Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend the non-profit organization Sing for Hope, located in midtown Manhattan and dedicated to making the arts accessible to all. The Sing for Hope vision of ``art for all'' reflects their belief that the arts have the unique power to uplift, unite, and transform individuals and communities. They rely on the time and services donated by over 1,000 local New York City artists and performers who perform in schools, community centers and healthcare facilities. The mission of Sing for Hope is defined by the volunteer service of artists, and their belief in the transformative power of the arts.

The co-founding Directors of Sing for Hope, Camille Zamora and Monica Yunus, are internationally acclaimed opera singers who met as students at Juilliard. They established Sing for Hope in 2006 as a vehicle to encourage artists to give back to their communities. Since then, Sing for Hope has brought the magic of the arts to underserved communities throughout New York City and implemented a variety of outreach programs serving children, senior citizens, and people recovering from illness at healthcare facilities.

This summer marks the return of a very popular program created by Sing for Hope--``The Sing for Hope Pianos.'' Eighty-eight colorfully decorated pianos, which symbolize the 88 keys of a piano, are placed throughout New York City's public spaces in all five boroughs, for all members of the public to play and to enjoy. After the project ends, the pianos are then donated to underresourced schools and hospitals. ``The Sing for Hope Pianos'' are a striking embodiment of the role the arts play in our lives, and remind us that everyone should have access to treasured cultural resources. This year's return of ``The Sing for Hope Pianos'' has been made possible by the dedicated generosity of several entities: Chobani, Inc., a New York State-based company led by its President & CEO, Hamdi Ulukaya, as well as the Arnhold Foundation in honor of Sissy Arnhold, the Anna-Maria and Stephen Kellen Foundation, and the Bill and Ann Ziff Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking and congratulating Sing for Hope on this year's ``Sing for Hope Pianos'' project, as well as their ongoing dedication to volunteer service and community engagement, through encouraging greater access to the arts.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Northern Route Approval Act, which would deem the Keystone XL pipeline approved.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just measured almost 400 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide, well beyond the 350 parts per million many scientists warn is the level we must not cross to avoid severe climate impacts. Any rational person who doesn't want more Hurricane Sandys or more Oklahoma hurricanes would recognize that we must focus on developing renewable energy sources and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and yet this bill mandates the approval of a pipeline that will allow Canada to deliver 830,000 barrels per day of tar sands oil to gulf coast refineries.

Tar sands oil is difficult to extract, and the process is destructive and toxic. Producing tar sands oil results in at least 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil. For those concerned about climate change, the Keystone pipeline is a nonstarter. We cannot allow such a gigantic and irreversible step backward in the fight against global warming.

H.R. 3 goes well beyond the merits of the pipeline itself. This bill sets a dangerous precedent, undercutting our environmental laws and short-circuiting the review process. It deems the pipeline approved by Congressional mandate. It locks in the administrative

record as of a date certain, eliminates the requirement for a Presidential permit normally required for cross-border pipelines, and it mandates the issuance of permits, not just for construction of the pipeline, but for operation and maintenance as well, or, in other words, in perpetuity. It deems all the environmental and safety laws satisfied regardless of the facts.

It also manages to undermine a citizen's fair access to judicial review. The bill appears to grant the right of judicial review by giving the D.C. Circuit jurisdiction to hear any challenge to the adequacy of the environmental impact statement. But the bill also states that the EIS ``shall be considered to satisfy all requirements'' of the National Environmental Policy Act. So, the court is told, you have jurisdiction, but here is what you are going to find; never mind your own judgment.

The bill also states as a matter of law that section 404 of the Clean Water Act, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Endangered Species Act are all satisfied. So the fix is in before you ever get to court. I'm not sure what would be left for a court to review.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would raise the debt ceiling, but only insofar as necessary and only for the purpose of paying our debts to China and to Social Security.

Not raising the debt ceiling beyond what this bill does would mandate not paying Medicare beneficiaries or our troops overseas or our veterans here at home or anyone owed money for working for the Federal Government and would generally collapse the economy by forcing default on most of our debts.

Raising the debt ceiling merely allows us to pay debts we have previously incurred--all debts previously incurred. We should recognize this simple reality by eliminating the debt ceiling and passing responsible budgets. But Republicans now use the debt ceiling to hold the entire country hostage unless the demands that they haven't figured out yet are met. This reminds me of a 1930s gangster film: it's a nice restaurant you've got over there; it's a nice economy you've got over there; pity if it should happen to blow up if you don't meet our demands.

This Republican tactic has already brought about the first downgrade in the U.S. credit rating in history and has brought about brutal spending cuts that have punished the middle class, failed to help the millions of Americans looking for work, and weakened the safety net for working families and seniors.

