Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I submit these inaugural remarks by an outstanding educational leader in Maryland's Fifth District, Joe Urgo, the new President of St. Mary's College.

Inaugural Address as President of St. Mary's College--March 26, 2011

(By Joe Urgo)

Thank you, Madame Chair, for your charge to me, which I

accept with pleasure and with full knowledge of the weight of

responsibility it entails.

Madame Chair and board of trustees, Congressman Hoyer,

elected officials and their representatives, academic

delegates, alumni, faculty, staff, students, friends,

neighbors and family: I want to welcome each and every one of

you and thank you for the honor of your company on this day.

It is traditional at this point in the ceremony for the new

president to deliver an inaugural address. We're going to do

that, but in a different fashion, which I will explain

shortly. I'd like my inaugural address to drive home three

linked points, and I'll need some help doing so. First, that

our past informs our present--we cannot be effective

agents of progress or change without an awareness of how we

came to be, and of what came before us. On the institutional

level, we know that the original St. Mary's school was

founded as a monument to freedom and inclusiveness. We may be

free, but we are not alone. This brings me to my second link,

that none of us exists as an island, even if we are

surrounded by water. On a personal level, we open our

awareness to full recognition of who worked to clear a path

for us to arrive here, on this spot, at this time. And third,

to reflect on our work over the past twenty-four hours, at

yesterday's symposium, work done by people who love this

place and this College, and by whose passion and dedication

we shall deliver on the promise of the liberal arts as a

public trust.

These are the three links: (1) an acceptance of the ongoing

challenge of our profound origins; (2) a shared belief that

education is a collaboration; and

(3) the conviction that it is passion that will move us

forward. Such is the essence of the inaugural, which is,

above all else, a readiness--to be prepared, together, in the

fullness of the present, inspired by an old verity: that our

love for St. Mary's College will move us to accomplish

something fine. Today marks a new beginning, and a

reaffirmation.

But first, let's talk about me. Why me? Product of what

past, and by whose assistance, have I come to this podium

this afternoon? To help answer those questions, and to

illustrate that none among us stands alone, I have asked the

assistance of George Monteiro, professor emeritus at Brown

University, and Cecelia Tichi, William R. Kenan, Jr.

Professor of English at Vanderbilt University. These scholars

have built magnificent careers, about which you may read in

the program.

In 1980, two years after my college graduation and two

years into post-baccalaureate wandering, Professor Monteiro

agreed to be my graduate school advisor and gave me the idea

that I might have an academic career. Some of it was spoken

but most of it was in temperament, sensibility, and an

assumption of inclusion. I would never have conceived of and

completed the PhD without George Monteiro's support--he'll

deny it, but that's the kind of support I am talking about.

In 1988, I was three years past receiving my PhD, and in

the second of two contingent faculty appointments. That year

the English department at Vanderbilt University hired

Professor Tichi into a senior level, endowed professorship--a

signal accomplishment for her career. I was on a three-year

non-tenure track fellowship in the department and would be

gone in a year or so--a lowly accomplishment in mine.

Professor Tichi became a mentor and guide, and for reasons I

am not certain I know, took an interest in me, saw me through

difficult early career times, and continued as confidante

through the next decade of career decisions.

I have asked George and Cecelia to help me once more, by

each taking a portion of the time allotted for this

inaugural. They are but two individuals who have made it

possible for me to be here today, as St. Mary's president;

many others are in the audience. My undergraduate thesis

advisor is one--Haverford professor of political science,

emeritus, Harvey Glickman; my collaborator from Bryant

University, Roger Anderson, professor of management; my

Fulbright host from Leon, Spain, Professor Manuel Broncano--

que tal estas, Manolo?; my former colleagues and good friends

from Hamilton College, Art Massolo, Susan Skerritt (of

Kirkland College) Karen Leach, Dick Tantillo, Pat Reynolds,

Dave Smallen, Ellie Wertimer, William Billiter, and Mary

Lyons and Ed Bradley. These kind spirits inform my own--I

have them with me all the time; it is an honor to share this

installation with them today. I also note the love and

support of my parents, Joe & Rose Urgo--although not with us

physically, they accompany me today.

I also share this day with my lover, my partner, and my

best friend, Lesley Dretar Urgo, as we have shared 28 years

of marriage, six job changes for me, at least that many for

her, nine household moves--and throughout the day-to-dayness

of our marriage, truly a partnership of mind, body, and

spirit.

That 28-year partnership produced our son, George Urgo. As

every parent knows, we are also the products of our children,

who supplant our childhood and replace it with renewed life

as a parent. George has been a good friend since 1986, when

he was born in Syracuse one day before our health insurance

was to expire. His timing has always been dramatic and he has

been able to masterfully infuse that quality into his life's

passion. It is with a father's pride that I ask his

assistance this afternoon. And I could not ask for a more

suitable blues rendition on my behalf, as both a

representative of my love and of my confidence in the future.

Professor Monteiro will speak first; followed without

further introduction by Professor Tichi. Once George has us

ready, I'll come back to the podium with my inaugural remarks

to follow.

[Remarks were made by George Monteiro, Cecelia Tichi,

followed by a musical performance by George Urgo]

[Joe returned to the podium]

To borrow from the cadences of our students, ``I do, I do

believe, I do believe I am ready to be the president of St.

Mary's College''--and yes, I hope you are ready for me!

In the past nine months there has gestated in me a love for

this college and a passion for its mission. And now I am

ready to talk to you about it.

In the middle of William Faulkner's great novel, Absalom,

Absalom!, after repeated failures on the part of college

students Quentin and Shreve to understand the human

motivations behind events they seek to comprehend, Shreve

says, ``And now we're going to talk about love.'' At that

point, the roommates begin to realize that understanding,

unlike regurgitation, demands emotional investment, and more,

requires interpersonal, collaborative creativity. Yes, we

need data; yes, we need technical skills; yes, we need

assessment measures. But none of these processes and

admonitions will move us forward without emotionally invested

human beings. You have heard from individuals whom I have

loved, depended upon, learned from, and in turn, influenced.

As the president of St. Mary's College, I pledge to take this

model of personal interaction, of investment in collaboration

and influence, and make of it the the core value of what we

do here--in learning, in teaching, in research and

creativity, in daily work and in the responsibilities we

share.

``And now we're going to talk about love.'' I speak to all

lovers of learning, lovers of creativity, and to those who

simply love this place. Above all, the liberal arts is about

love: human passion, the engine of human emotion behind all

of human history. St. Mary's College of Maryland exists in

the public trust, offering the love of liberal learning--an

impassioned, dedicated, humanistic endeavor--to all segments

of society, supported by enlightened individuals in the great

state of Maryland. Where many of our nation's finest liberal

arts colleges were established as exclusive, private

institutions, this one was founded on the principles of

freedom and inclusiveness. As St. Mary's College trustee

emeritus J. Frank Raley has reminded me, our mission is to

provide an elite education that is not elitist. Our classes

are for all classes. Please join me in a salute to Mr. J.

Frank Raley.

I am cognizant of the work of St. Mary's presidents and

principals who have preceded me, visionaries who have guided

us from 19th & 20th century seminary to 1960s junior college

to 1970s public four-year college--and to today's glimpse

into the future, of what will become an ``elite'' liberal

arts education, where ``elite'' refers to brainpower, not

family wealth. I follow men and women of remarkable

dedication and courage, and am humbled by their

accomplishments. With us today is the man whose vision of a

public liberal arts college animates us now as it has for

forty years--please help me acknowledge former St. Mary's

College President Renwick Jackson.

My goal is to make the academic rigor of an elite

residential liberal arts education available to all members

of the coming generation who possess the will and the

capacity to meet its challenge. At St. Mary's College we do

not make class-distinctions for education deemed as

``appropriate'' to the wealthy as apart from that

``appropriate'' to the general population. Our mission is to

combine the two greatest educational accomplishments of

American civilization: public education, and the residential

liberal arts college. We seek to be an engine of class

mobility, helping to end the cycle of educational deprivation

that afflicts too many American families.

