Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, four years ago this week, the Sri Lankan military declared victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) after more than 25 years of conflict. Thus ended one of the most devastating civil wars of the century, offering hope of a brighter future for the Sri Lankan people characterized by peace, reconciliation, and economic prosperity.

Unfortunately, four years later this brighter future remains elusive for much of Sri Lanka's population. The Sri Lankan military's final offensive against the LTTE left hundreds of thousands of civilians-- most of them Tamils--in a situation of forced relocation, humanitarian disaster, and precarious political rights. We have also learned that the government likely committed serious abuses during the fighting itself, leading to the death, torture, or disappearance of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians. A recent report by Human Rights Watch sheds a startling light on these abuses, documenting widespread and potentially systematic incidences of rape, torture, and sexual assault of Tamil detainees by Sri Lankan forces.

Since the end of the conflict, the Sri Lankan government has blatantly and repeatedly defied the demands of the international community and commonly accepted norms of justice and human rights by failing to reintegrate large numbers of Tamil citizens in a timely manner, denying access by journalists and humanitarian organizations to conflict-affected areas, and detaining former combatants indefinitely without access to legal recourse. The government has also persistently rejected calls by a growing number of governments, international bodies, and human rights organizations for an independent investigation into potential war crimes. If the government truly has nothing to hide, why resist even this basic measure of accountability?

On this anniversary of the end of the 2009 conflict, I call on the government of Sri Lanka to act expeditiously to reintegrate Tamil civilians into their communities, provide ex-combatants with appropriate legal recourse and a path toward reintegration, and open its doors to a truly independent international investigation. I also call on our own government to redouble its efforts to pursue accountability for atrocities committed by all sides of this tragic conflict. In the meantime, I urge Congress to expand current conditions on aid to the Sri Lankan government to cover all forms of military assistance.

It is past time for the international community to finally bring an end to this dark chapter in Sri Lanka's history so that the Sri Lankan people can realize the future they so badly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide long-overdue recognition for a group of Americans who were denied the opportunity and honor of representing our country at the 1980 Olympic Games: the U.S. Olympic medical staff.

In response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the United States led a global effort to boycott the 1980 summer Olympic Games in Moscow. Sixty-five nations participated in the boycott, in an unprecedented display of international solidarity against Communist aggression.

Today, we look back at the 1980 Olympic boycott as a dramatic and triumphant moment in Cold War history. For the members of the U.S. Olympic team, however, it also represented a foregone opportunity to fulfill a once-in-a-lifetime dream of representing their country at the pinnacle of international athletic competition.

In recognition of the hard work, determination, and sacrifice of our Olympic athletes, the 96th Congress commissioned gold-plated medals to be minted for each member of the team. In July of 1980, Congress held a ceremony on the East Front Steps to hand-deliver the medals; more than 450 Olympic athletes were in attendance, as was President Jimmy Carter.

During the 110th Congress, it was brought to the attention of Congress that, because of a clerical interpretation, these Americans were not listed as recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal by the Clerk of the House. In response, former Representative Todd Tiahrt worked with the Clerk's office and the U.S. Olympic Committee to officially recognize the members of the 1980 Summer U.S. Olympic Team as recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal.

Unfortunately, this was not the only oversight on the part of Congress. Our athletes were not the only Americans affected by our government's decision to boycott the 1980 Summer Games; our Olympic medical and training personnel also lost the chance to represent their country on the world stage. Like our Olympic athletes, these medical and training professionals were leaders in their fields selected specifically for this honor, but they were never properly recognized for their contributions and their sacrifice.

As a small and belated gesture of gratitude, I stand here today, 33 years later, to recognize the following members of the 1980 U.S. Olympic medical staff for their service to our country: Physicians Tony Daly, Roy Bergman, Jerry Patmont, Doug Shaw, and Tim Taft (of my home State of North Carolina); and Athletic Trainers Bob Beeten, Sherry Babagian, Dave Blanchard, Tina Bonci, Chuck Demers, Tim Kerin, Mike Linkovich, Bob Moore, Al Ortolani, Tony Russo, Larry Standifer, Gail Weldon, and Troy Young.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in place of the dean of the South Carolina delegation, Congressman Jim Clyburn, who is away this week on family medical leave, and asked me to read this statement:

Swearing-in Day is always about new beginnings. In that

spirit, I want to extend the hand of collegiality to Mark

Sanford as he begins a new chapter of service to the people

of South Carolina and this great country in the U.S. House of

Representatives. Though our past differences have been widely

chronicled and we bring different sets of experiences to the

public square, I will always work to find common ground as we

fulfill our duties and responsibilities to the people who

sent us here.

