Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to observe the 66th commemoration of Taiwan's 2-28 Massacre. The Massacre was an anti- government uprising in Taiwan that began on February 28, 1947 and was violently suppressed by General Chiang Kai-shek's Chinese Nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) government during the following weeks. Estimates of the number of deaths are around 28,000.

In the fall of 1945, 50 years of Japanese occupation of Taiwan ended after Japan had lost World War II. In October of that year, the KMT- administered Republic of China (ROC) received administrative control of Taiwan. 16 months of KMT administration on Taiwan led to the widespread impression among the people of Taiwan that the party was plagued by nepotism, corruption, and economic failure.

Tensions increased between the Taiwanese people and the ROC administration. The flashpoint came on February 28, 1947 when in Taipei a dispute between a female cigarette vendor and an officer of the Government's Office of Monopoly triggered civil disorder and open rebellion by the native Taiwanese against the KMT repression.

During the following weeks, Chiang's government sent troops from China to the island. The Chinese soldiers started to round up and execute a whole generation of an elite of Taiwanese lawyers, doctors, students, professors etc.

It is estimated that up to 30,000 people lost their lives during the turmoil. During the following four decades, the Chinese Nationalists continued to rule Taiwan with an iron fist under a Martial Law that would not be lifted until 1987.

Mr. Speaker, the Massacre had far reaching implications. Over the next half century, the Taiwanese democracy movement that grew out of the event helped pave the way for Taiwan's momentous transformation from a dictatorship under the Chinese Nationalists to a democracy.

In some ways, the 228 incident was Taiwan's Boston Massacre for both events functioned as the cradle of a move by both peoples to full democracy and helped galvanize the strive to independence.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before: Freedom is not negotiable. May the lessons learned from the 2-28 Massacre continue to inspire the people of Taiwan in their struggle for freedom, full independence, international participation, and for the continued enhancement of the mutual relationship between Taiwan and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today in commemorating this important historical event.

I congratulate the chairwoman and my friend, Mr. Brady, for bringing to the floor very good legislation that recognizes the value of the best and brightest young Americans competing in the fields of math, science, and innovation.

But America is not going to compete very well if we don't solve the budget sequester that surrounds us here today. We're in a global economic competition where we will fall behind if we do not act by this Friday. Beginning this Friday, according to economists, a conservative estimate of the number of jobs lost in our country will be 750,000. There are those who believe that the job loss may exceed 2 million jobs.

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the House, there is a proposal in the well before the House that would postpone this job loss. Mr. Van Hollen has offered a proposal that would postpone the sequester and save these jobs and still reduce our deficit by cutting subsidies to huge oil companies who do not need those subsidies, by cutting subsidies to huge agribusinesses who do not need those subsidies, by saying that people who make more than $2 million a year should pay a rate of taxation that does not let them exploit loopholes and other deductions.

To date, with the sequester looming, the majority in this House has done nothing to address this problem--not one bill, not one hour, not one debate, not one vote. So we have an alternative, and with this looming problem facing the people of the country, I believe that should be the order of business of the House today.

Mr. Van Hollen's bill would end the sequester and reduce the deficit; so I therefore ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 699 at this time.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is the result of the Chair's ruling that the House will not be able to vote on a bill to end the sequester at this time?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Audubon's Boy Scout Troop 88. This troop was founded in 1965 by Eagle Scout Chairman Bob Beetle, along with Al Murray, Joe Kranz, Bill Holland, and Jack Rex. At last Thanksgiving's Audubon football game, the troop and the tireless work of the founder Bob Beetle, was honored as the Troop 88 banner was dedicated and raised at halftime. The true legacy of Mr. Beetle and this troop is the perpetuation of resourceful skills and the instillation of strong leadership values. The boy scouts are an outstanding opportunity for the young gentlemen of South Jersey to develop through service to their community. Troop 88 initiates many projects within the community including: Food Drives and help with the South Jersey Food bank, a 9/11 Ceremony at Mt. Ephriam, railroad clean- ups, the Mansion Ave. school map playground project, and Masons Wheel chair Push in Burlington. On behalf of town of Audubon, and the First District of New Jersey, I want to express my sincere appreciation and pride to have such a great organization operating in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Patriot Club of Cherry Hill High School West. The Patriot Club focuses on bringing together students and members of the local community to honor current and former servicemembers through their Veteran's Day and Donations for Soldiers programs.

The Veteran's Day program gives veterans the ability to share their service experiences at schools throughout Cherry Hill. Each November, members of the Patriot Club recruit veterans to take part in the program that gives students the opportunity to gain a better understanding and appreciation for the sacrifices made by military personnel.