Can we do this? Can we sustain this ambition in the face of

forces that will urge us to mediocrity, urge us to do

something cheaper, easier, something that in the name of

efficiency devalues the collaborative, humanistic educational

model of the residential liberal arts college? Former

trustee, U.S. ambassador, and friend of St. Mary's, Paul

Nitze, reflecting on his career, remarked, ``I have been

around at a time when important things needed to be done.''

Embedded in that simple, humble statement is an attitude of

mind toward one's circumstances. ``I have been around at a

time when important things needed to be done.'' Students,

faculty, staff members, alumni and friends of the College,

there is important work to be done, right here, right now.

With passion and a belief in the rightness of our charge,

we find there are important things to be done, and we are

around to do them--I feel within me a sense that this College

and this community are READY, ready for greatness. At St.

Mary's College we are the beneficiaries of one of the world's

most beautiful campus locations. Our natural surroundings

inspire our quest for sustainable living, ordered by a

responsiveness to the future of the land we occupy and the

waters that surround us. In months since arriving here,

Lesley and the College community have answered this beauty

with human hands, working to create an arboretum on campus,

further marking this site as a destination.

The historical project of St. Mary's City reminds us of the

significant work done here in the past, and at the same time,

warns us with mortality. As well as live and thrive, things

die: they perish, they are conquered, they come to an end.

Our mission above all else is to embed our ambitions into

sustainable systems, so that the future is indebted to us,

and not in debt because of us.

At a liberal arts college, ``education'' is the name we

give to intellectual endeavor, to creative expression, and to

the perpetuation of these impulses across generations. And

now we're going to talk about love. In Faulkner's novel there

is a concern that we are too quick to assign to human

motivation overtly rational, design-driven origins. One

character observes:

Have you noticed how so often when we try to reconstruct

the causes which lead up to the actions of men and women, how

with a sort of astonishment we find ourselves now and then

reduced to the belief, the only possible belief, that they

stemmed from some of the old virtues? (Ch 4)

Faulkner called these the old virtues--love, passion,

sacrifice--the human qualities that produce what matters to

humanity, from the forging of a peace agreement between

contending nations, to the assistance offered a stranger in

need, to the mentoring of a student, a new colleague, or to

the simple preparation for class by professor and student

alike.

At St. Mary's College, embedded in our mission and purpose,

is the premise that great things will come of following the

heart's desire. Learning to love what you do is a signal

achievement of a lifetime. Finding the important thing that

needs to be done, and investing yourself in that

significance, sacrificing for it, and loving where it leads--

this is the essence of a liberal arts education. Once

immersed in poetry, in history, in science and mathematics,

you'll find that passion transferable to careers and

communities that will depend upon like-minded, invested human

hearts and minds for their perpetuation. And in that process,

forty years ahead, the community of 2051 will look back on us

and say, ``our way was made by the commitments of 2011, and

we inherit a college that was loved, nurtured, and cared for

by men and women of passion.''

It is in this spirit that I ask all of us who work to

maintain and advance this college community on the banks of

the St. Mary's River to renew our commitment--to providing an

academically elite, liberal arts education that is inclusive,

public, and accessible; to fostering an egalitarian spirit on

campus characterized by collaboration and cooperation,

seeking methods of compromise over conquest; to installing

procedures and systems, as well as bricks and mortar, that

are sustainable beyond our lifetime; to considering future

generations to be our partners, not our creditors; to

maintaining the liberal arts in the public trust, dedicated

to the young people who seek the rigors of a liberal arts

education, in whose creative spirit and intellectual audacity

we entrust the future of this state, this nation, and the

world.

I ask you, gathered here today: Are you ready? Because I am

ready--ready for the future of St. Mary's College of

Maryland.

My friend and colleague Jim Moran gave these insightful remarks at his 20-Year Gala Celebration on March 29th.

Congressman Jim Moran's Speech at his 20-Year Gala Celebration--March

29, 2011

I have the best job in the world--representing the best

educated, most diverse workforce in the strongest economy in

the country.

Of course, there's always going to be a gap between what

business can produce and what government can provide. In

Northern Virginia much of that gap is filled with the

personal generosity of most of you in this room. So, on

behalf of the beneficiaries of your generosity, let me thank

you again for your unselfishness.

After 65 years of life and 30 years in politics, I've come

to realize some things that may have not been as apparent

when I started out. First of all, the tragedy of so many

lives I've come into contact with, didn't occur when they

drew their last breath, but rather when they dreamt their

last dream. The tragedy of life is what we let die inside us

while we live.

Societies have many of the same organic qualities as

individuals and what strikes me

as I speak tonight is that this nation, which our founding

fathers intended to serve as the brightest and most moral

beacon of hope and enlightenment for all mankind, is in

danger of losing its energy and its luster. It's not lights

out time, but the light is dimming. Confidence and optimism

is giving way to pessimism and cynicism.

The fact that we can't even see our way through to funding

the Federal Government is an example of what I'm talking

about. Many in today's Congress have said they will not vote

to fund our Treasury obligations when we hit our national

debt ceiling in a matter of weeks. The seed corn for our

future growth--education, Head Start, research and

development, roads, rails, clean water infrastructure,

environmental preservation, the arts and humanities, are all

being cut into the bone in the pending HR1 Appropriations

Bill.

I'm in this job because I believe deeply in my heart in the

American dream and I believe in the essential role of the

Federal Government in the fulfillment of that dream.

Government can't and shouldn't try to solve every problem,

right every wrong, or even rectify every inequality. Its job

is to be a catalyst and a gap-filler and the option of last

resort. To do the things that the private sector can't or

won't.

For example, the private sector alone can't afford the kind

of basic research that DARPA and the National Science

Foundation invested in that produced the internet, GPS, the

human genome, and cures for so many of our diseases. And if

we want to unravel the mysteries of what lies under the sea

and above the sky, if we want to find a permanent cure for

Alzheimer's and cancer and autism, and if we're going to

secure clean, sustainable sources of energy, then the Federal

Government needs to be seen as a partner worth the trust and

the investment of the American people and its politicians.

The private sector can't finance all our interstate roads

and high-speed rail and mass transit systems. The private

sector can't fund the infrastructure to separate storm water

from drinking water or salvage Puget Sound or the Chesapeake

Bay or the Great Lakes. And neither the private sector nor

most of the parents of this country can take on the task of

educating our future workforce.

Those are inherently governmental responsibilities and we

ought not shrink from them.

If we truly believe in the future of this country then we

have to be willing to make the investments necessary to

ensure that brighter future. That means you don't cut corners

on research opportunities, you don't shortchange your

transportation systems, and you don't lay off more than

200,000 teachers, as we've done over the last two years,

while the number of students has increased by 750,000.

Of course, we have to reduce the deficit and ultimately

balance our budget--but you can't fight two wars, expand

Medicare and invest billions in our homeland's security with

two deep tax cuts.

We're bringing in revenue today that amounts to 15% of GDP.

We've never had a strong, stable, modern economy without

investing at least 20% of our GDP in military security and in

our domestic physical and human infrastructure. But, as the

Bowles/Simpson Commission emphasized, spending at 25% of GDP

is just as unsustainable as taxing at 15%.

Our tax code has got to be made simpler and fairer. Warren

Buffet is right to ask why his secretary pays 25% of her

income while he only pays taxes on 10% of his wealth. And

it's fair to ask why Exxon Mobil, GE, NewsCorp, Bank of

America, and dozens of other multinational corporations are

paying zero taxes to the U.S. during some of their most

profitable years, while other corporations with much less

profit are paying 35%.