Mr. Speaker, it was two wars and two Bush tax cuts and 8 years of irresponsibility that brought us the deficit in the last budget adopted under George Bush of 10.1 percent of GDP. We have reduced that budget deficit in 3 years from 10.1 percent of GDP to 4.8 percent today. This is the fastest deficit reduction since the demobilization after World War II.

Economists agree that the draconian austerity decreed by the sequester is slowing our economic growth, eliminating millions of jobs, and could create a double-dip recession. We have seen this in Europe where, starting 2\1/2\ years ago, they adopted the policies the Republicans want. They adopted severe austerity and they cut budgets too much. The result is a double-dip recession. With their negative economic growth, we're still at positive economic growth.

We're hearing from our Republican friends today about how endangered our credit rating is. Our credit rating is so endangered, despite their frightening rhetoric, that we are paying the lowest interest rates on our bonds ever, and our bonds are selling higher. People are getting in line to buy our bonds because our credit rating is, in fact, quite good.

Yet, in spite of presenting the American people with a plan to invest in our economy and create jobs for the 12 million Americans looking for work, Republicans are once again intent on manufacturing a crisis that will only increase unemployment. We should not develop a plan for how to generate and then manage a devastating default that will put our economy into chaos; we should repeal the sequester, slow down our deficit reduction, spend the money on highways and bridges and infrastructure investing and putting our people back to work so that more people work, unemployment goes down, government spending and unemployment insurance and food stamps go down, and the economy improves and our unemployment also goes down. That's the proper path.

What the Republicans are trying to do would say, Don't do that. Follow the path of Europe. Get 12 percent or 15 percent unemployment. This bill would head us in that direction. That's not the direction we should be going.

We ought to safeguard our credit and not even contemplate the possibility of default.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington, DC, on March 18-19, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 77 and 78, authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds; ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 79 and 80, ordering the previous question and the rule providing for consideration of the House Budget Resolution; and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 82 relating to committee expenses for the 113th Congress.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the radical Republican budget, which will increase unemployment and savage Medicare and Medicaid and other programs that families depend on, mostly to finance tax cuts for the rich and partly to fix the deficit crisis that we have already tamed. In 2009, the deficit was 10.1 percent of GDP. Next year, it will be down to 5.3 percent. This is the largest and fastest reduction in deficits since the demobilization after World War II.

To add insult to injury, the Republican budget would make sweeping, regressive changes to the Tax Code, which would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $3,000. Millionaires, however, would actually see a tax cut averaging $245,000 a year. This is just wrong. Working families should never have to pay more just so the rich can pay less.

We no longer, if we ever did, have a deficit crisis. With 12 million people searching for employment and with almost 5 million Americans without jobs for more than 6 months, we do have a jobs crisis. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of the Republican budget would be to decrease the gross domestic product by 1.7 percent, resulting in 2 million additional jobs lost in 2014 alone.

If budgets are truly a reflection of our values, then what does it say about the priorities of House Republicans when their budget increases health care costs for seniors, cuts 2 million jobs, and hits middle class families with a tax increase in order to subsidize another tax cut for the rich?

In contrast, the Back to Work budget addresses the jobs crisis head on by creating nearly 7 million jobs in the first year, by making stark investments in our infrastructure, schools, and transits. It protects Medicare, Medicaid, education, and family support systems.

Conservative governments in Europe have instituted the same austerity policies offered by the Republican budget. The result has been a double-dip recession and 12 percent unemployment. We should learn from their stupidity.

I rise today to oppose the radical Republican budget, which is merely a repackaging of the same extreme agenda that the American people rejected last fall.

Simply put, this bill is a disaster.

The House Republicans' budget would again try to end Medicare as we know it by replacing the guarantee of health coverage with a private voucher program that would reduce benefits. This throws seniors back onto the mercy of the private insurance market, while every year giving them less and less of the health benefits they have earned through a lifetime of hard work.

The Republican budget would not only make permanent the arbitrary, across-the-board budget cuts known as `sequestration,' it would go further--making even more savage cuts to domestic programs. Critical social services like food stamps, college assistance for low-income families, Section 8 housing, home heating assistance, and Medicaid--all would face drastic cuts. Under the Republican proposal, our transportation investments would be cut by 20% over the next 10 years, exacerbating the challenges posed by our outdated roads, bridges, and airports. The bill also completely eliminates support for PBS, NPR, AmeriCorps, and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.

The Republican budget makes all of these cuts while refusing to cut a dime of military spending. What's worse, the Republican plan actually reverses planned reductions to military spending by increasing cuts to vital social programs--a callously unfair proposal that will have terrible consequences for millions of American families.

