Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have 3 minutes to discuss with the American public why their country is going to be put deeper into debt by passing this legislation. It would be good legislation if it were paid for. It was good legislation when it was included in Mr. Camp's overall tax reform bill. But it is very bad policy and very bad legislation in this unpaid-for, discreet form. And, by the way, there is about another $160 billion of debt to follow. What a sad day for America. What a sad day for this House. What a sad day for the Ways and Means Committee. What a sad day for fiscal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to vote for the temporary political benefit of saying you gave somebody a tax cut, but vote for fiscal responsibility. Vote to keep on a path of a big deal to solve the fiscal challenges that confront our country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if this is a precedent, it is a bad precedent. It is a dangerous precedent. It is a precedent that we ought not to make. ``Read the Constitution,'' I heard over and over and over again. I have read probably the opinions of 25 lawyers whom I respect from many great institutions in this country, none of whom, as I am sure the ranking member has pointed out, none of whom believe that the precedent supports this action. Mr. Speaker, what a waste of the people's time for Congress to spend this week on politics and not policy. We are about to vote on a resolution that is really a partisan, political message. Everyone here agrees--everyone--that the IRS should never target anyone based on anything other than what they owe in taxes, not their political beliefs or any other traits other than their liability and their opportunities to pay their fair share to the United States of America. In fact, during an exhaustive investigation into the IRS, Chairman Issa's committee interviewed 39 witnesses, analyzed more than 530,000 pages, and could not find the conspiracy they were looking for--that they always look for, that they always allege. Fourteen million dollars of taxpayer money has already been spent on this investigation, and all that was found was that which we already knew: that the division led by Ms. Lerner suffered from fundamental administrative and managerial shortcomings that bore no connection to politics or to partisanship. Independent legal experts have concluded that Chairman Issa's efforts to hold Ms. Lerner in contempt of Congress is constitutionally deficient. But this resolution before us today is, of course, not meant to generate policy. It is meant to generate headlines. Republicans, once again, are showing that they are more interested in partisan, election-year gimmicks than working in a bipartisan way to tackle our country's most pressing challenges. We ought to turn to the important matters of creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, and restoring emergency unemployment for those who are struggling to find work-- issues the American people overwhelmingly support and want their Congress to address. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give this partisan resolution the vote it deserves and defeat it so that we can turn to the people's business. In closing, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. There are 435 of us in this body.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, do not think about party on this vote. Think about precedent. Think about this institution. Think about the Constitution of the United States of America. And if you haven't read, read some of the legal opinions that say you have to establish a predicate before you can tell an American that they will be held criminally liable if they don't respond to your questions. That is what this issue is about. It is not about party, it is not about any of us, but about the constitutional protections that every American deserves and ought to be given.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Objection.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, from Virginia.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information with reference to the legislation for next week. He leads with a bill that is entitled American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014. As the gentleman knows, we have an agenda which I have talked to him about briefly. We call it Make It In America, which is essentially about growing manufacturing and encouraging manufacturers to return to the United States and encouraging people when they want to go into manufacturing to do so here in America. Not only will that provide for a ``Made in America'' label all over the world, but it will also provide the kind of middle class jobs and opportunities that we need. Part of that agenda, I will tell my friend, is to make permanent the research and development tax credit. This bill does that. This bill also costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion, maybe a little less, over 10 years. It is unpaid for. The series of bills that were passed by the Ways and Means Committee will cost $310 billion. They are also unpaid for. I suggest to my friend--and as he knows, I preach relatively regularly that one of the things that we need to do