Mr. Speaker, Mark Sanford's colleagues in the Carolinas delegations join Mr. Clyburn in wishing Mark well and welcoming him back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy is reaching new heights today in this body. Many of the same Members who said ``bring it on'' as sequestration loomed, who relished forcing the President to make across-the-board cuts, are now in a rush to apply another Band-Aid to this artificially created crisis.

Speaker Boehner said the sequestration bill included 98 percent of what Republicans wanted. But Republicans spurned a budget agreement, valuing their antitax ideology more than defense or any other cuts. As a result, sequestration fell. Now they claim: Oh, it doesn't need to hurt very much. And when the cuts bite, then they say the President must be doing this just to make a political point!

So sequestration apparently wasn't supposed to be about air traffic control? The Read the Bill Caucus needs to read the bill. It was about air traffic control, and today we are going to apply a much needed Band-Aid.

Maybe tomorrow we can have a bill applying to cancer research. Then the next day let's have a bill about cancer treatments. Then the next day let's apply a Band-Aid to Head Start. Then let's have one about tuition assistance to our military personnel. Then let's have one about the Border Patrol. And, by the way, if and when we apply these Band- Aids, we need to realize we're often shifting cuts to equally important areas that aren't in the news at the moment or that don't have powerful lobbies working on their behalf.

My colleagues, I want to address these crises as much as any Member. I want to contain the damage, but damage control is not a budget policy. Sequestration is a self-inflicted wound, unworthy of those who profess to govern. It's hypocritical and misleading, having imposed indiscriminate cuts on the administration, to pretend that the President could fix this problem with a flick of the wrist.

Sequestration is a disaster. It needs to be reversed. It needs to be replaced by a comprehensive budget plan that includes tax expenditures and entitlements, which after all are the real drivers of the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, there is a blizzard of evidence against this continuing resolution; yet the Republican majority keeps skidding ahead like an out-of-control snowplow.

Instead of avoiding sequestration with a balanced deficit reduction package, this CR will lock in these devastating cuts--impairing vital government functions, reducing the paychecks of thousands of American workers, and undermining our economic recovery. The CBO says it will cost three-quarters of a million jobs.

Earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, I heard a panel of economists speculate about what future historians some 20 or 30 years from now, will say about what we're going through. They're likely to be baffled: How could a great Nation do such damage to itself? How could political brinksmanship and rigid ideology go so far? In fact, that's exactly what my constituents are already asking as they begin to pay the price for this House's failure to do what we were elected to do.

Just yesterday, members of the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee heard testimony from senior officers of each service about the impact of sequestration on their operations. Their message was: don't be fooled. We may be giving them marginally greater flexibility by including the full-year 2013 bills for defense and veterans in this continuing resolution, but we are not sparing them from the sledgehammer of sequestration.

This approach also begs the question: Why not pass full-year bills for all departments? The Homeland Security Subcommittee produced a compromise full-year bill that could easily have been included in this measure. Stopgap funding measures only perpetuate economic uncertainty and only prevent us from getting to the heart of our fiscal challenges.

Mr. Speaker, we owe this body a better appropriations process, and we owe our people a budget that accelerates the recovery and protects our economic future instead of simply serving a rigid political ideology.

Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I rise in support of both amendments before us, amendments to assist the communities devastated by Hurricane Sandy.

We in North Carolina remember Hurricane Fran and Hurricane Floyd, and we know how important it is for Congress to extend itself in such an hour of need.

As ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I note that DHS would receive $5.5 billion within the base $17 billion provision, accounting for only 54 percent of the administration's request for the Department. Also absent are $6.1 billion in emergency disaster relief and $300 million in disaster loans.