To add insult to injury, the bill before us today would make sweeping, regressive changes to the tax code which would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $3,000. Millionaires, however, would actually see a tax cut that averages $245,000 a year. This is just wrong. Working families should never have to pay more just so the rich can pay less, which is just one more reason why we must defeat this bill.

We no longer, if we ever did, have a deficit crisis. What we have is a jobs crisis, with 12 million people searching for employment, and almost 5 million Americans without a job for more than 6 months.

In contrast with the Republican spending plan, the Back to Work Budget addresses the jobs crisis head-on by creating nearly 7 million jobs in the first year by making historic investments in our infrastructure, schools, and transit. It would enable States and local governments to hire laid-off teachers, cops, and firefighters, putting them back to work in strengthening our communities.

The Back to Work Budget would preserve our commitment to seniors by making no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, while reducing health care costs by negotiating drug prices, increasing competition in the health care marketplace, and reducing fraud.

Our budget would also adopt a common-sense tax system that asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share while lowering the tax burden on middle class families. We would also extend the Making Work Pay tax credit to help low-wage workers get back to work and providing for their families.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of all of these policies would decrease GDP by 1.7%, resulting in 2 million jobs lost in 2014 alone. If budgets are truly a reflection of our values, then what does it say about the priorities of House Republicans when their budget increases health care costs for seniors, cuts 2 million jobs, and hits middle class families with a tax increase in order to subsidize another tax cut for the rich?

The American people rejected this extremist ideology last fall, and I hope that my colleagues follow their lead and reject this bill today.

But the larger problem with the Republican budget is that it will increase unemployment and savage Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs that families depend upon, in order to fix a deficit ``crisis'' which we have already tamed. In 2009 the deficit was 10.1% of GDP. By next year, it will be down to 5.3%. This is the largest and fastest reduction in deficits since the demobilization after World War II.

Basic economics tells us that government should pay off debt during good times while protecting jobs and middle class security during bad times. By balancing revenues with investments and creating millions of new jobs, the Back to Work Budget would produce significant economic growth while reducing the deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years.

But callous, unbalanced cuts to domestic programs, particularly of the magnitude that House Republicans are proposing, would spell disaster for our economic recovery.

While GOP leaders claim to be making tough choices when it comes to our spending priorities, again and again they seem to only be making the wrong choices. They choose tax breaks for millionaires and the largest corporations over tax fairness for the middle class. They choose to reduce access to health care by voucherizing Medicare instead of protecting the benefits that seniors have earned through a lifetime of hard work. They choose to avoid required reductions in military spending by instead cutting programs that feed hungry children, heat family homes, and make college affordable.

Conservative governments in Europe have instituted the same austerity policies offered by the Republican budget. The result is a double-dip recession and 12% unemployment. We should learn from their stupidity.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this bill is about women. It is about our sisters and daughters. It is about combating violence that no human being should ever face--rape, assault, sexual assault, human trafficking.

By offering an amendment that will further delay and even endanger the passage of the bill, Republicans are not just standing up for the men who abuse immigrants or for the men who rape Native Americans; they are delaying justice and counseling and health care and protection for everyone. The Republican amendment would roll back protections for immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse by making it harder to obtain U visas. The new restrictions would deter undocumented immigrants from reporting assaults and from cooperating with police, leaving victims vulnerable.

The bipartisan Senate bill would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the eligibility for grant programs under VAWA, and it would include sexual orientation and gender identity as classes. The Republican amendment, by deleting these provisions, appears to say, if you are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, it's okay to beat you up, that VAWA will not help you. This is the Republican idea of equality in the 21st century.

Approval of the Republican amendment would delay the bill for weeks or months, or even kill the bill altogether, as it did in the last Congress. I hope that is not the true motive behind the amendment. However, the fact that Republicans in Congress have been waging a war on women from the moment they took over control of the House does make you wonder.

It is time to reject this cynical ploy and pass the Senate's bipartisan Violence Against Women Act reauthorization now without amendment. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against the Republican amendment and for the Senate bill. We don't need a retrogressive House bill that goes back on existing protections and endangers passage of any bill. The Senate did a fine job on a bipartisan basis. We should pass its bill without delay and not engage in partisan retrogressive conduct.

Friends of VAWA Coalition Calls on the House to Defeat the Substitute

to S. 47 and Pass the Bipartisan Senate Bill

Washington, DC--The 73 undersigned national organizations

issued the following statement opposing the House Republican

substitute for the bi-partisan Senate bill (S. 47), Violence

Against Women Act (VAWA), which includes provisions to

protect vulnerable communities, including Native American

women, college students, and LGBT individuals:

The House Republican Leadership's bill puts a barrier to

the protection of victims of domestic violence, dating

violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Conversely, the

Senate version of VAWA, which was adopted with strong

bipartisan support (78-22), addresses gaps in current service

programs that left Native American women, college students,

LGBT individuals, and other vulnerable groups without vital

protections.