It's not their fault. It's ours in the Congress.

We lose a trillion dollars a year in so-called tax

expenditures, much of which can only be justified in a

political context. And while I'm an ardent capitalist, I

don't think we should be taxing those making $250,000 a year

at the same rate as we tax those making $25 million a year.

We also have to rein in health care costs. They're

crippling our economy. Medicare and Medicaid spending has

doubled over the last 25 years as a percent of GDP. It

doesn't make sense that we should be living shorter, less

healthy lives, while spending twice what any other country is

spending on its health care. The reason is that we reimburse

for the quantity of services provided, rather than the

quality of care needed. Hopefully, the health care reform

bill that was fought over so vehemently will fix that.

A couple other things I have come to realize over the last

20 years is that the best social program is a good job and

the key to economic prosperity and social stability is a

strong middle class. Neither a survival of the fittest

society nor a winner-take-all economy is in anyone's long-

term best interest.

Carrying on the theme of societies functioning very much

like individuals, I think we all have kind of a burning flame

inside of us. Some call it our soul or the human spirit, but

it does seem as though when we look the other way from the

poor, shut our doors to the homeless, close our consciences

to the sick and needy, that flame burns less bright, and

eventually goes out. . . I think that can apply to our nation

as well.

And in that regard, let me say a word about immigration. I

just came from a ten-day trip to Colombia, Panama, Guatemala,

and Mexico City. The Chinese, Canadians and Europeans are all

filling the gap in Colombia and Panama left by our inability

to reach a deal with them--a free trade deal that primarily

lowers their tariffs on our goods and services.

But in Guatemala, fully half the population is stunted from

malnutrition and crime is so pervasive a young person is more

likely to be shot in a crime than to study in a college. In

Mexico, 97% of the crimes committed are never prosecuted. The

kids go to school for only four hours a day, but only 13% of

their teachers can pass a high school equivalency exam.

What would you do as a parent in a situation like that? I

think I know what you would do, because it is exactly what I

would do for my own children--you would risk everything to

pursue your dream of a better life for your kids. And that's

exactly what the bravest, boldest and most entrepreneurial

do.

And it is because people from all over the world have made

that decision to come to America for the same reasons our

ancestors did, that we've been able to constantly renew and

reinvigorate our population and our workforce. That's why I'm

a cosponsor of a bill that makes the highest achieving

children of immigrants eligible for college, regardless of

their parents' status and why I support the bill that

requires English fluency, civics knowledge, paid-up back

taxes, and no criminal record to get in the back of the line

for citizenship. That's what they say amnesty is all about. I

think it's what America is all about.

And finally--Libya. Who among you, if you saw a well-known

bully beating up on defenseless people with a tire iron,

wouldn't grab that tire iron out of his hands?

Gaddafi is not Mubarack of Egypt or King Hussein of Jordan,

or President Saleh of Yemen or the Khalifa family of Bahrain.

He's a truly bad guy. He's using foreign mercenaries to

torture and kill his people, who I believe just want some

semblance of dignity, opportunity and human rights. Human

rights that their peers throughout the Middle East are now

willing to risk their lives for. President Obama has done the

right thing by leveling the playing field.

The reason we've made the extraordinary investments we've

made to create the strongest, smartest military in the world

is to make this a better, safer world for everyone, and in so

doing, to insure a more peaceful world for ourselves.

And when we seize the moral high ground, we will always win

not just the battle, but the war of ideals and values. Those

same values and ideals motivated my father to serve in World

War II and to take advantage of the GI Bill and to save and

sacrifice to get all seven of his children through college,

and it's why I'm so genuinely humbled by the idea that I've

been able to serve in the U.S. Congress for the last 20

years--and why I am so deeply grateful to all of you for

affording me that opportunity.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it a shame, I tell my friend who just spoke, that his colleagues objected to a unanimous consent request yesterday which would have taken care of the problem he raises today.

There's not a person on this floor that doesn't want to make sure that our men and women in harm's way and in uniform ready to be put in harm's way are paid on time. But we're playing a political game here, a game of gotcha, a game of my way or the highway, not a game of coming together from all over the country and trying to make laws for our country that require compromise.

Henry Clay, one of the first Speakers of this House, from the State of Kentucky, said that if you can't compromise, you cannot govern. That's why we are on the brink of shutting down government.

We asked for a unanimous consent. I'm going to tell you we're going to ask for another unanimous consent that will accomplish exactly what the gentleman from Texas wanted to accomplish. I hope that none of you object. I hope that all of you will say, yes, enough of these games. Let's do what Republicans and Democrats have historically done when they've reached an impasse at this time. They said, well, we'll keep things in place and we'll create a bridge across which we can all pass to get to compromise, to get to an agreement. That's what the American people expect us to do.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that to some in this Chamber, shutting down the government is an ideological game or a way of making a point. That's why they've included in this bill to fund the troops some of their social agenda. That's why they want to shut down the government, because they want to force the President to do something he has told the American people he would not do.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, when the Democrats were in charge of the House and the Senate and we disagreed with George Bush, we did not shut down the government. We said, Mr. President, we understand you disagree with this so we can't do it. Not, because you won't do it, Mr. President, we're going to shut down the government. That's what's happening here.

It's not about dollars and cents and, very frankly, it's not about funding the military. That's the image that's being created because we are all sympathetic and committed to funding our men and women in harm's way. That's the right thing to do. It's the moral thing to do. It's what we ought to be doing. And I hope when I ask for a unanimous consent to do that today that, unlike yesterday, the Republicans will not object.

I want every Member to be aware of the consequences for millions of Americans of shutting down government. A shutdown would put our economic recovery, our housing market, and paychecks at risk. And yes, every person listening to me will be affected in one way or another.

It's the wrong thing to do. Who said it was the wrong thing to do? Speaker John Boehner, who said it would cost more to shut down the government than to keep it running. He is absolutely right.

Goldman Sachs has estimated that, and I quote, ``If a shutdown lasted more than a few days, it should shave 0.2 percent off the growth of the gross domestic product for every week it continued.''

What's that mean? It means jobs.

Now, we've been here for 90 days. We're in our fourth month with no jobs legislation.

Goldman Sachs went on to say, ``When the government shut down for 20 days in late 1995,'' said James O'Sullivan, chief economist, ``the Nation's economic growth was slowed by as much as a percentage point.'' That means jobs.

This is a very inefficient political tactic and prank to play on the American people. As CQ reports, business leaders also understand that averting a shutdown is crucial to our economic recovery. That is why, again, I hope you agree to my unanimous consent to keep the government open while we continue to negotiate, while we continue to try to get to an agreement.

Congressional Quarterly also points out that ``In the event of a shutdown, the Small Business Administration would not guarantee loans for business working capital, real estate investment, or job creation activities.'' It makes no sense to shut down the government.

And my friends, when they say, oh, well, the Democrats in the Senate, let me tell you why the Democrats in the Senate can't move things forward, because they can't get 60 votes. Why can't they get 60 votes? Because the Republican leader of the United States Senate will not let any of his Republicans join the 53 Democrats in the Senate to get to 60.

Ladies and gentlemen, we ought not to shut down this government, and I urge my colleagues to approve a unanimous consent request that I will make a little later today.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

I am in its present form.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for the time. I understand that he could have precluded that, and I appreciate the fact that he gave me the time.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard on the floor about all the Americans who would suffer the very real effects of a government shutdown. Those effects might include slowed economic growth, which means, of course, fewer jobs; a weakened housing market; delayed pay for our military families; delayed benefits for our veterans; unanswered Social Security applications; proceedings and more. Republicans are holding these government services hostage. Let me repeat that. The Republicans are holding those services hostage. And it turns out that their ransom demand is the passage of divisive social policy, because Mr. and Mrs. America know, my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, that we have got an agreement on numbers. We've got an agreement on how much to cut, a compromise. Henry Clay said, ``To compromise is to govern.'' We cannot govern if we do not come to agreement. But we haven't come to agreement now.