Madam Chairman, without this additional $6.1 billion, FEMA estimates that the Disaster Relief Fund will run out of money in May of 2013, halting long-term rebuilding in places like Joplin and Tuscaloosa. Adopting only the $17 billion proposal does not even fully fund current Sandy estimates and, astonishingly, provides no funding for further disasters in 2013.

The $17 billion package also shortchanges the Coast Guard by about half the request and doesn't include funding requested for CBP, ICE, or the Secret Service.

Now, my Republican colleagues say that the supplementary $33 billion package will address my concerns, but requiring separate votes is designed either to doom the second bill or to pass it on the backs of Democrats while Tea Partiers are free to vote ``no.'' This is another example of Republicans playing politics with disaster aid--thumbing their nose at the members of the Coast Guard decimated by Sandy and at the firefighters in Breezy Point trying to rebuild their devastated community. They're saying to their own constituents, if disaster strikes, there is no guarantee Congress will assist you. This is a dangerous precedent.

Madam Chairman, when I was chairman of this subcommittee from 2007 to 2010, we provided more than $14 billion in emergency disaster relief spending following natural disasters. Not once during that process did we ask who was affected, Democrats or Republicans, red States or blue States?

We provided the money based on the President's request, without hesitation, because that's what the American people expect and deserve from Congress in a time of need.

So, Madam Chairman, I will support both of these amendments. I urge my colleagues to do likewise. The right thing to do, however, would have been to hold a vote on the bipartisan Senate package sent to us back in December.

Madam Speaker, we have experiences in our personal and collective lives that challenge us profoundly, forcing us to search our souls and to change our behavior. Our Nation experienced such a moment on Friday as 20 children were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School, along with six teachers and administrators who were attempting to protect them.

As we mourn and reach out to the families of Newtown, we owe the victims and each other serious consideration of how to prevent more Newtowns and Auroras and Oak Creeks and Tucsons. We must shore up mental health outreach and support, especially for troubled young people. And politically difficult as it may be, we must deal with the instruments of destruction, keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of violent and deranged people and removing weapons of mass killing from our streets.

The horror of Sandy Hook must overcome any temptation to accept the unacceptable or to avoid responsibility for addressing the crying need for change.

Mr. Speaker, December 5 will mark the fifteenth anniversary of the death of John Moss of California, one of the most important members to serve in this body in the last century. Moss's life and landmark achievements have recently been recounted in People's Warrior by Michael Lemov, who served as his chief counsel for eight years, and I want to direct colleagues' attention to this important book.

Moss's landmark achievements have endured, warranting the insightful accounts Lemov has given of their sometimes tortuous paths to passage: the Freedom of Information Act, legislation establishing the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Magnuson-Moss Act which rejuvenated the Federal Trade Commission.

John Moss was first elected to the House in 1952 and was appointed to what was then called the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee four years later. In the 1960s, as the Senate Commerce Committee under Sen. Warren Magnuson undertook major consumer protection initiatives, Moss fought to overcome resistance to such measures on the House Committee and then, as Chairman of the Commerce and Finance Subcommittee, to make the House a full partner in their development.

Moss, alongside his close friend John Dingell, was also a key figure in House reform. The two of them fought for years to give Commerce subcommittees more autonomy and resources as a means of opening the Committee to member initiatives and making it more hospitable to progressive legislation. In the mid-1970s, as reform came to both the Committee and the House, Moss gained election as Chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. He took full advantage of loosened full committee control and enhanced resources to greatly step up subcommittee activity. By the time Moss retired in 1979, Ward Sinclair of the Washington Post described him as ``the man who perfected oversight.''

As a young political scientist studying Congress, and the Commerce Committees in particular, in the 1970s, I recognized the significance of Moss's role. Mike Lemov's insights were indispensable as I sought to understand the movement toward decentralization and reform on the Committee and then the impact of reform on the performance of oversight. Mike talked with me for hours and opened many doors. In a chapter I contributed to Legislative Reform (edited by Leroy Rieselbach, 1978), I concluded that, while reform had provided the conditions for an invigorated, more independent oversight role for the Commerce Committee, the most important factor by far was the selection of a chairman with the energy, determination, and vision to seize the opportunities the situation offered: John Moss. And one of Moss's greatest assets was the entrepreneurial Chief Counsel who came with him from the Commerce and Finance Subcommittee, Michael Lemov.