Today, House Republican Leadership will offer a substitute

to the bipartisan Senate version of VAWA (S. 47), eliminating

these important provisions and weakening the Office of

Violence Against Women. These omissions deny critical

services to many victims and reinforce the perception of the

Republican Party as hostile to the needs of women, college

students, LGBT persons, and communities of color. The House

substitute:

Limits the authority S. 47 provides to tribal authorities

to prosecute non-tribal members who commit domestic violence

or sexual assault crimes on tribal land. This makes it more

difficult for Native American women to hold their abusers

accountable. Native Americans are disproportionately affected

by dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Eliminates provisions of the Senate bill that would require

colleges and universities to keep students safe and informed

about policies on sexual assault and enhance programs that

help to prevent and combat sexual violence on college

campuses.

Drops the anti-discrimination provisions from S. 47, which

were designed to ensure that LGBT victims receive the

services they need regardless of their gender identity or

sexual orientation. Studies have shown that LGBT individuals

are victims of domestic and sexual violence at equal or

greater levels than the rest of the population.

Even in today's polarized political climate, we should at

least be able to agree that when we send our daughters and

sons to college, they should be protected from stalking, date

rape and sexual assault; that one-third of tribal women who

have been the victims of rape or domestic abuse should have

equal access to justice no matter who the perpetrator is;

and, that domestic violence is still

violence regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.

It is critical that Representatives reject the exclusionary

substitute bill and support passage of the bipartisan Senate

bill. If you have any questions, please contact Nancy Zirkin,

Executive Vice-President, The Leadership Conference on Civil

and Human Rights, at 202-263-2880 [email protected] or

Sakira Cook, Senior Policy Associate, The Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, at 202-263-2894 or

[email protected] or Norma Gattsek, Director of Government

Relations, Feminist Majority at ngattsekgfeministorg or 703-

522-2214.

AFL-CIO, African American Ministers in Action (AAMA),

Alaska Federation of Natives, American Association for

Affirmative Action (AAAA), American Association of People

with Disabilities (AAPD), American Association of University

Women (AAUW), American Federation of Government Employees,

(AFL-CIO), American Federation of Teachers, (AFL-CIO), Asian

Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence, Black

Women's Health Imperative, Break the Cycle, Casa de

Esperanza: National Latino Network for Healthy Families and

Communities, Catholics for Choice, Center for Reproductive

Rights, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Communications

Workers of America, (AFL-CIO), Community Action Partnership,

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF),

Ecumenical Advocacy Days for Global Peace with Justice,

Enterprising and Professional Women--USA.

Equal Justice Society, Federation of American Women's Clubs

Overseas (FAWCO), Feminist Majority, GLMA: Health

Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality, GlobalSolutions.org,

Human Rights Campaign, Institute for Science and Human

Values, Inc., International Community Corrections Association

(ICCA), International Convocation of Unitarian Universalist

Women, International Union, (UAW), Lawyers' Committee For

Civil Rights Under Law, Media Equity Collaborative, Methodist

Federation for Social Action, Metropolitan Community

Churches, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund

(MALDEF), National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum,

National Association of Social Workers, National Black

Justice Coalition, National Coalition Against Domestic

Violence, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.

National Congress of American Indians, National Council of

Jewish Women, National Council on Independent Living,

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, National

Immigration Law Center, National Latina Institute for

Reproductive Health, National Legal Aid and Defender

Association, National Organization for Women, National

Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law

Center, People For the American Way, Sargent Shriver National

Center on Poverty Law, Service Women's Action Network (SWAN),

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), The

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The National

Coalition of 100 Black Women, Inc., The National Conference

of Puerto Rican Women, Inc.

The Religious Institute, The United Methodist Church,

(General Board of Church & Society), Ultra Violet, Unitarian

Universalist Association, United Methodist Women, US Human

Rights Network, US National Committee for UN Women, V-Day,

WestCare Foundation, Wider Opportunities for Women, Women

Enabled, Inc., Women's Action for New Directions (WAND),

Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO),

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, (U.S.

Section), Women's Law Project, YWCA USA.