Democrats have proven more than willing to compromise. We've met Republicans more than halfway, only to find out that Republicans cannot stand up to the most extreme in their party who demand that we have an agreement on a social policy totally unrelated to the deficit. But we're still hopeful that Members of both of our parties can put their responsibility to the American people first, come to a compromise, and keep the government open for the people it serves.

To give that work the time it needs, I urge my colleagues for a clean, 1-week spending bill, a bridge to keep the government functioning into next week. That is what this motion will do. It's very simple. It will keep our defense structure intact, make sure that our people on the front line, in harm's way, get paid; make sure that every other government official that is serving the American people stays on the job to do just that.

It is free of divisive social policy. It contains no partisan measures. It will ensure that our troops are taken care of and paid on time. And unlike the partisan, divisive, 1-week extension passed by the Republicans, it can and will become law. Those Members who understand that we must compromise in order to govern I think will support this 1- week bridge and support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to you that I had the privilege of being on television with your whip, the majority whip, a friend of mine. His assertion was that, well, we had voted for some of these policies when George Bush was President. I didn't agree with those policies, but I allowed them to stay in the bill. Why? Because I knew that I had to compromise. I knew that the American public had elected a Republican President who disagreed with me. And I knew as well that I needed to keep the government running because I had a responsibility to the American public to do so. I had a responsibility to the servicemembers to do so. And so, yes, I compromised. That is all this resolution is asking of all of you.

You have a President of our country. Is he a Democrat? He is. But he is elected by the people of the United States, and he disagrees with your provision, just as George Bush agreed with it. But when we were in charge, we did not shut down the government because of that disagreement; we understood that the American public expected us to compromise and come to an agreement. This motion to recommit, if passed, will allow you to do that and keep government open.

We have now been debating for almost 2 hours, under the rule and during the course of this debate, an amendment that will make no difference to the American public tomorrow. This motion to recommit will make all the difference to America tomorrow. It is the difference between keeping the government open and shutting it down in just a little less than 9 hours from now.

I ask each of our colleagues, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, east, west, north, and south: Support this motion to recommit. It is the responsible, effective way to do what so many of you have said you want to do, and that is to keep this government functioning for the American people, continue to give it stability.

And I might add that you criticized us for creating uncertainty. I think

that was an apt criticism, my colleagues on the Republican side, that certainty is important in our economy. Nothing will create more uncertainty than defeating this motion to recommit.

I urge its adoption.

Could my friend yield just so I can correct, because I will tell my dear friend----

Could you yield just so I can correct the statement? Because it does cut the $51 billion we've already agreed to. And I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Allen West, a newly elected Republican from Florida, said, ``I'm disgusted at the perception that leaders in my own party are now using the men and women in uniform to pass a short-term budget bill.'' That was a newly elected Republican, a former member of the Armed Forces of the United States. My point being this, Mr. Speaker: This resolution speaks directly to keeping the government of the United States operating for the next 7 days, keeping our men and women in the Armed Forces paid for that week, making sure that every other necessary service for government is available to the American people for the next 7 days. And it is the only vehicle that now appears to be viable to accomplish that objective. And as a result, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is not only in order; it is imperative that we pass this motion to recommit. And I would urge the Speaker to find it in order.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Will the majority leader yield?

I thank the majority leader for yielding, and I share his view that we ought to keep the government running for not only the sake of our economy, but for the sake of all those that rely on the Federal Government. My friend has made the observation in the past that shutting down the government, and I believe the Speaker has made the same observation, was not a rational policy for us to pursue.

I ask the gentleman, because I believe that the resolution that we will be considering will not either pass the Senate nor be signed by the President, in light of that, and in light of the fact that the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker have both indicated that negotiations are ongoing, would the gentleman agree to a unanimous consent, as we have done so often in the past when the majority Democrats that were in control of the House and the Senate disagreed with President Bush, that we would have a hold-in-place unanimous consent continuing resolution, not changing the status on either side of the negotiations, for 7 days, which would give the parties the opportunity to come to an agreement.

My understanding from the leader of the Senate is that we have agreed to some $70 billion in cuts, which is a substantial way towards what you wanted and a show that we share the view that we need to have fiscal restraint.

So I ask my friend, if I made a unanimous consent request that we continue the government authority to stay running until next Friday without changing the status quo so that neither party would be disadvantaged and that our government would, in fact, as the gentleman observes is his objective, be able to stay in service to the American people?

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to inform the gentleman that the White House has just issued an intent to veto the resolution that you are offering. I tell my friend that if, in fact, the gentleman wants to keep the government running while negotiations proceed, we have already agreed to substantial billions of dollars in reductions in spending for 2011. We did so, and we've agreed on that. As a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, I have voted for both of the previous resolutions. I believed both of those could pass; and, in fact, I was correct. They did pass.

I tell my friend this resolution, in my view, will not pass. However, it is my understanding that both the Speaker and Mr. Reid and the President are continuing to have discussions to try to overcome this impasse. That is the legislative process. We never shut down the government when we had the majority and President Bush was in power. And I tell my friend the reason we did not shut it down is because we agreed with the premise you have stated and the premise the Speaker has stated that shutting down the government was not a process that was useful for our economy, for jobs, for our people or for the services that are expected of us. What is useful is for us to rationally provide a context in which negotiations, which quite obviously have not yet been completed, are completed.

Now, you have heard me talk about the ``perfectionist caucus.'' You can't get it all your way, and we can't get it all our way; but, in fact, the American public overwhelmingly elected President Obama for a 4-year term. He is in office.

Mr. Gingrich said that we were ignoring the 2010 election results. We observed that the 2008 election results were regularly ignored by your side of the aisle in the last 2 years. What I am saying to my friend, there is a rational way for us to proceed. And, very frankly, when we were in your shoes, we did so, when we couldn't reach agreement with President Bush.

I tell my friend, we have little doubt on our side of the aisle why we are where we are today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. How I miss my magic minute.

I want to say to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, how often he and I have said, you know, when we have these impasses, we need a clean CR. This CR is unclean. This CR will not get us to where you say you want to get, Mr. Chairman, and that's not shutting down the government, because you know and I know the President will not sign this bill. Why? Because you put in poison pills that you know are unacceptable to him. Why? So you can get the votes on your side of the aisle to vote for your bill to keep the government open. Why is that difficult? Because so many of your folks, unless they get 100 percent, are prepared to shut down the government. You and I both know that, Mr. Chairman.

I have great respect for you. Very frankly, I think you and I could go in a room and solve this in the next 30 seconds, but you and I are not in that room. It is time, as the Speaker has said, to be adults.

Why is this viable piece of legislation on the floor? Because you think you can hold the government ransom for an additional $12 billion. I said that I would not support, after supporting the first two--which I thought were reasonable to try to give us an opportunity to solve the differences that exist between us--that I would not vote for a third one, and I'm not going to vote for this one. It won't matter because it's dead anyway, and you all know it's dead. But you're banking on the fact that you know we don't want to shut down government. What's the proof in the pudding? We did not shut it down when we had disagreements with George Bush because we believed that reasonable people elected by a diverse community in America who had differences of opinion were expected by our public to come together, reason together, and act productively together.

Now very frankly, I don't take a back seat to anybody on this floor in my support of defense or the men and women in uniform, and Mr. Young knows that, my dear friend, not a back seat to anyone. And yes, if we passed a unanimous consent request to fund at present levels, defense would continue. Should we have passed a defense bill last year? I think we should have. I'm sorry we didn't. I urged that we do it. But the Senate, as you might recall, would not allow any bills to come to the floor, any bills--that is, the Republicans in the United States Senate would not allow that to happen.