The two-month-long Donations for Soldiers program gathers monetary and supply donations from students, parents, teachers, administrators and local businesses of Cherry Hill to create care packages that are distributed to soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

In 2012, the Patriot Club recruited five schools to participate in the program, raising more than $4,000 and enough supplies to send 90 care packages overseas. This year, the club will be expanding the program to include all 18 schools in the Cherry Hill district. The goal is to raise $10,000 and to send 200 care packages to soldiers abroad.

For the past two years, Ray Horner has served as President of the Patriot Club. Senior Sean Bivins and Junior President-Elect Eytan Gittler have served as Co-Vice Presidents. Officers include Seniors Chris Blandy, Kevin Mullarkey, Sean Mullarkey and Conor McFadden. Freshman Rebecca Horner also volunteers with the club.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Deptford Township Martin Luther King Jr. contest winners. These students, as well as all who participated in the contest, celebrated the life an achievement of one of our nation's most influential leaders. As we advance as a nation, it is of the utmost importance to always take the time to appreciate and reflect upon the figures who sacrificed for the betterment of our country. This annual contest serves as a great reminder of the progress we have made, as well as the struggle that made that progress possible. The following are the winners of this year's Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration contest:

Marcus Henriquez, Charlotte Lawrence, Sabrina Mannino, Cara Murphy, Jazmine Tucker, Julianna Wintersteen, Mackenzie Wurst, Ava Yelverton, Ashley Currie, Ingenue McBeth, Faith McCoy, Landon Sentak, Kennedy Davis, Aidan Doerr, Hanna Shein, Darrin

Bryant, Carl Carter, Isabella Connearney, Chelsea Moore, Julia Rafferty, Victoria Delgado, Alaina Foy, Emma Fisher, Danica Godshall, Ethan Kindt, Mya Christian, Michael Faulls, Julia Guevara, Yukta Narayan, Simran Kaur, Olivia Voit, Xavier Woods, Briana Culbert, David Maturo, Bellarose Bostwick, Ashlee Jarmen, Malcolm Miller, Zachary Morgan, Morgan Warren, Amaris Bussie, Olivia Jaci, Ileanna Jones, Daisy Schreiner, Jade Rivera, Farrah Sacharok, Ciara Blas, Joshua DeGuzman, Alina Hoover, Jania Long, Juliana Pit, Hailey Fair, Alexandra Lowry, Santos Diaz, Tehya Dickinson, Anaya Jones, Jacqueline Reagan, Emily Reed, Chloe Reyes, Donovan Clement, Brendan Connor, Gianna McIntyre, Tianna Smith, Rocco Laltrella Bruce, Asiya Robinson, Kimberly Sorbello, Marco Viloria, Gianna Wolfe, Olivia Devine, Camryn Ransom, Hunter Young, Colin Schumacher, Angel Mangini, Nicholas Marengo, Hailey Parker, Sydney Shute, Ashley Baresich, Christopher Deeley, Jaiana Ray, Ashley Scheld, John Cooper, Megan Grace, Nathan Jackson, Mariela Dimalaluan, Deziree Faith Johannesen, Devon Moss, Millicent Sannoh.

Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that anyone in America is sitting around today saying, I hope Congress sets up another fiscal cliff; I hope they put us in a position again where no one knows what's going to happen the next couple of months.

We ought to listen, but that's what we are doing with this bill. We should listen to the President who said this:

Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the government

to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This

brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds,

those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits.

Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in

financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The

United States has a special responsibility to itself and the

world to meet its obligations.

We should listen to this President.

Ronald Reagan said this in 1986. In 1986, the Congress listened to him, extended the debt ceiling, and acted responsibly. So should we. This legislation sets up another fiscal cliff, another financial nightmare, another problem for the American people that we should avoid.

I urge all Members to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, an owner of a software company is deciding whether to hire more people today, a manufacturer is deciding whether to buy a new piece of equipment, a restaurant owner is deciding whether to add more tables and jobs to her restaurant. In order for them to decide to grow, they need to know there's going to be a stable financial environment.

What we're doing today is saying to those decisionmakers, don't worry, the government is going to pay all of its bills until May 19. After that, we're not sure.

The way to reduce the deficit is, yes, fiscal restraint and adding revenue, but the way to reduce the deficit is to grow jobs in this country. The people who decide to grow jobs in this country will not make that decision in an atmosphere of financial chaos.

This bill creates another fiscal cliff. Fiscal cliffs are the problem, not the solution. The solution is economic growth.