Mr. Speaker, when the Republicans refer to President Obama's sequestration, they must think that no one in the country remembers the events of the last 2 years. Remember that 2 years ago, the Republicans blackmailed the entire country by saying that they would not permit the debt ceiling to be increased and they would force the country to default on its debts--and in fact destroy the economy-- unless we cut the budget by $2.4 trillion. We cut it by $1.2 trillion. But no one could figure out, no one could agree how to cut another $1.2 trillion, so both parties put in the sequester to kick the can down the road on this entirely artificial demand for an extra $1.2 trillion in cuts. That's why we're here now facing an economic catastrophe--because of the blackmail of an even worse catastrophe of failing to pay our bills, of calling into question the full faith and credit of the United States. That's what got us to this point. The only way to get us out is either to just repeal the entire sequester entirely--because we've made enough budget cuts--or to say, all right, we'll do half the budget, half the $1.2 trillion in cuts, and half by adopting loophole-closing measures that the Republicans themselves supported last year.

Madam Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this bill. The purpose of this bill is laudable. Unfortunately, there are real constitutional problems.

This bill would provide direct cash grants to rebuild houses of worship. Direct government funding of churches, synagogues, and mosques has always been held to be unconstitutional, and the decisions of the Supreme Court establishing that principle remain good law to this day. While some recent decisions have raised questions of these prior decisions' validity, they remain binding precedent. Most legal authorities would hold this bill to be constitutional, although some would disagree.

At the very least, given the serious constitutional questions raised by this legislation, I am deeply troubled that it has received no committee consideration and is being rushed to the floor just a few days after being introduced under a procedure that allows only 40 minutes of debate and no amendments. One would think that we were naming a post office rather than passing legislation with significant constitutional implications that could alter the relationship between government and religion.

While I have serious reservations about this bill and the way it is being considered, I wanted to commend the sponsors, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and my colleagues from New York, Ms. Meng and Mr. King, who have been outstanding champions of the people hard hit by Hurricane Sandy.

So what is the concern?

Let's start with the basics. This bill would direct Federal taxpayer dollars to the reconstruction of houses of worship. The idea that taxpayer money can be used to build a religious sanctuary or an altar has consistently been held unconstitutional.

This is entirely different from government working with religious institutions to deliver social services. FEMA money, under the law this bill would amend, is already available to those institutions.

FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy 9521.1 states:

Just because a community center is operated by a religious

institution does not automatically make it ineligible. In

addition to worship services, many religious institutions

conduct a variety of activities that benefit the community.

Many of these activities are similar or identical to those

performed by secular institutions and local governments.

The law now permits funding to religious institutions that provide those services to the general public, on an equal basis with secular institutions doing the same work. Although the title of this bill suggests otherwise, there is no unequal treatment of religious institutions.

So what we are really talking about is whether we should be in the business of using taxpayer money to build and rebuild houses of worship and rebuild sanctuaries and altars that are not available for use to the general public.

I think, at the very least, we need to exercise caution. I know that people have been circulating letters making extravagant claims about the current state of the law, but what is clear is that the Supreme Court has never overruled its prior decisions specifically prohibiting this kind of use of public money.

In Tilton v. Richardson, the Court held that a 20-year ban on using publicly financed college facilities for religious or other purposes was not sufficient. The Court made the ban permanent, saying:

If, at the end of 20 years, the building is, for example,

converted into a chapel or otherwise used to promote

religious interests, the original Federal grant will in part

have the effect of advancing religion.

And that, of course, is not permissible.

Similarly, in Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, the Court struck down a State program of ``maintenance and repair grants'' for the upkeep of religious elementary and secondary schools. The Court said:

If the State may not erect buildings in which religious

activities are to take place, it may not maintain such

buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair.

Some proponents have pointed to the Court's ruling in Mitchell v. Helms. The question in that case was whether publicly financed educational materials could be lent to religious schools. The controlling opinion, written by Justice O'Connor, made it clear that it was not sufficient that the publicly furnished materials be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis; they must never be diverted to religious activities. That is clearly not the case here.

The majority has made a big issue of respecting the Constitution. We read the Constitution at the beginning of each Congress, and we are required to provide a statement of constitutional authority when we introduce a bill.

But all of that means very little if, when faced with a genuinely significant constitutional question, the House gives it the bum's rush. This bill should be subject to hearings in the Judiciary Committee, with input from constitutional scholars, and due consideration of these significant constitutional issues, before we take such a radical step.

At the very least, for those who support this bill, I would think that they would want to get it right, to ensure that it is not done in a way that would make it susceptible to successful legal challenge. I urge my colleagues to put the brakes on this legislation until we can review it with the care it deserves.

Because I believe this bill to be unconstitutional, and because the constitutional issues have not been properly considered, I must reluctantly vote ``no.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the gimmick nature of this whole thing I won't elaborate on. It's been done before. The fact that this provision of withholding pay from Members of Congress is unconstitutional as it varies Members' pay is obvious. The argument that withholding pay for a year and a half or a year and three-quarters is not varying compensation. It is constitutionally laughable and beneath respect.