So now we are faced with not a let's-reason-together bill but an additional $12 billion in cuts, which means that week by week by week you think you will get to what you want, not a compromise, not an agreement, but what you want. And you will do it $5 billion a week, $2 billion a week--this one is $12 billion a week. And you have no expectation that that will pass or be signed by the President, but you do it to pretend you want to keep government in operations. Newt Gingrich has said don't worry about shutting down the government, as he shut it down in 1995--and over Christmas--for 3 weeks, in '95 and '96.

Ladies and gentlemen on my side of the aisle, we ought to reject this specious political act which pretends that we want to keep the government open.

We ought to do, Mr. Chairman, what you and I have done in the past as members of the Appropriations Committee: say we haven't reached an agreement, we will do a clean CR at present levels while we continue to negotiate on behalf of the American people to do what we all want to do.

Absolutely. And that would pass the Senate as well.

I urge my colleagues to reject this CR and adopt a clean CR that will keep the government in operation and allow us to come together and reason together and pass a reasonable piece of legislation.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the chairman if he will yield to me for the purposes of making a unanimous consent request that we proceed with what we would call a clean CR, which would provide for the funding of the troops, provide for the funding of all other government agencies at the levels that we are currently at, which of course involve all the cuts that have been made to date in the last two CRs that we passed and for which I voted. I tell my friend, the reason I want to propound this unanimous consent, it will in fact provide for a document, an

act, to pass this House which I believe will in fact pass the Senate and will in fact be signed by the President.

As a result, we will protect our troops and we will protect all other services that government has available for the American people.

I ask my friend if he will yield to me for that purpose.

I think I have concluded, Madam Speaker, in asking the chairman whether he would yield to me for the purposes of making that unanimous consent so that we could have an act pass this House that we know will be signed by the President and will protect the troops and will keep the government open.

Will the chairman yield simply for me to clarify my request?

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, Madam Speaker, I am.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank the chairman as well. I understand he has given me the 5 minutes, and I appreciate that.

First of all, I want to say to my friend from Kentucky--and he is my friend and we've worked together for many, many years. He told the story about a gentleman who was in court and he was in court for killing his two parents, and he pled for the mercy of the Court because he was an orphan.

I tell my friend from Kentucky, particularly appropriate because he's from Kentucky, because the mess that we have was created because some folks from Kentucky would not give some votes to put appropriation bills on the floor. To that extent I think that analogy is apt. The gentleman complains of a mess that, frankly, was of the Republican Members in the United States Senate refusing to allow bills to come to the floor.

Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit, if adopted, A, will take care of the troops; B, will keep the government open; and, C, importantly, I would presume, from all of you who have protested how you want to protect the troops, it will pass the Senate and be signed by the President. So it will become law, and it can become law by tomorrow night before 12 midnight when the government's authorization ends. So it should commend itself to all Members of this House as a viable document to protect the troops, keep the government open, and get signed.

As the great legislator Henry Clay, who was elected Speaker the first day he served in this House--Henry Clay was from where, Mr. Chairman? From your great State. And Henry Clay said this: ``If you cannot compromise, you cannot govern.'' Henry Clay.

And let me repeat that to my friends on your side of the aisle: ``If you cannot compromise, you cannot govern.''

Too many of our Republican colleagues have refused to compromise. And now you bring to the floor a resolution and say, If you only do what we tell you to do, things will be fine. My, my, my, what a definition of ``compromise.'' Then you say, If the Senate will only do what we say, we'd be fine. The first time, the second time, the third time, and now here we are on the fourth time.

Now, I supported you, as you know, on the second time and third time because I thought it was reasonable to give that opportunity, and the cuts you were asking for, yes, I thought would be included at some point in time.

The Senate, by the way, passed those two resolutions, as we indicated they would. And the President signed them, as the gentleman is telling me.

I'm getting a little help over here from the ranking member, and I appreciate it.

But now we are on the brink of bringing the government to a halt. That makes no sense, and anybody here knows that to be the case. My friend Mr. Simpson, for whom I have a great deal of respect, knows that it makes no sense. In fact, many of your folks who have said to shut it down in the past are now saying, We don't want to shut it down, because they know the American people think that makes no sense.

Republicans showed their priorities when they passed a spending bill that cuts billions in scientific research, kicks 200,000 children out of Head Start, and cuts college aid for millions of middle class students.

Yes, we don't agree with those priorities. They're not our priorities. We think we need to invest in growing this economy and growing jobs. We think we need to invest in young people so that they can have the educational opportunities. Ronald Reagan said Head Start worked. George Bush I said it worked. George Bush II said it worked. We don't want to cut 200,000 children out of that program. We think it's important to make sure the future of our country is secured by educating those children.

You have shown your priorities when you threatened a government shutdown over divisive social policy riders. Governor Daniels, Governor of Indiana, and a candidate for President, I understand, said, Take the social issues and consider them on another bill; let's get the finances of our country in order first.

That's what you say you want to do. We want to help you do that. We will work with you on that. We have been working with you on it. That's why I voted for the last two CRs, and the Senate passed them and the President signed them.

But, Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit will allow for our troops to be taken care of, as they should be; and, by the way, they will be taken care of even if we have a shutdown because they are critical to our national security.

I urge the adoption of this motion to recommit that will be signed by the President of the United States.

Point of Order

I do, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit speaks directly to the funding of government. The continuing resolution offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, he has repeatedly said its objective is to fund the government and keep the government open.

This is an alternative which argues for the fact that we want to pass a piece of legislation that the President of the United States says he will sign. It is simply for 1 week. It is simply a short period of time while we negotiate.

I urge the Speaker to find this motion to recommit consistent with the rules and consistent with the objectives of the legislation that is under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, budgets are not simply about dollars and cents. They are about values and priorities. And the debate over spending has revealed Republican priorities, in my opinion, in the worst possible light.

First, Republicans passed a spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year that would cripple America's ability to out-innovate, out- educate, and out-build its competitors. That spending plan would cut billions in medical and energy research, cut out support for 20,000 research scientists, kick 200,000 children out of Head Start, put college out of reach for millions of middle class students, and end vital infrastructure projects in 40 States, infrastructure projects which provide American jobs.

A consensus of nonpartisan economists has found that the plan will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. And Mark Zandi, Moody's Analytics chief economist and an adviser to Senator McCain's Presidential campaign, said that it would cost almost 700,000 jobs.

In addition to these skewed priorities, Republicans are insisting that any bill, any bill to keep the government open must also include controversial social policy provisions that have little, if anything, to do with the deficit, even though their own Pledge to America promised to ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with 'must- pass' legislation,'' bills that should pass on their merits, not as related to some extraneous issue.

Rather than compromise with President Obama, with the Democrats in the Senate and the House, Republicans are threatening, once again, to shut down government as they did in 1995.

Now they tell us that they will back off on their threat but only if we pass a partisan, 1-week spending bill that triples the ransom to keep the government open. In other words, this bill contains three times the weekly cuts as the last week-to-week bill did. It also takes all cuts from only a small slice of the budget.

Frankly, Madam Speaker, that makes this latest bill a mockery of fiscal responsibility, especially because it leaves entirely untouched for the rest of the year what the Secretary of Defense himself has called the Pentagon's ``culture of endless money.'' This partisan patch contradicts Republicans' own promises to put everything on the table, defense spending included.

Listen to their own words, as reported by the Associated Press on January 23: ``The House's new majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor of

Virginia, has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board.'' But, of course, they haven't done that.

New York Times, January 27: ``Representative Chris Gibson, a tea party-endorsed freshman Republican and retired Army colonel, made it clear that no part of the Pentagon's $550 billion budget, some $700 billion including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was immune. `This deficit that we have threatens our very way of life, and everything needs to be on the table.' '' However, they have not done that.

