Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of Southeast Michigan's environmental leaders, Chuck Hersey, on the occasion of his retirement from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments after 35 years of dedicated service.

After graduating with a degree in Environmental Studies from the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Chuck joined SEMCOG in the spring of 1978 as a co-op research assistant. He was promptly hired full time to work on transportation planning, and was promoted to the position of Air Quality Planner in 1980. Since that time, Chuck has been intimately involved in our region's implementation strategy for meeting air quality goals. Over the course of many years, he has also worked tirelessly in the cause of improving water quality in Michigan.

SEMCOG was formed over 40 years ago to fill a vital need--to bring together distinct communities in Southeast Michigan, and provide a forum to help them plan and work together for the common good. The philosophy at the heart of SEMCOG is that the whole is sometimes greater than the sum of its parts, and that our region faces challenges we can only meet by working together.

Chuck's work on air pollution is a good example. Air pollution does not recognize political boundaries. You can't deal with ozone and particulate pollution unless you are able to look at pollution on a regional basis, and then develop strategies that both meet the health- based standards of the Clean Air Act and are achievable and cost- effective. This is precisely the work that has occupied Chuck during his tenure at SEMCOG, whether it was his efforts behind the formation of a Southeast Michigan Ozone Strategy; his work on air quality attainment strategies; and his development of the Ozone Action! Program, which became a national model on air quality education.

I am also grateful for the work Chuck and SEMCOG have done to advance water quality improvements in Lake St. Clair, and, in particular, his efforts to advance the Lake St. Clair Strategic Implementation Plan.

Among his other accomplishments, Chuck holds a Masters in Public Administration from the University of Michigan. He is the devoted husband of Agnes, and father of Mathew and Angela. Chuck and Agnes have two grandchildren, Cameron and Giovanni.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Chuck Hersey for his commitment to the citizens of Michigan as well as our state's precious environment.

I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

Here we go again. This vote is more than just a sideshow. It's an embarrassing spectacle that has consumed House Republicans for more than 2 years, to the detriment of our economy and millions of Americans looking for work.

Republicans, on this, have their legislative heads in the sand and their feet in cement.

The Republicans are blind to the benefits that so many are already experiencing through ACA. It's already helping millions of Americans, with many millions more set to gain insurance coverage through the marketplaces next year.

With their feet in cement, 37 times House Republicans will have voted to repeal all or part of ObamaCare.

More than 50 million--50 million--taxpayer dollars have been spent by House Republicans through the dozens of hours Republicans have devoted to floor votes to try to repeal ObamaCare, which even Speaker Boehner acknowledged last year is the law of the land.

Since the beginning of 2011, Republicans have spent no less than 15 percent of their time on the House floor trying to repeal ObamaCare, when they know it would not happen.

Yet, not once this year, not once, have Republicans turned their focus toward job creation. What we have here, repeal, is a Republican obsession.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who's the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Neal.

(Mr. NEAL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 1 minute to another member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from the State of Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

(Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I now yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I now yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Blumenauer, from the State of Oregon.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side, please?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I am from Michigan, and 75 years ago, a predecessor brought forth ideas that at long last we would lift the shame of millions of Americans who go to bed without health care. Since that time, the numbers have grown. Today, there are over 50 million.

There was a reference to children. How many children today go to bed without a stitch of health care? Millions. How many women today go to bed without any health care coverage? We provided for seniors, and we have, so far, left most everybody out who needs some health care.

Then someone has the nerve to come forth and say there isn't enough money to implement--when Republicans won't provide that money. Someone comes forth here and says there isn't the money to cover those with preexisting conditions, and Republicans won't provide the money to provide further help for those people.

You talk about repeal and replace. The disgrace here is you're fixed on repeal, and you never have come forth to satisfy the needs and the conscience of the people of this country. That's a disgrace. This bill is a disgrace. The Republican conduct on this has been disgraceful.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the newly installed Beverly Hills Veterans Memorial which will be dedicated in Beverly Park on Memorial Day 2013.

In May of 2011, Paul Kleppert and Ron Berndt attended the city's Memorial Day Parade and Service. After the moving annual tribute to area veterans, they imagined a monument which would permanently memorialize the men and women who have served and, in some cases, given the ultimate sacrifice, to protect their fellow residents.

The community supported their vision and gave generously. The monument was funded with 99% private funds. In fact, they raised so much money that they were able to purchase a large, full standing, black granite monument with engraving on both sides. It will read, ``In Honor of All the Men and Women of Beverly Hills who Served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America,'' with the official seals of the five branches of the Armed Services beneath and an American flag etched in the background.