for the business community and for America is to get ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path. Mr. Camp offered a comprehensive piece of legislation, Mr. Leader, as you know, which I think was an honest effort, but it also made hard choices. It made hard choices not to increase the deficit and, therefore, provided offsets for tax cuts. I think that is absolutely essential for us to do. This bill that we will consider next week, which is a proposition I think most of us support, and that is giving businesses the insurance that the research and development tax credit will in fact be available not only for 1 year, but for a series of years--in this case, I believe 10 years. What the business community doesn't need and what America doesn't need is making the deficit worse. As a matter of fact, Mr. Leader, your party talks a lot about bringing the deficit down. This goes in exactly the opposite direction, and I think that is lamentable. I said $150 billion. It is actually $155 billion over 10 years. I would hope that the party that is demanding that unemployment insurance be paid for, that is demanding that the sustainable growth rate be paid for, and that any change in the sequester be paid for, ought to have consistency and not add $155 billion to our deficit in a vote next week on something that I think we are all for; and it is easy, Mr. Leader, as you well know, to vote for tax cuts--easy. It takes no courage whatsoever. I have been at this business 45 years. It has been my experience that, over those 45 years, it is easy for Members to vote for tax cuts. What is hard to do is to pay for the policies you adopt. This bill does not do that. This bill makes the deficit worse, exacerbates the lack of confidence that Americans have in the fiscal responsibility of their country, and puts us in a worse place. So I would hope, Mr. Leader, that before this bill comes to the floor, that you and the Rules Committee and Mr. Camp, as he did in the bill that he offered to this House, which was, frankly, dismissed out of hand because it made tough decisions, this bill makes no tough decisions. It has a tax cut. It has all the candy and none of the spinach. It is all good, and nobody has to pay the price. Nobody has to take responsibility. I think that is lamentable, and I would hope that, before this bill comes to the floor, there would be a way to pay for this bill. I want to suggest to you that there is a way to pay for it. There is a way to pay for the other extenders that the committee wants, and that is by passing a comprehensive immigration bill. Mr. Boehner indicated that that was not being done because it was tough and people didn't want to do tough things. I understand that. It is hard to do tough things. That is why they are called tough. Mr. Boehner now says he was kidding when he said that. My view is he was deadly serious, and the reason we are considering this bill next week is because it is easy to do. The reason we are not considering comprehensive immigration reform is because it is difficult, but comprehensive immigration reform would pay for all of the tax cuts that are being proposed in these six extenders and, indeed, in all of the extenders that are proposed by the Senate Finance Committee. They only proposed that for 2 years, not 10 years, but it would pay for all of them. In fact, CBO says if we pass comprehensive immigration reform, it would mean $200 billion for the next 10 years and $900 billion over the next 20 years. In December, the Budget Committee chairs, Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Murray, were able to come up with a substantial sequester replacement. We ought to be able to do that as well. Let me close this part of my comment with two quotes, one from Republican Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, who said: As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves. And then Mr. Alan Greenspan, who initially said in 2001 and 2003 that he thought the tax cuts would pay for themselves. However, upon review of those tax cuts, he came back in response to a question on ``Meet the Press'' from David Gregory, and the question was: You don't agree with the Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves? Mr. Greenspan: They do not. So all of your Republican colleagues are being asked to vote for a $155 billion increase in the deficit, which they all say they want to bring down. I am sure they will get up and rationalize--as they did in 1981, in 2001, and 2003--that those tax cuts would magically grow the economy, so that they would not exacerbate the deficit. In the 33 years I have been in Congress, that has not been our experience. So, Mr. Leader, I very sincerely hope that we can join together in a bipartisan way and support this legislation because it is the right thing to do in terms of growing manufacturing, and it is the right thing to do in bringing down our deficit to pay for it. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would say that the rationale he uses, however, is applicable to the sustainable growth rate reimbursement for doctors serving Medicare patients. We do that every year as well. The Republican side of the aisle demands that be paid for. We do unemployment insurance.