As a North Carolinian, I was particularly struck by Lemov's appreciative treatment of Jim Broyhill, a Republican member from our state who served as ranking member of the Commerce and Finance Subcommittee during Moss's chairmanship. Broyhill's role serves as a reminder of an era when partisan disagreements were no less strongly felt, but members nonetheless often found a way to work through them to constructive outcomes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, and on behalf of colleagues, I want to thank Mike Lemov for his own effective public service, which he has extended with this inspiring and instructive account of one of the giants in our institution's history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a distinguished representative from my home state of North Carolina, Congressman Charlie Rose. Charlie passed away in September at the age of 73 in Albertville, Alabama. Along with many others in this body, I valued him as a mentor and friend, an innovative and effective legislator, and a member who combined international leadership with assiduous attention to agriculture and other North Carolina interests.

Charlie was elected to Congress in 1972 after an early career in law, and he went on to serve North Carolina's 7th Congressional District in the House for 24 years. He ably represented a large district which at the time stretched from Wilmington to Fayetteville. In between those two cities there were farms, and lots of farmers, and Charlie took seriously the hard work of getting around to every community to talk about what he was doing in Congress to help them. He not only took seriously the hard work of explaining legislation to his constituents-- he relished it. Charlie was a man with the proverbial ``gift of gab.'' He had insights on important legislation before Congress, but also a way of explaining the complexities that led you to realize his position was the common-sense one.

Even though he may have been more progressive than his constituents on some issues, such as civil rights, they knew that Charlie would look out for them. As the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Charlie forged bipartisan coalitions to help farmers time and time again. As a former Republican colleague recently recalled, ``Charlie was a master at building coalitions. A devout Democrat, he worked assiduously, often behind the scenes, with Republicans on matters of consequence.''

Among his colleagues, Charlie was a favorite. He had a great sense of humor and could deliver a punch line with natural comedic timing. But he wasn't just fun to be around. Charlie worked hard, and he devoted much time and effort to the workings of this institution. As the chairman of the House Administration Committee, Charlie acquired the nickname ``the Mayor of Capitol Hill'' for running a tight ship and attending to detail. ``He hears the soup is bad in the kitchen, he goes in the kitchen with a spoon to find out why,'' a colleague told the Washington Post. ``You feel he's on your problem, no matter what it is. And you're grateful.''

Charlie had an abiding fascination with technology and was instrumental in ushering in such innovations as live television coverage of House proceedings and computerized record keeping. Today we take websites, twitter, and social media for granted, but this heightened engagement with constituents started with Charlie's efforts to make the work of the People's House more transparent and more inclusive.

Charlie was of great help to me when I joined him in the House in 1987. He made certain I was warmly welcomed, gave much savvy advice, and especially encouraged my growing involvement in foreign affairs. Charlie's work with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was not as well known as his other endeavors, but it was important to him and important to the organization. He organized our delegations to Assembly meetings very effectively, and I greatly enjoyed helping him gain election as Assembly President in 1991. It was instructive to see how little he altered his down-home style in dealing with European notables--and how well it worked!

Shortly before leaving Congress in 1997, Charlie married Stacye Hefner, the daughter of our beloved North Carolina colleague, Representative Bill Hefner. They had a wonderful life together in DC and, in recent years, Alabama. Charlie is also survived by a brother and sister and five children, Charles, Louise, Kelly, Parker, and Joseph. To all of them we express our sympathy and good wishes, and our admiration for a life dedicated to public service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent from Raleigh, North Carolina, who was injured on patrol in Andar Province, Afghanistan, on July 8th of this year. Ranger 1st Lieutenant Nathan Rimpf, United States Army, was team leader of Demon Company 2-16 Rangers when he stepped on an improvised explosive device and was seriously injured. I had the honor of visiting Lieutenant Rimpf and his family last month at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where he is receiving treatment for his wounds. I was deeply moved by Lieutenant Rimpf's strength, optimism, and dedication to country and fellow servicemembers, and I know he, like his brother in the United States Capitol Police, will continue to serve his country honorably for years to come. I wish Lieutenant Rimpf and his family the very best, and respectfully submit this poem by Albert Caswell in his honor:

The Few

The . . .