As the community of Beverly Hills commemorates this milestone monument, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in thanking not only the veterans of Beverly Hills, Michigan but all of the veterans across this free country, for their dedicated service. I congratulate the residents, elected officials, and businesses as they celebrate the veterans, the heroes amongst them, preserve their rich local heritage, and look forward to growing the monument in the future.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I wanted to state the facts here so everybody understands them. We have called this--as the Speaker has, in essence--Paying China First, and so many others, except for Social Security beneficiaries, come last, come next, if at all. And here's the reason: of the prioritized debt covered by this bill, 47 percent is foreign owned, and China bondholders are the largest ones of that foreign ownership.

So, essentially, what this bill says is, okay, let's pay China and the other foreign bondholders first, not American troops, not disabled veterans, not physicians, providers who treat Medicare patients, not small businesses holding contract obligations from the United States, school lunch programs secondary, medical research, Pell grants, taxpayers due refunds, and, interestingly, other Federal trust funds holding Treasury bonds, Medicare, deposit insurance, et cetera, et cetera. That's the fact. That's the fact.

So why do this? Well, it is said let's do this because of the importance of paying the bonds in terms of our economy and in terms of our bond rating.

Let me just say a word about bond rating. Here's what Fitch has said:

It is not assured that the Treasury would or legally could

prioritize debt service over its myriad of other obligations,

including social security payments, tax rebates, and payments

to contractors and employees. Arrears on such obligations

would not constitute a default event from a sovereign rating

perspective, but very likely prompt a downgrade even as debt

obligations continued to be met.

It was interesting that S&P, who already downgraded us, said this:

Still, sudden cuts that shave off, say, 6 percent of the

GDP-to-spending ratio would cause economic panic and could

affect ratings.

So, why is this being done when a former Bush administration economist said the result is ``a bloody mess,'' or another Bush administration official said ``prioritization is impossible.'' Is the government really going to be in the position of withholding benefits, salaries, and rent contract payments in order to pay off Treasury bondholders?

So why is this being done? It's not going anywhere in the Senate. The President opposes it. I think the reason, apparently, it's being done is to satisfy some within the Republican caucus or maybe to try to provide some leverage in terms of bargaining with the Democrats.

This is playing with fire, though, with the economy of this country. Those who vote for playing with this fire are going to burn themselves. But I think most significantly, they're going to burn the economy of the United States of America.

I've tried to figure out who the Pied Piper is of this proposition. It's hard to figure it out. But those who followed that Pied Piper in the Republican ranks, those who vote for it essentially are moving towards the cliff following that Pied Piper; but, worse off, it places this country once again and its economy in danger of going over the cliff. This is not only a mistaken idea, it's really a rotten one. Let's vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself 10 seconds.

Now, this bill not only contemplates default--it plans for it. Default is default is default.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished former chairman of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I want the record to be clear: of the public debt prioritized by this bill, foreign holders own 47 percent and China holds 22 percent of that.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McDermott.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), another very distinguished member of our committee.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), another very distinguished member of our committee.

(Mr. NEAL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another distinguished member of our committee.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished Member, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz.

Can I ask our distinguished Speaker how much time remains on each side?

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

So, Mr. Camp, are you ready to close this part of our debate?

How much time remains?

I just want to read the facts why this bill essentially says ``China first.'' I want everybody to understand this isn't rhetoric; this is reality.

The Republicans, under this bill, prioritize $14.3 trillion in debt, of that, $2.7 trillion in Social Security and $11.6 trillion in public debt. Of that public debt, $5.6 trillion is foreign. So when you come up and talk about all of the American public, you are not talking about what is in this bill. And of that foreign debt, the largest creditor is China, with over $1 trillion.

So it's absolutely true that essentially what you're saying is pay the largest of the foreign creditors instead of American troops, veterans, physicians, school lunch programs, universities doing medical research, taxpayers getting refunds, and other Federal trust funds holding Treasury bonds, Medicare--these are Americans'--deposited insurance, highway trust funds, et cetera, et cetera. That's the fact.

Now, there's some effort here to say, oh, we're not defaulting. Yes, you are. You're not defaulting on sovereign debt, but you're defaulting, except for Social Security, on everything else. Republicans are becoming lead defaulters in terms of paying our debt.

As I said earlier, the credit agencies have said, and I'll close with this:

It is not assured that the Treasury would or legally could

prioritize debt service over its myriad of other obligations

. . . but very likely prompt downgrade, even as our debt

obligations continued to be met.