Secondly, this is institutionalized bribery and extortion. It should never be considered. What this provision says is if you vote the way we think you ought to vote, you'll get paid. If you vote the way we think you should not vote, you will not get paid. That's why we have this provision in the Constitution. We should not be bribing Members. We should not say to a Member that if you think the budget before you is not good for the country, vote against it and you won't get paid; if you think it's not good for the country, you better vote for it because you have a mortgage payment coming due.

How dare we.

Finally, the last thing we want to do is say to people thinking of running for the Congress, if you're not a millionaire, don't run because there's no guarantee you'll be paid.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hurricane Sandy supplemental appropriations bill, and the Frelinghuysen amendment to provide the funds necessary to start rebuilding and recovering from the storm.

Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast almost 3 months ago. Never before has the House of Representatives taken so long to meet its obligations following a major disaster. I'm relieved that we're finally considering this bill today; but I'm disappointed, once again, that some are still playing politics by trying to add poison pills and offsets that jeopardize this aid package.

As the current debate over the pending sequestration shows, finding offsets is no easy task, and it makes no sense to put that on the back of emergency aid. It defies the very nature of emergency aid, and it impedes the Federal Government from doing its most important job, protecting its citizens when calamity strikes.

On the surface, Mr. Speaker, New York City appears to be back up and running; but many people are still homeless, and the lack of long-term housing is a problem for which we do not have an adequate answer. The restoration of heat and power remains a challenge.

There are increasing reports of people, including small children, getting sick from exposure to toxic mold, sewage, or other hazardous substances. Entire neighborhoods are still dark and largely abandoned.

Many small businesses in Lower Manhattan are still paying off disaster assistance loans secured after the attack on the World Trade Center 10 years ago. Many of these businesses were already operating on thin profit margins. Now they've been hit again; and without additional resources and a faster rebuilding process, many of these small businesses may close for good.

The needs are great, and yet the House has still failed to act. Back in December, the Senate passed a $60.4 billion disaster aid package that tracked very closely to the administration's request, which was based on conservative assessments of the needs across the region.

The House should have passed the Senate bill back then. There is simply no justifiable reason for the delay, unless you believe that when disaster strikes we are all on our own. Let us, once and for all, reject that notion and meet our obligations to get emergency aid in the hands of those who need it urgently.

I urge my colleagues to end this madness and vote for the underlying bill, for the Frelinghuysen amendment, and against all restrictive amendments.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, obviously, I support this bill today to replenish the hurricane insurance fund, which would otherwise run dry for the entire country next week, but it does not excuse the callous action of the House leadership the other night for taking the $60 billion of relief off the table. Now we're told we'll get a vote on the 15th, and I hope they're as good as their word, although they haven't been in the past. Even so, it will take God knows how long for the Senate because the bill they had passed is now dead, this being a new Congress. That action the other night delayed relief for the long suffering people, for the businessowners whose businesses are going under, for the homeowners whose homes are suffering from mold. All of this was delayed by at least 3 weeks, maybe longer, on top of the fact that we had gone already 9 weeks--Katrina was 10 days--with a lack of aid, and now it will be another 3 or 4 or 5.

This is the most callous action I've ever seen. The leadership of this House should be condemned for it. I hope they have the determination to make sure that this, indeed, comes to a vote on the 15th, that it passes and that the Senate is induced to match it quickly. That would be the least that decency would demand.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes events occur that are so out of the ordinary, so unusual as to defy belief. Such is the decision of the Speaker last night not to permit this House to vote on relief aid for the three States and some other areas that were devastated by Hurricane Sandy.

I have been in this House for 20 years. There have been many disasters--floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, wildfires. In every single instance, this House has voted aid for the necessary States; in every single instance, usually within a week or 2. Never more than 3. It has now been 9 weeks since October 29 when Hurricane Sandy devastated three States and parts of more--9 weeks.

The Senate passed a bill to aid us. The House was ready. The bill was prepared and an amendment was prepared. We were assured the bill would be on the floor last night or today. At the last minute the Speaker, without even talking to Republicans, not to mention Democrats from New York, refusing to meet with them, suddenly pulled the bill and said we wouldn't have a vote; as if the people in New York and Connecticut and Pennsylvania, New Jersey are not in need of aid; as if thousands of people are still not without heat, without water--as if thousands of small businesses don't need loans and aid so that they don't go under; as if thousands of people don't need help to rebuild their homes, to clear the trash from their properties; as if hundreds of municipalities don't need aid to finance this activity, having used up all their budgets for that purpose.