The Few!

Only, The Few!

Only, The Brave!

Can but so wear that most heroic title and beret,

of a United States Ranger as who!

And so bathe, all in that most heroic hue!

Ranger's like Jimmy Regan, Pat Tillman,

and Kyle Comfort who our world have so graced!

Who have all so worn courage's most courageous face!

For Rangers Fight!

And Rangers Lead!

And Rangers do it all at such deadly speeds!

And for us one all,

Rangers will so die and bleed!

As The United States Rangers so give to our nation what she

needs!

And Rangers hunt!

And Rangers evil do so confront!

To stand strong,

to so right all of those wrongs!

To so intercede,

to so bring us peace!

Bought and paid for,

with but all of their fines lives indeed!

As all in Strength In Honor they so believe!

Beware, ``THE DEMONS'' are after you . . . time to run!

Sorry but it's time for you to so confront your ``DEMON'S''

my son!

As their strong arms and legs for all of us they so willingly

concede!

For all out there but in the darkest of all nights!

As that's where you shall so find them Leading

The Way . . . The Charge, The Fight!

The United States Rangers,

who but bring their most magnificent of all lights!

Because, Rangers Lead!

Men like Nathan Rimpf,

whose hearts so shine upon us all on this very night!

As it was on a July patrol,

When this fine man's life almost went away . . .

With his two strong legs gone,

as for him his men so knelt and prayed!

And that's when this platoon leader got up and ran,

ran with his heart that very day!

Just one more hill to climb!

Just one more mountain to so scale all in his time!

As against all odds once again we would find!

That this Ranger led the way!

Like Superman, the only thing that can stop

him is Kryptonite this day!

For such men are put upon this earth,

to so show us what comes first!

To So Teach Us!

To So Beseech Us!

To So Reach Us!

Who out of such darkness but defeat the worst!

And come shining through like a star burst!

As have you Nate,

The Carolina Kid who at light speed has so

traversed the most!

For there are but blue skies up ahead of you

Nate to host!

``Can't you just feel the sunshine?''

And if ever I had a son, I wish he could shine as bright as

this one!

Who so teaches us how the game of life is won!

Moment's are all that we so have!

To fight the bad!

To make a difference with it all!

For something noble, it's better to lose your two fine legs .

. .

Then at the end of your life to so moan and beg,

as so wished you a better world you had so made!

But, Only The Few to our world such gifts can claim!

As you Nathan, The Few . . . are but one and the same!

And that's why the word Ranger is in front of your name!

The Few can claim!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5912. This bill is flawed in substance and comes to the floor without serious deliberation or debate.

I want to make clear, however, that my colleague from Oklahoma and I agree that paying for presidential nominating conventions is not a wise use of taxpayer dollars. In fact, the main provisions of Mr. Cole's bill are included nearly verbatim in my Presidential Funding Act H.R. 414. However, H.R. 5912 excludes a critical prohibition on the use of ``soft money'' to fund conventions, keeping the door open for unlimited soft money donations from corporations and high-dollar special interests. Allowing conventions to accept millions of dollars in these unregulated contributions could threaten the credibility of the nominating process and further erode the principle of one voice, one vote.

I also take issue with the closed process under which this bill has been brought to the floor. H.R. 5912 is being considered under suspension of the rules, without amendments, committee markup, or serious deliberation. The Committee on House Administration has not even held hearings on this bill. But that should come as no surprise-- the Majority has not held a single hearing on the issue of campaign finance in the 112th Congress, a period that has seen the House pass bills dismantling many of the common-sense campaign reforms of the post-Watergate era. I have opposed repeated floor votes that would repeal the presidential public financing system as a whole. This bill is merely the latest cynical attempt to attack the system with no effort to replace it.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's thoroughly misguided Citizens United decision, we should be working to strengthen--not to weaken--the rules that ensure our elections are free and fair. That is why Mr. Van Hollen, other colleagues, and I will introduce a bill later this week which will be an important first step toward the comprehensive reform that our democratic elections need.