Congressman Mike Pence, on January 7, said: ``If we are going to put our fiscal house in order, we have to be able to look at defense.'' We need a strong defense. I am a supporter of a strong defense. But to take those dollars off the table is irresponsible and inconsistent with the representations that our Republican friends have made.

Those words are sounding very hollow, however, today. Why are Republicans breaking their word, Madam Speaker? Because, in my opinion, they know that the only way to get their conference to support this spending bill is to bribe it with a year of defense spending left untouched and a divisive social policy provision as well, which is what they said they would not do.

What we need to do is sit down and over the next 72 hours, now over the next 48 hours, frankly, come to compromise. That's our job. ``My way or the highway'' is never going to get it done.

Finally, Republicans showed their priorities in their budget for the upcoming fiscal year. We will have a lot to say about that in the days ahead.

Their budget ends Medicare as we know it. Seniors thought that they were going to protect Medicare. Well, their way of protecting it is ending it. It dismantles Medicaid and other vital programs for our seniors. We will talk a lot about that in the coming days.

And on top of that, it includes yet trillions more in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

We can do better. Rather than using our debt as an excuse to pass a nakedly partisan agenda, we need to take a bipartisan approach that puts everything on the table:

Keeping our entitlement programs solvent; scrutinizing our spending, defense and non-defense, for waste and low priorities; and passing deficit-reducing tax reform.

Those are the hard choices and shared sacrifices that Americans have a right to expect.

Briefly, in response to the gentleman's assertion, of course the court has said EPA does, in fact, have this authority. This is not a new authority they're making up. Rather than invest in new energy technologies, address carbon pollution, and create clean energy jobs, our friends on the other side are choosing instead to deny the problem and take away America's tools for responding to it.

This bill would overturn auto emission standards that are making our cars and trucks cheaper to drive and breaking our independence on foreign oil. This bill would not do a single thing to bring down the price of gas, but it would keep America from saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of our new cars. We would not have gotten there, frankly, if some of the proponents of this bill who opposed getting to those standards had prevailed. And it would do so at a time when the turmoil in the Middle East should serve as an energy independence wake-up call.

I'm for using all of our energy that we can do so in a healthy, safe way. This bill, however, would significantly weaken the Clean Air Act over its 40-year span.

The benefits of the act: longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and protected ecosystems have outweighed the costs by more than 30-1. That's a pretty good return, ladies and gentlemen. Last year, according to the EPA, just one part of the Clean Air Act prevented someone 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, and 100,000 hospital visits. That is a pretty good return on our investment.

And according to the American Medical Association, ``If physicians want evidence of climate change, they may well find it in their own offices. Patients are presenting with illnesses that once happened only in warmer areas. Chronic conditions are becoming aggravated by more frequent and extended heat waves. Allergy and asthma seasons are getting longer.''

The gentleman from New Hampshire said he doesn't doubt global warming. I agree with that conclusion. It is a shame this bill doesn't take that perspective. The Republican response is to make pollution easier, frankly.

Finally, this bill overturns scientific findings that carbon pollution endangers the environment and human health, which has been confirmed by all of the world's leading scientists.

A partisan majority can pass whatever bill it wants. I understand that. But it cannot legislate the facts out of existence, facts that as recently as a few years ago were accepted in both parties. What changed? The science or the politics?

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, which recklessly endangers our air, our health, our climate, and our energy independence.

Mr. Garamendi, I thank you not only for your yielding, but more importantly for the extraordinary time you have invested in educating all of the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle in what can truly be perceived I think as an absolutely nonpartisan, bipartisan, pro-American agenda that says we ought to make it in America. And if we do, we are going to make it in America. We're going to succeed in America.

You've got our logo up there, Manufacturing Matters. I want to congratulate you, and I want to congratulate Ms. Sutton from Ohio, who has been such an extraordinary advocate. Her legislation in many respects took the automobile industry and put it back on track. That was an action that saved literally hundreds of thousands of jobs. Thousands of jobs in the automobile industry, but all the jobs that are related to the automobile industry. And I congratulate Betty Sutton for the leadership she showed. That legislation of course was passed in a bipartisan fashion. Not a partisan divide on that issue.

Mr. Garamendi has been not only educating the Members of this House, but as the American public watches the proceedings in this House, educating them as well. I go all over America and talk to groups, and there is not a group that I have talked to, no matter how liberal, how conservative, whether it's a Democratic group, a nonpartisan group, anywhere in this country, and I have talked to a number of the heads of major corporations, and I have talked to a lot of heads of small corporations, 200, 300, 400 members, and all of them are appreciative of the fact that we have focused the Congress of the United States and the administration and America on the importance of making things in America.

Betty Sutton, as I walked on the floor, was talking about the kinds of jobs that we create in manufacturing, which have on average a 22 percent higher salary. That middle income, middle class workers, working Americans can have the kind of quality of life that they deserve. And when you see Ford bringing jobs back to America, you see Whirlpool bringing jobs back to America, you see other corporations bringing jobs back to America, why are they bringing them back to America? Because they are finding out that they get better quality and higher productivity.

The gentleman from California mentioned the steel in the bridge that's being built. We make the best steel in America. I was visiting the president of U.S. Steel in Pittsburgh. Extraordinary technology. And we are the most productive producer of steel now. We frankly in the fifties sort of rested on our laurels. And then in the sixties and seventies, the Japanese, the Koreans, and others built new plants and they overtook us in technology. But it wasn't because we couldn't compete; it was that we weren't competing.

What Make It In America says is American workers can compete with anybody in the world. And we are prepared to do so. And this Congress hopefully is going to give them the incentives and the tools to do that. So I wanted to come on the floor and join you, as I have in evenings past, to thank you, because I believe this agenda, if it's known to our Republican colleagues fully and our Democratic colleagues, but much more importantly to the American people, it's an agenda that I have found has the support of 8 to 9 of every Americans who shake their head and say, yes, that's the deal. I don't mean that the 1 or 10 percent are against it. It's just that about 85 percent say, yes, that's what we need to do. America can compete. America can be again the center of manufacturing and growth and the creation of jobs.

We know that we've lost some 8 million jobs over the last few years, 3 or 4 years. We know that Americans are struggling to find employment. Well, if we want to find employment for them we need to create jobs for them. We need to focus on creating jobs. I am hopeful that as we move on in the coming months that we will in fact start focusing on jobs, on job creation. We have created, as you know, 1.75 million new private sector jobs over the last 13 months. But that's not enough. It's progress, but it's not enough.

So I congratulate the gentleman and thank him for his leadership. And I thank Ms. Sutton for hers as well. Two giants in focusing on an agenda that we call Make It In America.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I did not know that he was taking a Special Order, but I was here on the floor, went over to say hello to my dear friend and he indicated this Special Order was being taken for John Adler.

John Adler died too young. John Adler contributed extraordinarily to his family, to his community, to his State and to his Nation.

He served here too short a time. He was full of energy and of ideas, of intellect, of integrity; and he became a good friend in a short period of time. And I counted him as one of the assets of this Congress, not a Democratic asset or a Republican asset, but someone who cared about his country and who wanted to see it adopt policies that were productive for its people.

It is appropriate that we remember this too short a life that, notwithstanding its brevity, was filled with great productivity, service and commitment. I appreciate the fact that the members of the New Jersey delegation have allowed me to join them, Mr. Speaker, in paying tribute to this great American.

I want to say to his family, I called Shelley the other day and didn't get her but left a message, four children are missing their father tonight, a loving wife, whom I got to know as well, missing her husband. While our loss is certainly not as personal or as keen as their loss, we share that loss in a very real sense.

Not only have we lost an American public servant; we have lost a friend and a colleague. For that we will say a prayer for his family, and we will be there for his family whenever they need us.