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield on that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation, Mr. Speaker. The other side of the aisle laments the deficit; they lament the debt. We have the debt, we have the deficit because we don't pay for what we buy. That is why we have a debt. That is why we have a deficit. When we were in charge, we put in a pay-as-you-go rule. That rule said, if you are going to spend money, this is essentially a tax expenditure; it is a worthy tax expenditure. It is something that I support. It helps to grow the economy, but it is a tax expenditure. No one on this floor can say that it does not make the deficit worse; no one with any degree of credibility. The argument has been made, of course, though, that tax cuts, they will grow so much that you won't get the deficit. That is what President Reagan argued and his proponents argued in 1981. The debt increased 187 percent under President Ronald Reagan because they didn't pay for themselves. When the Republicans took over, Mr. Speaker, they amended the rule so we didn't have to pay for things. This bill comes to the floor without any necessity to pay for it. So we will give a tax cut, assuming it passes, and somebody is going to pay for it. My children, my grandchildren, your children, Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who will pay for it because we are going to make a decision, apparently, not to pay for something that we know is going to increase the deficit. So the analogy when we want things paid for is not always followed, Mr. Speaker, for instance, unemployment insurance almost invariably not paid for. Almost every economist says investing in unemployment insurance grows the economy, will help grow the GDP, but we don't follow that practice here, unfortunately. We have a bipartisan paid-for unemployment insurance bill that the Senate has passed that we can't even get to the floor. That is paid for. It grows the economy and it helps 2.5 million people who are falling through the cracks. Yet we bring a bill to the floor that has a $155 billion cost, we don't pay for it, and the unemployment insured, 2.5 million, are ignored. Mr. Speaker, we don't think that policy is one that we ought to pursue. We would hope, again, before this bill comes to the floor that it is paid for. I referred to comprehensive immigration reform, Mr. Speaker. I will yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment on a previous comment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman point that out. I have been trying to work with the gentleman and his party for some period of time now starting with Bowles-Simpson and some other comprehensive suggestions. As I said, Mr. Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has offered a comprehensive bill. I don't agree with some of the things in it, but it is an honest piece of legislation that makes the tradeoffs, the tough choices, that need to be made. This bill does not. That is my point. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, because I know the majority leader has another engagement, comprehensive immigration reform, I said that it scores approximately $1 trillion positive for our economy over the next 20 years; but it is also morally the right thing to do to fix a broken system, a system that doesn't work, with which everybody agrees. I would again appeal to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. I understand that there are many on his side of the aisle that don't agree with it. Fine. Vote against it, but give this House an opportunity. Give the American people the opportunity to have a comprehensive immigration bill voted in the people's House on this floor so that we can fix a broken system, or offer alternatives to that which is proposed by the United States Senate and passed overwhelmingly by the United States Senate. If the gentleman wants me to yield to him, I will, certainly.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental problem is not my way or the highway. It is no way. The Republican Judiciary Committee has passed out a number of immigration reform bills. The Homeland Security Committee headed by a Republican chairman has passed out an immigration reform bill dealing with border security. None of those bills have been brought to the floor. It is not a question about liking the Senate bill or trusting the President of the United States. Everybody agrees, Mr. Speaker, the immigration system is broken; but there is no way, no bill, no option that has been brought to this floor to fix that system to respond to what everybody agrees is a broken system of immigration. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Taoiseach, otherwise known as the Prime Minister of Ireland, celebrated St. Patrick's Day here with us at a luncheon, and part of his speech was about passing comprehensive immigration reform. They don't have to take our bill; they don't have to take the Senate bill; but, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to have a bill on the floor to fix a broken system. It is not a question of whether they trust the President; it is whether or not they trust the word of the House of Representatives that it can work its will. I would hope that we could work our will on this issue. It is important for the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored this legislation with my dear friend Frank Wolf, with whom I have served for 33 years. He will be leaving. His father was a policeman in Philadelphia, so he has a strong attachment to this bill as well. Our bipartisan bill would enable the construction, as has been said, of the National Law Enforcement Museum to move forward. In 2000, Congress passed