Our bill, the Empowering Citizens Act, will incorporate and improve H.R. 414, reforming and strengthening the presidential public financing system. In addition, it will establish a voluntary small-donor public financing program for congressional campaigns. Finally, it will establish strong rules forbidding coordination among candidate-specific SuperPACs and political parties or campaigns, thereby lessening the outsize influence of special interests and outside spending groups in our elections.

I believe that we are at a tipping point in the short history of campaign finance reform--we can either choose to stand by the common- sense reforms that have restored America's faith in elections after the Watergate scandal, or we can choose to cede control of political campaigns entirely to wealthy corporations and interest groups. The responsible choice is clear. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

Mr. Chairman, a continuing resolution is a sign that a budget has failed. And this appropriations process was destined to fail from the start as Republicans unilaterally abandoned the Budget Control Act statutory spending caps in favor of the unworkable caps of the Ryan budget.

This 6-month stopgap spending bill proves that the Ryan budget is a lemon. A lemon's a car that won't start, and the Ryan budget is still a nonstarter because it's out of step with the Budget Control Act, with our priorities, and with our values.

While the CR avoids the worst of the Ryan budget's cuts to education, infrastructure, and research, this isn't the way Congress should be budgeting. We should be considering final appropriations bills for Homeland Security and other agencies, or an omnibus bill, that would provide certainty about funding levels for fiscal 2013.

The whole notion of a 6-month CR begs the question: If we can pass a 6-month bill, why not return to the regular order and pass a 12-month bill?

I'm pleased that the CR incorporates a number of ``anomalies'' which accommodate the Department of Homeland Security's need for flexibility in both cybersecurity and Customs and Border Protection personnel. By providing funds for both the EINSTEIN 3 system and for Federal network security, we're ensuring the Federal Government is prepared to tackle the next generation of cyberattacks before they disrupt the Federal network.

On the other hand, I remain concerned that, by not enacting the committee product, we are providing inadequate funding for FEMA first responder grants and for the science and technology directorate. These accounts were badly underfunded in 2012, and passing a CR rather than our 2013 bill continues the shortfall.

Now, the CR, some say, at least lets us keep the government open. Well, we're really in bad shape if the best we can say for ourselves is that we're keeping the government open! Any such claim of success simply underscores how low the bar was set earlier in the current Congress as House Republicans forced the country to lurch from one manufactured crisis to the other. We must do better.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Dreier and I have partnered for many years in the work of the House Democracy Partnership, which we and many others in this body believe in very deeply--that we need to be good colleagues, not just nationally, but internationally. And we need to reach out in ways that can strengthen democracy, strengthen representative institutions, in countries that are friends of our country. We can help encourage and strengthen those parliaments. That's exactly why we visited Libya back in the spring, a delegation led by Mr. Dreier. We were there a few weeks before Ambassador Stevens arrived.

We were struck by the promise of Libya. Of course they've had 42 years of dictatorial rule. The country has been liberated through the efforts of NATO allies. There are still major challenges--obviously, security challenges, as we are learning in a tragic way today--but the country is gradually being secured. Constituent assembly elections have been held and parliamentary elections are on the way. So we have great hope for Libya. We have been and we will be a friend to Libya in helping to realize the promise of the Arab Spring.

Our solemn purpose here today is to mark this tragic loss, the eighth Ambassador in U.S. history to be killed in the line of duty. Our personnel in Libya are dedicated personnel, the best that the U.S. has to offer. The work that they're doing there is challenging and dangerous. The work promotes our national interest and is very, very valuable to Libya and to us. This horrible tragedy is one that we want to mark in this House here today, as we honor the victims of this attack and those who continue to serve.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, every Member of Congress has heard from a broad range of interests: education leaders, State and local officials, defense contractors, small businesses, people concerned about the devastating impact of the looming sequestration spending cuts. Each of these groups, indeed, all of our constituents, deserve an honest accounting. How did we get in this predicament, and how can we get out of it in a way that accelerates our economic recovery and restores our fiscal health?

