to blame anybody as to why we're so late on this, but it is useful to say that we are about to embark--after we pass this piece of legislation--on a critical debate on the differences we do have in the priorities of this country, very substantive, deeply held beliefs on the differences that exist between our two parties. And the budgets that will be offered after we pass this resolution on the budget for the 2012 year are going to be the substance of our debate.

I would hope at this period of time, Madam Speaker, that we pass this resolution, keep our government functioning, and come together to debate the real priorities of this country in the next bill.

I think at the beginning of this debate we need to put it in context. I know that I must bore my friends on the majority side of the aisle, but during my 30 years in this body, there have been essentially three economic programs adopted: One was in 1981 when we adopted what is referred to as Reaganomics. The second was in 1993 when we adopted the Clinton economic program. The third, of course, was in 2001 and 2003 when we adopted what was the Bush economic program.

During the first economic program, we ran up $2.4 trillion of deficits. During the second, the Clinton economic program, which lasted for 8 years, we had $62.9 billion of surplus over 96 months. $2.4 trillion during the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, $62.9 billion surplus during the Clinton administration, and then another $2.8 trillion of deficits during the Bush economic program.

The reason I raise that as we begin is because I want to tell my friends, and I know we will tell our constituents, that the message that we hear today from my good friend, Mr. Ryan--for whom I have a great deal of respect. We have a disagreement, but I do not believe that he speaks with a forked tongue, if you will. He speaks what he believes--he first of all says, correctly, that we have a deficit problem that must be dealt with by us all, those of us who serve here and with those whom we represent. We must with courage, with honesty, and, yes, with discipline address this deficit. In order to do so, we must address all items of expenditures and revenues. Revenues, of course, are what we use to pay for things we buy.

Why did we run up deficits during the Reagan administration when one person could have stopped spending in its tracks, Ronald Reagan; or the George Bush, I, administration where one person could have stopped spending in its tracks? Because we bought more than we paid for--$2.4 trillion worth.

During the Clinton administration, what happened? Well, we had divided government, we constrained spending, and we constrained cutting revenues so that we were able to pay for what we bought.

During the second Bush administration, we spent some $2.4 trillion more than we paid for. Every American knows that if you do that, you're going to run deficits. That's how we got to that $4.8 trillion of deficit because, as the gentleman today will argue, if we only adopt this program, we will bring down deficits, we will grow employment.

Well, that's the argument used in 2001 and 2003. You didn't do either. In fact, employment disappeared--the worst employment record of any administration since Herbert Hoover--so that the arguments that you made in 2001 and 2003 that this would magnify employment did not prove to be the case.

You also made the argument when you inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus, according to George Bush himself, you said that we could cut revenues, increase spending, and, by golly, we would have growing employment and a surplus. We had neither. We had lost employment, the worst economy of any administration since Herbert Hoover, an almost depression-like response that was called upon by President Bush in his last year, and an exploding deficit.

So now we will debate between two perspectives. We will have a number on our side; you will have a number on your side. Now, I think at least two on your side. But basically, we adopt the premise on our side first of all you've got to protect the most vulnerable. You've got to make sure that we apply the resources that we have to make sure that every American is in a place where we want them to be in the richest country on the face of the Earth. We want to grow the economy and we want to bring the deficit down.

That will be the proposition on our side. Very frankly, I tell my friend from Wisconsin the premise on your side, in my view, has been consistently for the 30 years that I have been here, if you simply reduce revenues somehow magically the economy will recover.

When we adopted the Clinton program in 1993, not a single Republican voted for it, unanimous in your conviction that it would have an adverse effect because we raised revenues, as you will recall, on the upper 1 percent. In fact, of course, what happened is exactly the opposite of what you argued in 1993.

So in that context, as we have this budget debate, I hope the American public understands that if you repeat the same mistakes of the past you will be condemned to live in the same problems that were created then by those mistakes.