Let's oppose this bill and oppose yet another unnecessary and contrived fiscal cliff.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and my friend for working together to bring this product to the floor.

I've heard two objections to this bill. The first is that money is spent in the wrong places, and the second is the amount of money altogether is too costly. Let me try to address those objections.

As to the money being spent in the wrong places, I would respectfully request that Members who have that objection read the legislation because, throughout the legislation, when it refers to the money to be spent, it says that the moneys are to be spent on necessary funds related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy. Now, there is one exception to this that I've read, and it is limited to situations in which there were prior disasters that are not yet cleaned up. So this is a bill that deals almost exclusively with the Sandy disaster, and to the extent it does not, it deals with lingering problems in other parts of the country from those disasters.

To those who would argue that the amount of money in the bill is just too much to begin with, I would offer you this question: If you were running a business and had 100 manufacturing plants and sales offices around the country and 15 of them were shut down by a storm--so 15 percent of your available revenue was no longer available to you--what would you do? You'd repair those 15 manufacturing facilities and sales offices as quickly as you could in order to restore the health of your company and the growth of your revenues. That is exactly what this bill does.

The taxpayers of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey--three States--contribute more than 15 percent of the individual and corporate tax revenues collected in the United States of America--15 percent from three States. If you shut down that engine of production, the whole country suffers. This is an occasion for the House of Representatives to rise above normal parochial politics.

When the disaster struck the gulf, we were all Mississippians or Louisianans. When tornadoes hit Missouri, we were all Missourians. When there have been earthquakes that have hit the west coast of our country, we have all been citizens of California.

We are asking Members from coast to coast and throughout our country today to look at themselves and walk in the shoes of New Yorkers and the citizens of Connecticut and New Jersey. If we understand that we have a common purpose, that this legislation does focus almost exclusively on the Sandy disaster, and then focuses what it does not focus on Sandy on other disasters, and if we understand that 15 percent of the economic engine of this country is at risk of being shut down, then we will all be people who cast the same vote and the right vote, which is ``yes.''

I thank my friend for yielding.

Seventy-eight days ago, a tremendous force of fury hit the northeastern region of the United States. Today we make an act of national interest. This is not an act of excess or an act of charity.

For those who claim that there is excess in this bill, I would suggest that they read it. Throughout this bill, the bill says that the spending is limited to ``necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy.'' This is throughout the text of the bill.

This is not an act of charity. These three States--New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut--these three States pay almost 16 percent of the taxes collected in the United States of America. Three States, 16 percent of the taxes.

You ask the question: Who suffered because of Superstorm Sandy? Certainly our neighbors in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut suffered the most, but all Americans will suffer if this economic engine is not rebuilt.

The three States that pay nearly 16 percent of the taxes need this reconstruction, and so does the United States of America. All Members, Republican and Democrat, should vote ``yes'' in favor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the delay in helping the victims of Hurricane Sandy is obviously inexcusable and unjust, but it's equally obvious that the time has come to do what we can to help solve the problem. That's why I'm for the passage of this bill today. It will, in fact, help flood insurance claims be honored and paid so that people can go about the work of rebuilding their homes.

We've heard about the January 15 vote that is coming on the rest of the plan. I think we shouldn't be holding out false hope about that because here's the reality: I'm certain we will vote on January 15. Of course, the Constitution says the other body has to vote too. They have to start all over again, and then the President has to sign the bill.

It is my strong hope that the leadership between now and January 15 will reach out to the leadership of the other body and try to prenegotiate a bill that the Senate would quickly and expeditiously take up so we can solve this problem.

The House taking a vote on January 15 is lovely. It is also utterly meaningless if the other body does not act.

Mr. Speaker, we're here this morning for the fellow citizens who didn't put up a Christmas tree or light a menorah or celebrate their holiday at home this year because they have no home. We're here for the boardwalk merchants who are not going to be starting their businesses up again this Memorial Day along the boardwalk because there's no business, and there's no boardwalk. We're here because a lot of people's lives are devastated.

It's important to understand what we are and are not asking for. We are not asking that every Member of this Chamber follow our lead and vote ``yes'' in favor of the bill the Senate has already passed. We are simply asking that every Member of this Chamber have the opportunity to vote on that bill.

President Kennedy said governing is choosing. We are prepared to choose an investment in the recovery of our neighbors and our country. We respect those who would make a different choice, but we cannot abide by those who would say they would make the choice of doing nothing at all, letting the clock run out on this Congress, which means that we'd have to start all over again. The people I talked about for whom we are here this morning, they need to start all over again. They need to get back to their homes, back to their businesses, back to their lives; and as we delay, we delay that possibility for them.