Our situation results from the failure of the so-called ``supercommittee'' established in the wake of the debt ceiling crisis manufactured by Republicans last summer to come up with a deficit reduction plan. Instead, we're faced with across-the-board cuts that would indiscriminately slash more than 8 percent from every national security and domestic account. Cutting with a meat axe instead of a scalpel is the most dangerous way imaginable to set fiscal policy. These cuts would come on top of the more targeted, but nonetheless significant, $917 billion in cuts and spending caps that the administration and Congress have already locked in.

In the case of defense spending, these earlier cuts were a result of a careful, strategic review by the administration, and they'll save nearly half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. As for domestic investments in education, infrastructure, research, and innovation, these cuts have already gone too far, slowing the recovery, and putting at risk our ability to compete in the global marketplace.

The House Republicans' first order of business in the 112th Congress was to precipitate an unnecessary, confidence-shaking, government shutdown crisis to extract domestic spending cuts. From there, they moved to the needless months-long debt ceiling crisis, during much of which consumer confidence plummeted, and the economy posted 2011's four slowest months of job growth.

By undermining confidence in the economy and withholding countercyclical investments that would boost the recovery and prompt future growth, Republicans have provided a case study in how not to make macroeconomic policy. Yet they want to do more of the same. According to the Economic Policy Institute, House Republicans approved a 2013 budget that would put 4.1 million people out of work by cutting investments in our future.

At root, Republicans are proposing a brand of European-style austerity, the same policy that has tipped many economies back into recession. Interestingly, with sequestration now looming and pressure from defense contractors mounting, a substantial portion of the Republican caucus on both sides of the Capitol has belatedly become aware of the concept of macroeconomics. All of the sudden, they're talking macroeconomics. You might call it ``defense Keynesianism,'' the belief that only defense spending creates jobs, and that cutting it would result in job losses. In fact, the same argument applies equally to domestic investments in education and research and infrastructure, a truth Republicans have found it convenient to ignore.

The Republicans, by the way, can only thank themselves for the deep defense cuts in sequestration. One can easily imagine an alternative sequestration approach, triggering a tax surcharge, in addition to less severe cuts to defense and domestic spending. But as was the case during these repeated unnecessary crises, Republican dogmatism kept revenue off the table.

It's clear sequestration would devastate our defense, education, infrastructure, and research sectors, undermining our economy over the near and long term. It would also hobble critical functions from air traffic control to meat inspection and Social Security claims processing. It can't be resolved in isolation or through half measures. Yet Republicans are now proposing staving off the impact of sequestration on defense alone, and they pay for it by again targeting health care for low-income women and children, food and nutrition assistance, and other safety net programs for the poorest Americans, in addition to locking in a 2 percent Medicare cut. Their plan would victimize the most vulnerable, it would hinder job creation, and jeopardize our ability to compete.

Mr. Speaker, there's a better way. The impending fiscal cliff, which includes both sequestration and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, offers an opportunity for all Members of Congress to set the talking points aside and act in our country's best interest. I know we can chart a course to fiscal balance because we've done it before. In the budget agreements of 1990 and 1993, which set the stage for 4 years of budget surpluses, the formula was fiscal discipline on all fronts.

No area of spending can be sacrosanct. We should focus our limited dollars on boosting the recovery and making critical investments in our future because the most effective means of deficit reduction is a growing economy. As in the 1990s, revenue must be part of the solution. The President has already proposed a sensible plan allowing the Bush- era tax breaks to expire on income over $250,000 a year. Extravagant tax breaks for various special interests must be ended. The revenue raised could be used to pay down the deficit and to help fund the investments in education, research, infrastructure, and innovation that are critical to economic growth.

Most Americans agree with this comprehensive approach, but most Republicans still hide behind their anti-tax pledges. Their insistence that no additional revenue ever be raised, for example, by ending tax loopholes for oil companies or asking millionaires to return to their Clinton-era tax rates, is still the largest obstacle to a sensible budget compromise in Washington. As we approach the fiscal cliff, that fever has got to break. We must find our way

to the comprehensive balanced approach that will enable our country and all of our people to prosper.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I will be brief because I know we have many more amendments to consider, but I want to focus on this one because I think this proposal to cut the Community Development Block Grant program by $396 million is particularly ill-advised, and I suspect Members on both sides of the aisle will understand that and will agree. We are all, after all, hearing from our mayors and from our local communities with great regularity that CDBG is money well spent.