So I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, my friend Mr. Lance, for giving me this time to join him and Mr. Pallone and Mr. Holt in paying tribute to this wonderful human being whom we had the privilege of serving with, for too brief a time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

April fools, America. This is a joke, America. This is not real, America. As a matter of fact, Mr. Woodall of Georgia says it's not real. It's not going to pass the Senate. He made that very clear. The majority leader just said if the Senate won't take what we give

them, we're going to shut down the government. That's what he just said. And that's what I believe to be the case.

The last time the government shut down was not when we had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress but when we had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. They shut down the government in 1995 and 1996. They shut down the government over Christmas, as a matter of fact, the Grinch who stole the government's operations for almost 3 weeks. We're about to do it again.

The gentleman from Georgia, who has been here now a few months, was 10 years old when I came to the Congress of the United States. He mentioned something about the debt, this $14 trillion of debt. Well, I've only been here, I tell my friend, 30 years, but during the course of those 30 years, Republican Presidents have signed bills spending $4.8 trillion in deficit spending. During the course of the Clinton administration, we had a surplus, as the gentleman probably knows. Now he will say, presumably, because we had a Republican Congress. But, of course, the Republicans not only took the Congress but they took the Presidency in 2001, and they ran up 2\1/2\ trillion dollars of deficit and increased the national debt by 115 percent, notwithstanding the fact that they inherited a projected $5.6 trillion surplus.

And now they pass this April fools joke on America that the gentleman who is one of the cosponsors says won't pass the Senate. We know it won't pass the Senate. But they pretend in their language what is clearly contrary to the Constitution, because they say if it doesn't pass, the provisions of H.R. 1, the bill they have sent to the Senate, passed by the House on February 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law. In other words, we're going to deem it passed.

Let me tell you what Eric Cantor said about deeming it passed:

``Malfeasant manner. Did not discharge the duties of their office.''

Then Speaker Boehner said this about these deeming pieces of legislation, which this is. He said it was a scheme and plot that set a precedent and was, quote, one of the most outrageous things that he had seen since he had been in Congress and erroneously claimed that it had never happened in American history. In fact, it had happened before. This has never happened, where the House of Representatives took the position if you don't pass what we want, ours goes into law anyway. I'm sure our Tea Party friends are shocked, because they will find nowhere in the Constitution, my friends, does that provide for.

Furthermore, Mike Pence denounced deem and pass as, quote, trampling on the traditional rules of the House and Senate and even on the Constitution of the United States of America.

Michelle Bachmann, who apparently may be a candidate for President, said this, that deem and pass, quote, ignored the Constitution and warranted the impeachment of the House Speaker. Quote, there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this.

This resolution says, contrary to the Constitution, if the Senate doesn't act, this bill becomes law. Nobody on your side surely believes that that can happen. Nobody believes that that joke that we are trying to play on the American people on April Fool's Day will be believed by any of them.

And, my friends, do not tell me about your concern about the deficit, because the deficit during my period of time, except for the last 2 years, trying to deal with the deep depression in which the last administration left this economy--don't try to tell me that we are responsible for the debt, the $14 trillion of debt. Surely my friend knows that's not the case. And if my friend doesn't know it, I would be glad to set up a time when we can debate that issue in any forum he chooses because the facts belie his representation.

My friends, reject this bill. Reject this bill because it is a fraud on the American public. Reject this bill because it's an attempt to shift blame from the House of Representatives passing a bill that can, in fact, pass; not to say to the Senate, Our way or no way, and we will shut down the government, because that's what this bill says.

If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for his observation and regret that he felt it was a mischaracterization because I thought it was accurate. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman who just spoke on behalf of General Casey and thank General Casey, with him, for his service to the country.

Madam Speaker, in 1998, as a Republican Congress was struggling to compromise with a Democratic President on a budget bill, a Member of the House rose to speak to what he called the ``perfectionist caucus,'' those Members who stood against compromise under any circumstances. Here is what he said:

``Now, my fine friends who are perfectionists, each in their own world where they are petty dictators, could write a perfect bill. It would be about 2,200 of their particular projects and their particular interests and their particular goodies, taking care of their particular States. But,'' this speaker said, ``that is not the way life works in a free society. In a free society, where we are sharing power between the legislative and executive branch, compromise is precisely the outcome we should expect to get.''

Those words were true then when Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, said them, and they are still true today.

In the last election, Americans voted for shared responsibility. Without both parties' willingness to compromise--to take less than 100 percent of what they want--there will be no solution to our most pressing problems, including our debt; there will be no action on our budget; and the government will be in danger of shutting down, which, in the midst of a fragile economic recovery, would be disastrous.

So the question is this, Madam Speaker: Who is willing to compromise and who is standing in the way?

Democrats are willing to cut and compromise. We believe that smart, targeted cuts are a part of the solution, and we have offered to meet Republicans more than halfway.

The Republican leadership initially proposed $73 billion in spending cuts. Their conference rejected that proposal and demanded $100 billion in cuts.

Democrats have offered $51 billion, and signal a willingness to move toward the $70 billion figure suggested by the Republican leadership, very near the Republicans' original goal, provided that we can agree on cuts that don't cripple our economic recovery and undermine our shared values.

Cutting 200,000 children from Head Start is not, I believe, a value we ought to support. Adversely affecting 9 million young people's ability to go to college and make us a more competitive society is not one of those values either. Substantially reducing our ability to participate in basic research which will grow our economy, create innovative ideas and spur invention is not one of our values.

In my view, H.R. 1 that passed this House did not represent America's values. Yes, we need to become fiscally disciplined, but we need to do it in a smart way that reflects our values.

Looking at those numbers, Americans are surely thinking there is clear room to come to an agreement and keep the world's largest enterprise, the United States Government, from being funded on a sporadic, uncertainty-creating 2-week or 3-week increment.

So why can't we?

Well, read the news. The New York Times March 28 said this: ``Tea Party supporters are coming to the Capitol this week to rally Republicans to not compromise with Democrats on spending cuts.'' That's the perfectionist caucus wing.

Politico, on March 27, said this: ``Harsh rhetoric Friday night suggests GOP leaders still fear a tea party rebellion.'' That's what Newt Gingrich was talking about with respect to the perfectionist caucus.

The Hill, on March 29 said, ``Striking a deal with Democrats would set off a wave of revolt among the most conservative members of the caucus.'' That's the perfectionist caucus that Newt Gingrich was talking about that brought our government to a standstill and shut down our government in 1995 and early 1996.

We are in a dangerous place, I tell my friends, when compromise, which is essentially the job description of a legislator in a free society, is enough to spark revolt.

Come, let us reason together, Lyndon Johnson said. That is what we need to do. We face partisan opposition to any compromise on spending levels. Some Members' willingness to shut down the government unless they get their way on divisive social issues, even though the Republican pledge to America promised to, and I quote, ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with `must-pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American people.'' In fact, Mitch Daniels, candidate for President, Governor of Indiana, said they ought to be considered separately. He is right.

Madam Speaker, the perfectionist caucus, unfortunately, seems to be alive and well. It just has a new name. Just listen to its own words.

One Republican Member said this: ``If we can't defund health care reform in the spending bill, then we have just got to dig in.'' In other words, shut down government if you can't repeal the health care bill.

Is that an item for substantial, substantive debate? It is. But should we shut down the government while that debate is occurring? I say no.

Another said, ``I think we have to have a fight. I think this is the moment.'' In other words, our way or no way. I don't think that's what the American people voted for.

Another said this: ``I don't see any room for compromise.''

Democracies cannot work that way. As Newt Gingrich said, we're elected from different constituencies by different people with different views, and they expect us to come here, all 435 all of us, and all 100 in the Senate, and make reasonable compromises to move our government forward. Yes, to reduce the deficit we must do that, but let us do so in a way that honors our values and honors our democracy.