Every Member has the right to exercise his or her own conscience on any piece of legislation. No Member has the right to deprive the rest of us of the same opportunity for our constituents. We should meet today. We should vote today. We should move forward today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and commend Mr. McKeon and Mr. Smith for their leadership in making it happen.

Most importantly, this legislation takes care of the people most important to us--the men and women in uniform who will receive a pay raise under this legislation.

Second, it maintains our competitive edge in technology as we look for new ways to defend our country and improve our situation around the world.

Third, I believe very strongly this bill affirms the Constitution of the United States; makes it clear that nothing in any statute, including this one, in any way subverts or undercuts the Fifth Amendment due process rights of any person under any circumstances. For these reasons, I would urge my friends both on the Republican and Democratic side to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority needs to do what Americans do every day in labor negotiations and real estate offices and other places around this country, and that's to negotiate rather than simply restate their position.

The President asked for higher tax rates on income above $250,000, and he compromised and moved it up to $400,000. The President started with a spending cut number that was $500 billion or $600 billion, and he moved it up to $1.2 trillion. And he included within that a very controversial proposal dealing with Social Security increases.

The President has compromised. The Republicans once again are simply regurgitating their same old position, a tax provision that has a $50,000-a-year tax cut for millionaires and a tax increase for 25 million working families, including servicemembers and their children, and a proposal that cuts jobs on transportation projects, daycare centers, and nursing homes across the country.

We should stop wasting our time on one-sided bills, follow the President's lead, lift our sights higher, and negotiate. That is the way out of this conundrum. And I would urge my friends on the majority side to stop pontificating and start negotiating.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I am immensely proud of the service and sacrifice of our men and women in Afghanistan. They have done a great job in defending our country, and our hearts go out to all of them who are serving, or who have served, for the greatness of their service.

I am one who believes that the time to bring them home is a lot sooner than later. I'd like to see them all come home as soon as possible. When they do, it's important that, as we leave Afghanistan, we leave an imprint of a value that is not just an American value but, I think, a value of humanity around the world and, that is, that your opportunity to thrive in a community should not be determined by your gender. It is astonishing to most Americans, but it was the reality for most female Afghans that during the rule of the Taliban, for a young girl, a visit to a school put her life at risk. A girl who dared to try to go to school was risking a violent assault or even death.

I am very proud of the fact that our military leaders, our civilian employees, and brave Afghans have worked very hard to change that fact. Today, Afghan girls are in school, and Afghan women are serving in positions of authority and leadership and education and health care and government and commerce in Afghanistan. As we make the transition to Afghan security in that country, let us make sure that the transition to full human rights for women and girls continues in that country.

That is the purpose of this motion to instruct, and it is gratifying that Members of both political parties have spoken up in favor of this very basic principle. Being a girl or being a woman should not subject one to violence or short-change one's opportunities. I am proud to support this motion. I certainly hope that, as we go forward with this bill, the principles of fairness and equality will be included.

Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of disagreement about the future of our country. There's disagreement over how to handle spending--what should be cut, what should be reduced, what should be increased. There's disagreement over how much and when to raise the debt ceiling. These are very important questions.

There's a disagreement over whether taxes should or should not go up on income over $250,000 a year. Our friends on the other side in good faith believe that's a bad idea. We know the economic history tells us that the last time the rates were at the level of 39.6 percent, 600,000 new businesses were formed and 23 million new jobs were created, so we think it works.

But there's something that everyone says they agree on, and that is that income up to $250,000 a year should not have a tax increase. Everyone on both sides says that when January 1 shows up on the calendar there shouldn't be a tax increase on the middle class people of this country, that their first paycheck on the first Friday of the New Year should not have more taken out of it so as not to hurt our economy or hurt those families. Now, we all say we agree on this. It seems to me the right course is to put a bill on the floor that says exactly that, that says that for income of less than $250,000 a year, the tax rates for every American should stay where they are now and there should not be a tax increase.

My friend from Texas says that the majority did that in July. That's not quite right. What the majority did in July was to keep the rates low for people making less than $250,000, but also keep them low for people making more than $250,000. We just don't agree with that. Why don't we take the 98 percent that we agree on and vote on it right now?

I thank my friend.

If we don't do this, 19 days from today 98 percent of the American people--really 100 percent of the American people--get a tax increase. They have more taken out of their checks. It will hurt shoppers in the stores, diners in the restaurants, it will hurt jobs across the country. So why don't we take the 98 percent that we agree on right now and put it on the floor right now. By voting ``no'' on the previous question, that's what we can do and should do.