First of all, this program has been much better funded in past years. Even with the increase in the current bill, for which we commend the chairman, even with that, the funding is much less than could be utilized.

We know the CDBG program has some very strong virtues. One of them is flexibility and community self-determination in terms of how this money is spent, how it is applied, and the kind of leverage that this money represents, for bringing forth participation and funding from other sources.

This is a program that has stood the test of time, that has strong bipartisan support in this Chamber and across the country. So I think the notion that we would cut back this appropriation by hundreds of millions of dollars is most unwise, and I urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe, with the offering of this amendment, we are in great need of a reality check in this Chamber. After all, it was President Nixon, and it was a strong, bipartisan majority, with the Republicans playing a leading role, that first initiated the Community Development Block Grant programs, and I assume that this amendment will be rejected today by that same kind of bipartisan coalition.

The whole idea of the CDBG program was to get away from inflexible, one-size-fits-all approaches to urban development. The whole idea was to get away from top-down bureaucratic direction. CDBG was designed to empower communities, to give them flexibility, to maximize the possibility for leverage of private sector funds, to let the community determine its own projects and its own priorities.

All of us have experience with this program, I dare say. My experience has been that the bang for the buck from CDBG is virtually unmatched in any other Federal program. Housing rehabilitation, for example, is one of the main uses in many communities of CDBG funds. What you're doing with housing rehabilitation is not building public housing from scratch. You're not totally developing new neighborhoods, but you're taking houses that are likely to deteriorate, where a relatively small investment can rehab those houses, can salvage those houses, and can make quality housing available more widely in the community.

Another major use of CDBG funds is infrastructure. How many Habitat for Humanity communities have been built across our country with CDBG funds furnishing the basic infrastructure, and from there the volunteer efforts take off?

The gentleman sponsoring this amendment made the incredible statement that these are projects that communities wouldn't undertake on their own. On the contrary, no CDBG project is going to be undertaken without community participation, financial and otherwise, without community self-determination that this is a priority.

So there's an air of unreality about this debate. These are programs that maximize the values that many of our colleagues profess--self- determination, flexibility, leveraging of private funds. They're programs that have stood the test of time. And we, in this bill, should be proud to appropriate CDBG funds, because we know these funds will have great multiplier effects throughout this country. So I very strongly urge colleagues to reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that is of great importance to some of the strongest and best-managed housing authorities in our country.

Currently, housing authorities in our districts receive Federal funds through two distinct streams. One funds day-to-day operations, and the other provides capital funds for construction projects and important modernizations to our Nation's housing stock. Both streams are currently underfunded, not only in this bill but also in the fiscal 2013 administration request.

Now, I believe it's prudent to maintain these two distinct funding streams, but some of our housing authorities do need additional flexibility in tough funding years. Currently, some well-performing housing authorities, like the Raleigh Housing Authority in my district, have created efficiencies in their operating budget and pinched pennies in every way imaginable.

Unfortunately, in order to reallocate these operations savings to urgent capital needs, they have to go through a very cumbersome and cost-ineffective program, that is, HUD's Operating Fund Financing Program. This program requires authorities to go through a financial middleman rather than just letting authorities use their operating funds and savings directly. This process costs unneeded interest payments and it adds unnecessary red tape.

While I hope that our authorizers will be able to improve and streamline this process, I propose that this committee allow housing authorities to use unused operating funds for capital projects directly without having to go through the Operating Fund Financing Program.

My amendment is narrow in scope as it's targeted to 2013 funds and existing reserves only. It's not prospective.

This stopgap solution would provide flexibility for housing authorities, incentivize the wise spending of operating dollars, and help clear up the public housing capital improvement backlog at a time when the construction industry is still reeling from the recession. This amendment would be a win for Americans who need public housing and a win for Americans who are looking for jobs.

This is not a new endeavor for the Transportation and Housing Appropriations bill; indeed, it's a continuation of the public housing operating fund offset discussion that we held last year.

However, I understand that there is a point of order. So I will register the hope that the authorizers can conclude their work to address this issue before the end of the year.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order