We're told by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee we'll get a bill on the floor later this month in the next Congress. It's already 9 weeks. It's already an unprecedented length of time. And why? Are New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians and Connecticut residents and New Jersey residents less American than the people that we aid in the Midwest and the South when we vote for aid for those people because they are the victims of natural disasters? How can we treat an entire region of the country this way? It is the most disgraceful action I've seen in this House in the 20 years I've been here.

I see that we're told that, well, FEMA still has money until March. But it's not just FEMA; it's the Small Business Administration that needs the appropriation now to help small businesses now; it's the Army Corps of Engineers that needs the authorization, the appropriation now to help the people who are victimized.

There is no excuse for this, none. It is a betrayal of the people of those States. It is a betrayal of the people of the United States. It is a betrayal by the Speaker personally of the Members of this House not to permit a vote. I have never seen an action like it. I hope I never see it again.

I urge the Speaker to reconsider and to rectify this decision today, because today is the deadline to avert going down in history as shameful.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland said what had to be said, but I want to add that I've been in this House 20 years. We have seen droughts; we have seen storms; we have seen earthquakes; we have seen wildfires out west. This Congress has never, never failed to vote emergency appropriations for the aid of the beleaguered States. Never.

Hurricane Sandy struck on October 29, 8, 9 weeks ago. It's unprecedented that it should take so long, and yet we are now told that this House is going to adjourn sine die even though the Senate voted the aid, and we're going to do nothing? It's unprecedented. It is disgusting.

I can understand--I would not sympathize, but I could understand Members who might say the amount requested is too much, we should change it, we should quibble with it, we should debate it--fine. But to ignore it, to ignore the plight of millions of American citizens-- unprecedented, disgusting, unworthy of the leadership of this House. They should reconsider or they should hang their heads in shame, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. While the report is an improvement over the House bill, it still falls short of where we need to be on the question of detention without trial. Nonetheless, I do want to commend the gentleman from Washington for his conscientious work on this and other aspects of the legislation.

As a Nation, no matter what adversity we have faced we have done so as Americans. We have united behind the values and freedoms that gave birth to this Nation and that have made it a moral force in the world. In the last decade, however, we have begun to let go of our freedoms bit by bit, with each new Executive order, each new court decision, and yes, each new act of Congress. We have begun giving away our rights to privacy, our right to our day in court when the government harms us, and with this legislation we are continuing down the path of destroying the right to be free from imprisonment without due process of law.

The conference report states that:

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force or

the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012

shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of

habeas corpus or to deny any constitutional rights in a court

ordained or established by or under Article III of the

Constitution to any person inside the United States who would

be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such

rights in the absence of such laws.

This language simply continues the flawed policies established in the 2011 defense authorization bill. First, it applies only to ``any person inside the United States.'' That is important, but most of the debate on indefinite detention without charge and on the lack of due process has to do with people held by our government outside our borders-- including, potentially, U.S. citizens.

The language in this bill, combined with the prohibitions against moving these detainees into the United States, guarantees that we will continue holding people indefinitely without charge--contrary to our traditions of due process and civil rights.

Second, this text continues the claimed authority of the United States Government to hold even U.S. persons captured on United States soil indefinitely and without charge. Some people may take comfort in the provision that states that those of us entitled to certain rights prior to the passage of the AUMF and of last year's defense authorization bill continue to have the same rights afterwards. But this bill does not say who among us are fortunate enough to have those rights, nor does it tell us what those rights might be. It does not specify how the executive branch is to determine which of us are entitled to these constitutional protections and which of us are not. And it does not provide us with recourse if the President gets it wrong.

Although I am urging a ``no'' vote on this conference report, I do want to acknowledge that, despite these very real problems, there are things in this bill that are important and that deserve Member support. For example, Senator Shaheen's amendment to allow servicemembers and their dependents to

obtain abortions in military hospitals in cases of rape and incest rights a terrible wrong. But we must take great care. Our liberties are too precious to be cast aside in times of peril and fear. We have the tools to deal with those who would attack us. We do not need to surrender our liberty.

Because of this momentous challenge to the founding principles of the United States--that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law--this bill should be rejected.

Madam Speaker, addressing our debt is a critical long- term goal, but it's not our immediate problem. Right now, our immediate problem is high unemployment, and our economy needs efforts to spur job growth. The expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, particularly those targeted toward the middle class, and the start of unparalleled across- the-board $1.2 trillion spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act sequestration provision, threatened further job growth.

Looking just at sequestration, there is rare agreement. Not the President, not the Congress, not anyone ever wanted or expected the sequestration measures to take effect. Why? Because we have a jobs problem, and the spending cuts demanded by sequestration are a huge jobs killer.