For the rest of us, Members of both parties who understand that legislating means compromise, it's time to find common ground and prevent government shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Adrienne Thomas, the Deputy Archivist of the United States who is retiring after 41 years of distinguished service with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Ms. Thomas began her career of federal service straight out of Iowa State University as an archivist trainee in the Office of Presidential Libraries. Since then, she has held a number of important policy and administrative positions. Early in her career, she was instrumental in transforming the Archives into an institution at the forefront of a revolution in public access to records, following the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. During the 1980s, she served as the Director of Planning and Analysis and, in 1985, she was instrumental in putting in place the structure that allowed the Archives to operate as a newly created independent agency, no longer under the direction of the General Services Administration.

Perhaps her most celebrated contributions to this nation are the magnificent public spaces where she was intimately involved in overseeing construction and renovation during her time as NARA's head of Administration and Chief Financial Officer. Her vision has shown the world that archives don't have to be dark dusty repositories. This year alone, one million people will see her attention to detail and love of history when they visit the historic National Archives Building in Washington, DC to view the Charters of Freedom and other American milestone documents, respectfully and accessibly displayed following a building renovation in 2003. Another place where her dedication to excellence for the American people can be seen is just up the road in College Park, Maryland, home to NARA's state-of-the-art facility known as ``Archives II,'' which opened in 1994. Ms. Thomas oversaw Archives II from concept to ribbon cutting. It stands today as the premier archival research center in the world--the gold standard--and a great source of pride in my congressional district.

From archivist trainee to Deputy Archivist of the United States, Ms. Thomas has mentored hundreds of employees and inspired millions of people who visit our National Archives buildings across the country. It is truly my honor to pay tribute today to Ms. Adrienne Thomas, a real ``National Treasure'' who worked for the American people for 41 years.

Last week, as I have been doing for a number of weeks, I have been speaking about our budget and the crisis that confronts us and the challenge that confronts us.

Last week, former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough said this about the hard work of getting America out of debt: ``The belief of some on the right that America can balance the budget by cutting education, infrastructure, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and home heating assistance to the poor is tantamount to budgetary witchcraft.'' That was Joe Scarborough, a former conservative Republican Member of Congress from northern Florida.

Last week, Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan expressed a similar thought when he said this: ``If you literally think you can just balance the budget by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, foreign aid, and NPR, it doesn't work like that,'' said Paul Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee.

Both Congressman Scarborough and Congressman Ryan are exactly right. Last week I explained why Republicans' spending plan, even as it cripples America's competitiveness, barely makes a dent in our debt. That is because the spending targeted by Republicans, non-security discretionary spending, only amounts to 14 percent of the entire budget. Should we focus on that? Yes. Can we get to where we need to be from there? No.

If you want to meet an arbitrary goal of cutting $100 billion and you confine yourself to just 14 percent of the budget, you severely damage investments in education, in innovation, and in competitiveness without making our fiscal condition significantly healthier.

That is why, to really get our debt under control, we have to go beyond that 14 percent. We have to stop making the cuts that, while reckless, are politically easy. We have to start doing what is in the best interests of our country even though it is politically hard.

That means addressing the defense spending that takes in more than one quarter of our budget. It means making hard choices that can keep our entitlements strong for generations to come. But we also need to pass deficit-reducing tax reform.

Our Tax Code is a monumental collection of rules and regulations riddled with loopholes and preferences which are a drain on job creation and, frankly, exacerbate the deficit.

Many of those loopholes, or tax expenditures, as they are also called, are popular with all sorts of special interests. But they exact a high price from the rest of us: billions of dollars and more than 225 million collective hours spent on tax preparation, money and time that could be invested in more productive activity.

Just as importantly, when the Tax Code is full of loopholes, businesses and families start making decisions on maximizing tax breaks, not on their economic common sense. Closing those loopholes in return for lower tax rates frees us all to make more economically sensible choices; in other words, fewer preferences, lower rates.

Closing those loopholes can also reduce the deficit. In the spending bill on the floor this week, total discretionary spending for fiscal year 2011 adds up to $1.1 trillion, an awful lot of money. How much do our tax expenditures cost for the same fiscal year? Coincidentally, $1.1 trillion. This chart reflects that realty: $1.077 trillion in expenditures, $1.068 trillion, almost exactly the same sum, in tax expenditures. How much do our tax expenditures cost for the same fiscal year? Just as much as we spend on non-security discretionary spending and security spending.

Clearly, tax expenditures must be part of the answer. The two commissions that met to try to focus on getting our deficit under control, making sure that we are economically viable into the next century and making sure that our children are not left in a deep economic hole, that they will have the resources necessary to meet the challenges of their time and will not look at our generation as the generation of debt, said as much.

It must be part of the answer, tax expenditures, because if we attempt to solve our debt without addressing defense, entitlements, and revenues, we are fighting with one hand and four fingers behind our back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am not sure whether I rise for or against this, very frankly, because I think this process is not the process that we ought to be pursuing. I think in that context I speak for the chairman and for the ranking member and for most Members in this body.

I was going to wait a while, but then I heard Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania speak and I want to reiterate this point that he made, because I made it last week in my colloquy with the majority leader.

I made the point that we are about to make the largest single reduction in discretionary spending that we have made, the gentleman said in history; I was more modest and said in the 30 years that I have been here. But in any event, this is not an insubstantial cut.

The problem those of us have on this side of the aisle is it is not enough for a large number of your folks, and they have said so, and the Heritage Foundation has said so, and the Family Research Council has said so, and some of your Members have said so.

Now, the fact of the matter is this is a lousy way to run a railroad. We are trying to run the largest enterprise in the world in 2-week segments. It is costly to the private sector, it is extraordinarily inefficient for the public sector, and it is demoralizing for the private sector who deals with the government and for the public employees we have asked to perform the services that we have set forth as policy. And so I say at this juncture, this ought to be the last of this type. We need to reach agreement.

Now I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, because it is the largest cut, we think we've come a long way. You said you wanted to cut $100 billion. Now, you're not cutting the $41 billion that we cut. You were using the 2011 baseline. That's how you got your $100 billion. $41 billion, we have all agreed, is gone. We're going to freeze at 2010 and go below that. So we have come $41 billion away, and we agree on that.

Now, you used the 2011. That wasn't our figure first. You used it September; we used it in December. So my view is we have agreed on $41 billion. You don't say that. You say we're between zero and 60. I understand your rationale. But it's your figure, it's your baseline that you used in September in your Pledge to America.

If we have gone 41 and we are now going to go another 10 or 15, what I ask of you is, in light of the fact, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania points out, we've already done the deepest cut under Republicans, under Democrats, under any of us, it is time to hear from you, what is your alternative to make a deal?

Now, ``compromise'' is a prettier word, but we need to come to agreement. If we're going to serve our country, and those who serve our country, then we need to come to agreement, because they elected all of us. None of us has any greater superiority. We're all the same. And we need to come to agreement.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Reclaiming my time, 435 of us have tried to talk to the people in the other body. But I will tell you, under the Constitution of the United States, we have the responsibility of initiating bills. Read the Constitution.

We sent H.R. 1 over there, as my good friend, the former Speaker of Idaho, says to me, and they didn't pass it. It's not their responsibility to initiate. That didn't go anywhere.

I will say to you, we can wring our hands and say that the Senate's not doing its job. We're not in the Senate. We're here. Let us come to agreement. And we know the agreement is going to be someplace in between where you are and where we are. We know that. But what we don't know is what you can pass. What you don't know is what you can pass. You don't know what your caucus will do. I understand that. You are deeply divided, in my opinion, and we need to know, because it is not just us here that are adversely affected.

Let us come to agreement. Let us stop this process of funding government in very short cycles. It is not good for our country, it is not good for the people who work for our country, and it is not good for the people who are doing work around the world.