the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to authorize the development of plans for and the construction of a museum to honor the nearly 20,000 local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers who have fallen in the line of duty since 1791. All of them, Mr. Speaker, put their lives in danger to serve their communities and their country, leaving us with an enduring example of service and sacrifice. They are a part of our domestic defense corps. While we honor their memory each year at the National Law Enforcement Memorial in May and on the west front as well, Congress agreed that a museum would be a fitting way to tell their stories year-round, especially to the many school children who are expected to visit us every year and who will visit this museum as well. We extended the original authorization, as has been said, in 2010, and now, after years of work to obtain permits, receive design approvals, and secure outside funding, the National Law Enforcement Officers Museum Fund is ready to break ground. The funds, of course, are private, but this is a public good and a public end. But first it is up to Congress, therefore, to reauthorize this project through 2016, so we can see this magnificent museum completed. In closing, let me congratulate Craig Floyd, who worked in the Congress, who has spearheaded this effort for a very long time. His leadership, his vision has made it possible for us to be on the cusp of realizing this museum's establishment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation; and, again, I thank Mr. Young and Mr. DeFazio for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I have focused on them; how successfully is an item of debate with myself. I thank the ranking member for yielding. This Republican budget, as I have said before, is an exercise in how not to achieve fiscal sustainability. Both the Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin-Domenici bipartisan commissions determined that the responsible approach to achieving fiscal sustainability is through a combination of balanced deficit reduction and strategic investments in long-term economic growth. The Bowles-Simpson report says: ``We must invest in education, infrastructure, and high-value research and development to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it easier for business to create jobs.'' The chairman of the Budget Committee voted against Bowles-Simpson. This budget disinvests in those priorities, which will help us create jobs and grow our middle class. It undercuts our ability to invest in economic competitiveness and the growth we need to secure the goal of a sustainable fiscal future. At the same time, the Republican budget does not follow the bipartisan commission's framework for achieving deficit savings: a balanced approach that combines new revenue with spending reductions. There are no new revenues in this budget, and its spending cuts are severe and irresponsible, cutting even deeper than the painful sequester. As I said yesterday, GOP Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers called those sequester levels ``unrealistic and ill-conceived,'' to which the chairman then rose and said: He said that last year. He may have said it last year, but the proposals you make are unchanged from last year, essentially; and this year, just a few days ago, he said your cuts were draconian.

Mr. HOYER. He is correct.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I regret the chairman was taking my remarks personally. Of course, they were meant simply from a policy perspective of how bad the policy is, not the chairman himself, who is a wonderful individual. In closing, let me say I urge every one of my colleagues who is troubled about our deficits and debt and who is deeply concerned about creating jobs and growing our economy to do the right thing: oppose this budget. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has called the numbers in this budget draconian, apparently intends to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand that. If I thought, as I do, that these numbers were draconian, the only alternative I would have is to vote ``no.'' I lament the fact that we are not addressing in a bipartisan, comprehensive way putting America on a fiscally sustainable path. That would be the best economic stimulus that we could do for America. What a shame that, again, we have wasted that opportunity.

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

Mr. HOYER. Does the gentleman refer to 2007?

Mr. HOYER. I tell the gentleman from Texas, I do know the statistics: 800,000 jobs lost in the last month of the Bush administration; 800,000 jobs in 1 month, the worst job production since Herbert Hoover under the Bush administration. Yes, this administration has had tough times because we inherited such a struggling, devastated economy from the Bush administration. The gentleman knows those figures are accurate, and he ought to admit those facts. The budget deficit went up 87 percent under George Bush when he inherited a balanced budget. He inherited a balanced budget. The gentleman ought to be truthful with the American people, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we don't have the time, but I would like to take the time at some point in time to discuss the facts with the gentleman from Texas, and I will take a Special Order out to do exactly that, to discuss the economic success of Democratic administrations and Republican administrations and bringing down the deficit. And let me say further, I will repeat to the gentleman, no change in the Bush economic program was affected in 2007 and 2008 because George Bush was the President and would have vetoed anything we passed. So the representation