Republicans argue that this steep cut would risk defense-related jobs, and they're right. According to the Economic Policy Institute, these cuts would kill 1.3 million defense jobs in the first 3 years. But the Republicans completely ignore that the domestic spending cuts will also kill an estimated 1.3 million jobs in the same timeframe. Put another way, sequestration will kill 2.6 million American jobs in just 3 years. We simply must stop the sequestration-mandated spending cuts disaster, but this bill won't do that.

This bill mandates draining tens of billions of dollars of Federal spending next year, reducing the already draconian domestic spending caps, and doing all of this without adding a single dollar of additional revenue. The outcome is virtually the same. This Republican bill will still kill a couple of million American jobs. Talk about driving off a cliff.

Basic economics tells us that during good times, with low unemployment, government should reduce the national debt, but that to support job growth, government must not reduce spending during recessions. Now when we suffer from high unemployment, the proposed spending cuts, particularly those of the magnitude Republicans are proposing, would be disastrous. When we get to 5 percent unemployment, then we should start worrying about spending cuts. Right now, jobs are the issue.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 6365.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6365.

While there is wide bipartisan agreement that getting control of our debt is a critical long-term goal, there is also agreement that unemployment is unacceptably high and that our economy remains in need of major efforts to spur job growth.

As we grapple with these issues, there are two significant events approaching at the end of the year that many have argued could send our economy careening off the so-called fiscal cliff: (1) expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, particularly those targeted toward the middle class, and (2) the start of unparalleled, across-the-board $1.2 trillion spending cuts mandated by last summer's Budget Control Act sequestration provision.

On the tax question, we are where we've remained for years now--the President and Democrats agree that we can't afford to foot the bill for tax breaks for the wealthiest among us, while the Republicans continue to be beholden to the don't-tax-even-millionaires-and-billionaires plan.

But on sequestration, there is rare agreement. The simple truth is that no one--not the president, not the Congress, not anyone--ever wanted or expected the sequestration to take affect. Why? Because we have a jobs problem, and the spending cuts demanded by mandatory sequestration are a huge jobs killer.

In 2013 alone, sequestration would require that defense and discretionary domestic programs each incur an across-the-board $54.7 billion cut. Republicans have been spending a lot of time talking about the effects this steep cut would have on defense-related jobs. And they are right. According to the Economic Policy Institute, these cuts would result in the loss of 1.3 million defense jobs in just the first three years.

But, Madam Speaker, that is not the end of the story. The Republicans completely ignore the almost identical job loss from the mandated domestic spending cuts--also about 1.3 million jobs lost in three years, according to EPI.

Put another way, if we don't stop it, sequestration will be responsible for killing 2.6 million American jobs.

So we simply must stop the sequestration mandated spending cuts.

But this bill won't do that--at least, not really. H.R. 6365 still mandates (1) draining tens of billions of dollars of federal spending next year, (2) reducing the already draconian spending caps as outlined in the BCA, and (3) doing all this without adding one single dollar of additional revenue. So the outcome is the same--the Republicans would still kill a couple of million American jobs.

Talk about driving off a cliff.

But we won't hear about that from the Republicans, as they are too busy dancing as fast as they can to rewrite their role in setting up this self-made disaster in the first place.

During last summer's debt ceiling debate--another game of chicken where Republicans held our economy hostage--Republicans demanded a dollar-for-dollar spending cut in order to raise the debt limit so our nation wouldn't, for the first time ever, default on our debts. Sure, there was the charade of reaching compromise through the so-called super committee. But it should come as no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that we are where we are today. Republicans wanted deep cuts that would kill millions of jobs, and we now stand on the brink of implementing them.

Basic economics tells us that, if you want to support jobs and build the economy, government must not reduce spending during recessions. In good times, when unemployment is low, government should build surpluses to pay down the debt. In bad times, when unemployment is high, government should run deficits to make up for slowed private sector spending and to spur job growth. That is why what President Clinton did in the 90s--balancing the budget and beginning to pay down the national debt during a good economic time--was so good, and why what President Bush did--enacting huge tax cuts and running large deficits during a time of low unemployment, when he should have been paying down the national debt--was so devastating. Now, when we suffer from high unemployment, proposed spending cuts--particularly those of the magnitude Republicans are proposing--would be disastrous. When unemployment is down to five percent, then we can think about spending cuts. Now we must spur employment, and not enact these job-killing spending cuts.

Madam Speaker, it is imperative that we stop the misguided and self- made disaster that sequestration, or equivalent spending cuts, will bring. But H.R. 6365 won't do it. I urge a no vote.