I urge my colleagues to listen to this debate very carefully. Listen to the debate of the consequences of the actions that are proposed on both sides of the aisle, and remember what happened when that rhetoric was carried to fruition.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from two Members on each side of the aisle who, without respect of course to any partisan differences, raised their voices in sadness about the loss of two of our brave Americans in the defense of freedom. I join their sentiments.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. Those two Americans whose lives we have now lost showed extraordinary courage, extraordinary honesty in their willingness to serve. We in this body will now be called upon to show such courage and honesty as we address the extraordinary fiscal crisis that confronts us.

Today, President Obama is speaking on a plan to confront our Nation's unsustainable deficits. I believe it will stand in stark contrast to the budget that is going to be offered by Mr. Ryan, a budget of disastrous priorities, in my opinion, that concentrates its plan on middle and working class Americans in terms of its cuts, while creating yet another windfall for the wealthiest in our country, at a time when income inequality is at a height we haven't seen since the 1920s.

The Republican budget ends Medicare as we know it, transforming a system of guaranteed health care into a system that provides seniors with less coverage and greater expenses year after year after year. It dismantles Medicaid, putting seniors' nursing home care at very substantial risk, and, in fact, with an inability to pay, and cutting off care for disabled and poor Americans.

These entitlements must be addressed, but we must address them in a way that both keeps them sustainable and makes them available for generations to come. Somehow, however--after undermining the social compact of Medicare, after cutting care for the most vulnerable, after sending more than 30 million Americans back to the ranks of the uninsured--the Republican budget finds trillions of dollars to give as tax cuts to the wealthiest among us.

Republicans say we are too broke to afford the promise of Medicare, but we are flush enough to spend trillions in tax cuts for those of us who are the best off. In fact, the Republican budget spends so much on corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy and loses so many savings by repealing the cost controls in the Affordable Care Act that it fails to balance the budget for 10 years or even 20 years.

We have been down this so-called ``Path to Prosperity'' before. It leads to skyrocketing deficits because the supply-side dogma that lower taxes mean higher revenues has proven false over the last three decades. Read the facts. If Republican tax dogma made sense, then our debt would not have increased 200 percent under Ronald Reagan or 115 percent under the second President Bush, but it did. In fact, we've seen Republican promises of prosperity proven wrong time and time again over the 30 years that I have served here in Congress.

In 2007, now-Majority Leader Cantor said that the Bush tax cuts ``have spurred spectacular economic growth.'' That was in 2007. Let me remind all the Members of this body, it was in December of 2007 that we fell into the Great Recession, the deepest recession we've had since Herbert Hoover. The growth was spectacular only for the top 1 percent, but for the rest of America, the Bush economy produced what The Wall Street Journal called ``the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.'' That's what The Wall Street Journal said of the Bush economic program, which Cantor said would be a job creator.

Throughout the Bush years, middle class incomes stayed stagnant and deficits soared. What did Republicans say about a budget that actually helped create unprecedented prosperity, the 1993 Clinton budget? Here's what now-Speaker Boehner said: ``How does this create any real new jobs? Who does this spending stimulate except maybe the liberal faculty at Harvard or Berkeley?'' Of course, contrary to the Speaker's assertion, the Clinton years saw the biggest production of jobs since I have been serving in Congress of 22.7 million new jobs--in the private sector, almost 21 million jobs as opposed to the private sector loss of jobs under President Bush, about 7,000 loss of jobs per month, versus 216,000 new jobs every month on average under Bill Clinton.

Those words represent the same flawed priorities we see in this new Republican budget: tax breaks for the wealthy, a failure to invest in the future, and a heavier burden on working families.

Our country deserves better, Mr. Speaker. Let's reform our entitlement programs with a scalpel, not an axe. Let's look for savings in every part of the budget, defense included. Let's close tax loopholes, but let's also use the Tax Code to reduce the deficit and ensure that all of us, even the most privileged, pay their fair share.

Republicans have taken us down this primrose path before, Mr. Speaker. It has demonstrably led to higher debt, stagnation for working Americans, and, most recently, an economic implosion. We must not choose that dead end again.