to the contrary, Mr. Chairman, is inaccurate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I would first observe, Mr. Chairman, that the American people ought to lament another opportunity missed, an opportunity to come together and adopt a big, balanced plan for investment and balance in our fiscal system in America. Mr. Chairman, last year, we adopted a budget. During the course of its implementation with the consideration of appropriation bills, the Republican chairman of the committee called the sequester numbers adopted in the 2014 Ryan plan unrealistic and ill-conceived. For 2016 through 2024, Mr. Chairman, this budget has numbers below sequester levels that the chairman said were unrealistic and ill- conceived. Chairman Rogers has called the numbers in this budget draconian, Chairman Rogers, responsible for funding the operations of government and assisting and building our economy and its people. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is all that and a call to disinvestment. This budget is a call to disinvestment in America's growth and success. We have heard a lot of claims, of course, about what the Republican budget will do for our country. I have heard those claims from previous Republican chairmen, frankly. They did not pan out. Let me clear that fog away and get down to the raw numbers which reveal the magnitude of the damage the Republican budget will inflict. As a matter of fact, with all due respect, I call it a retreat--an alliterative retreat of course, the chairman's retreat. First, the Republican budget would repeal the patient protections and other benefits of the Affordable Care Act, leaving millions without health insurance coverage. Of course, it keeps the money; it just didn't give the benefits. It would turn Medicaid into a capped block grant program and cut its funding by $732 billion over the next decade. That is from seniors who need long-term care. That is from people with disabilities who need medical services. Two-thirds of Medicaid spending goes to low-income seniors, and the Republican budget cuts it by a quarter. It would also end the Medicare guarantee and reopen the doughnut hole for prescription drugs, shifting costs back to seniors. Secondly, the Republican budget disinvests, as I said, from many of the very important initiatives Congress has made a priority for the future growth and competitiveness of our economy. It cuts over $120 billion from middle class college affordability programs like the Pell grant and will leave a college undergraduate taking out a student loan as much as $3,800 deeper in debt. By eliminating funding for applied research, their budget will reduce Federal research grants by half--by half disinvestment. It could result in 2,400 fewer National Science Foundation research awards and 1,400 fewer National Institutes of Health awards. The reality is, Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget would decimate pediatric research. We have heard a little bit about that. It would decimate pediatric research. It would decimate all other research as well and other medical research in the lifesaving diseases by billions of dollars, not just pediatric research: cancer, heart, lung, blood, Alzheimer's, and others. $173 billion will be cut from highway spending over the next 10 years, disinvestment, even though infrastructure investments are critical to the growth of our manufacturing sector and job creation.

Mr. HOYER. Overall, the Republican budget reduces our long-term investments in education, research, infrastructure, and job training by over 15 percent over the next decade compared to the deal the Republican chairman negotiated just 4 months ago. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, our competitors around the world are not retreating in terms of investments. Perhaps the most egregious mark against this budget, though, is that it does not achieve the fiscal balance its authors give as the reason for these cuts in the first place. Instead, it relies on ``dynamic scoring.'' That is, pretend something will happen. Now, if it happens, we would have a bonus and we could use that bonus. But if it doesn't happen, this budget will guarantee that we will be further in the hole. It has an asterisk for $966 billion. It doesn't say what that $966 billion is about, at least two-thirds of it. But you guess, pretend, hope. If it doesn't happen, you are in the hole.

Mr. HOYER. This budget, Mr. Chairman, is a blueprint for economic decline, for vulnerable Americans being left to fend for themselves, and for an America less equipped to protect its citizens. I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution and send a message that our country will continue to invest in its priorities: opportunity, security, and growth. Let us not retreat. Let us serve this country and serve its greatness.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Never again. We intone those words, ``never again.'' We intone those words because we have seen horror and felt guilt that it happens on our watch, and so we say ``never again.'' Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of chairing the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. That commission was formed as a result of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975 by Gerald Ford and leaders of 34 other European nations, including the Soviet Union, including West Germany, including East Germany. Never again. The extraordinary Holocaust that cost the lives of millions and millions and millions and millions more; not only in the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews were taken from us, taken from their families, taken from their countries, taken from life, but millions more in Russia, Ukraine, and literally in scores of other venues murdered. They were murdered not because of their engagement in war, not because of their engagement in crime, but because of who they were, what religion they had, what ethnic background they claimed--murdered-- murdered because of what they were, and the murderers did not like what they were--not their character, not their intellect, not their conduct, but who they were. So here we are, 20 years later, having watched as genocide was, again, perpetrated in Rwanda. The genocide in Rwanda, the 20th anniversary of which we mark this week, provided Americans with one of our most painful examples of a failure to act, but not Americans alone, Mr. Speaker. The entire civilized world waited, watched, lamented, but did not stop the genocide. America and much of the world waited far too long to become involved in Rwanda, and even then, international peacekeepers were not given a mandate for the resources to stop the killing. I am sure many of us, Mr. Speaker, saw the movie ``Hotel Rwanda.'' Nick Nolte played the blue-helmeted colonel who was in charge of the U.N. unit. When carnage was occurring and the colonel that Nolte was playing was watching, someone asked: Why aren't you doing something? And his response was: because that is not our mandate, it is to report. I will say, in a minute, that thousands of lives were saved by the blue helmets and by others, but the U.N. mandate was not to stop it, but to report it. President Clinton has expressed regret that the United States did not act in time to save lives, saying last year, ``If we'd gone in sooner, I believe we could have saved at least a third of the lives that were lost.'' Now, the figure of 800,000 is being used, but that is an estimate. It could be as little, perhaps, as 500,000 and as many as 1 million-plus. It is estimated that more than 1 million men, women, and children were killed in a span of--as my friend from Missouri, Reverend Cleaver-- Congressman Emanuel Cleaver has said. 1 million in 100 days, 10,000 victims every day, 7 people shot or hacked to death with machetes every minute, every minute, and the world watched and wrung its hands and said how wrong that was, and the machetes kept hacking. More than just killing, the Rwandan genocide left hundreds of thousands of people infected with HIV as a result of another implement of war that those who perpetrate genocide have used, rape, a crime not of sexual desire, but of violence, of injury, of hate. Widows of murdered men were infected and, in many cases, left to bear the children of their rapist. The children, of course, were infected, too. The violence left 400,000 orphans, small children who then had to learn at a young age how to care for their younger siblings on their own. Mr. Speaker, the Rwandan genocide provided the world with yet another lesson in our shared responsibility not just to say the words ``never again,'' but to mean them. Mr. Speaker, we are our brother's keeper, and our brother needs our vigilance and our help, as we need his; and we are our sister's keeper, just as well. Just as the genocide displayed humanity's darkest side, it also provided us with proof of human courage and defiance in the face of evil. From the outnumbered U.N. peacekeepers who saved lives wherever they could--and that ability was far too limited--to the individual Rwandans who risked death and rape to protect their neighbors, we acknowledge those few moments of moral clarity in the midst of great evil. I said that I was the chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mr. Speaker, 250,000 Bosniaks lost their lives in a genocide perpetrated by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. We finally acted in that case and saved literally hundreds of thousands of more, deposed Milosevic, and put him in the dock for war crimes in the Hague, but not before 8,000 souls in Bosnia were gunned down and murdered in Trebenista. The U.N. troops failed to stop that-- again, insufficient resources. So, Mr. Speaker, as we mark this 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, I join my colleagues in mourning those who were killed and in recognizing the many changes Rwanda has undergone over the past two decades. We all wish Rwanda continued success in its efforts to take from the ashes a successful society and to protect the safety and freedom of its people. I hope Americans across the country will take some time this week to reflect not only on the Rwandan genocide, but on all genocides, to remember its horrors and to promise never to let our Nation sit idly by as a genocide takes place. Mr. Speaker, it is a complicated conclusion, too long, too often delayed. I want to thank my colleagues for joining me to recognize this solemn anniversary. I want to thank, in particular, my dear friend from Missouri, Emanuel Cleaver, who preaches to his flock, who preaches to his constituents and, yes, who preaches to all of us to look to the better nature of our souls, to reach out, to lift up, to protect, to give solace, to give sympathy, to give empathy, to give understanding, and to be our brother's keeper.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. It is wonderful news that that budget is going to do all of those things, I want you to know. And we are pleased that a budget is coming forward. We may not be pleased with the budget, but we are pleased that it is coming forward. As the gentleman knows, we have already had the budget levels for fiscal year '15. You indicate that the budget will adhere to the Ryan- Murray agreement. I assume that also means that it will adhere to the firewall division between defense and nondefense discretionary spending as well. Is that accurate, Mr. Leader?