This is a drastic, serious mistake. Vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm just going to speak for a short time and then yield.

I respect the chairman of the committee; we've been friends for a long time. It's really sad this amendment is here. There can't be money used under the bill for salaries. There's no lack of clarity here. Essentially, this is an effort to give some kind of fig leaf, or whatever it is, for a terrible, terrible bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

I yield that minute and a half to the vice chair of our caucus, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of our committee.

I will use it by saying, a default is a default is a default. This bill is a serious mistake, as is the amendment. People can do what they want on the amendment. Vote ``no'' on the basic bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

You know, when you boil this all down, essentially what this bill says is pay some bills first and not others. I came here because, if the rule passes, we'll have a full discussion tomorrow, but I wanted to share with everybody the story that I saw this morning. It's accurate.

The headline is: ``John Boehner on Debt Ceiling: Let's Pay China First, Then U.S. Troops.'' That headline in Huff Post is based on an interview with the Speaker on Bloomberg TV by Peter Cook. I quote Mr. Cook:

Doesn't it mean, as Democrats have suggested, that you're

basically choosing to pay China before you pay U.S. troops?

The Speaker: Listen, those who have loaned us money, like

in any other proceeding, if you will, court proceeding, the

bondholders usually get paid first. Same thing here.

Then the Speaker says, to conclude his comments as to the Administration:

If it comes to the point where they don't have enough money

to pay the bills, here is some order that we think is sound.

It's not sound. As the SAP says, it's not workable. It endangers our economy. I quote Keith Hennessey, a former Bush administration economist:

It would be the first step to becoming a banana republic. A

bloody mess.

As mentioned earlier by our distinguished ranking member on the Rules Committee, another Bush administration official, Tony Fratto, said:

Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really

going to be in the position of withholding benefits,

salaries, rent, contract payments in order to pay off

Treasury bondholders?

Almost half, by the way, are held by foreigners. So it isn't sound also to choose some over others. So I just wanted to go through the list, if I might, so everybody understands essentially what this is saying.

China and other bondholders first, not American troops in harm's way.

China first, not retired and disabled veterans.

China first, not doctors and hospitals treating Medicare patients.

China first, not American small businesses who provide goods and services.

China and others first, not school lunch programs.

China and others first, not universities doing medical research.

China and other bondholders first, not college students who earn Pell Grants, or taxpayers due refunds, or other Federal trust funds holding Treasury bonds--for example, Medicare trust funds, deposit insurance, highway and airport trust funds, and the Federal Housing Authority.

In a word, this is irresponsible. Default is default is default. The Republicans are playing with fire, I think, to gain political leverage. Instead, they should think of the national interest.

Mr. Speaker, I rise toady to commemorate the 98th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

For far too long, too many have failed to properly acknowledge this tragedy, let alone commemorate it and honor the lives of its victims. Indeed, despite reams of historical evidence, the actions of the Ottoman Empire 98 years ago have often been labeled something other than what they actually were: genocide.

In 1915, the government of the Ottoman Empire started a vicious and systematic campaign of genocide against the Armenian people. What began with the killing of 300 Armenian leaders ultimately resulted in the deaths of one and a half million people and the forced exile of another 500,000.

The chilling scale of this tragedy demands that we continue to commemorate the Armenian Genocide, and remember those who were lost. Throughout my time in Congress, I have cosponsored House resolutions that have affirmed the U.S. record regarding the true nature of this ethnic extermination, and honored its victims and survivors.

We must do all we can to ensure that the historical record contains the absolute truth--a commitment that will help fight against a sense of impunity. Through recognition and remembrance of the Armenian Genocide, we raise awareness of ``man's inhumanity to man,'' helping to stop similar tragedies from happening in the future.

I respectfully request that all my colleagues join me today in honoring the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a former colleague in Congress and an exceptional friend of working people in my home state of Michigan, David Curson, on the occasion of his retirement from the United Auto Workers (UAW).

Mr. Curson won a special election in Michigan's former 11th Congressional District and served in this House from November through the end of the 112th session of Congress. We considered important issues late last year, including the resolution to the so-called ``fiscal cliff'' and Mr. Curson participated actively and effectively in those debates. The people of the 11th District were well represented with Mr. Curson serving as their voice in the House during that critical period of time.

On Friday, April 12, 2013, the men and women of the UAW and a great number of his friends will come together to thank Mr. Curson for his service, to celebrate his accomplishments, and to wish him well in his retirement from that vital organization. After serving our nation in Vietnam, David Curson went to work in a Ford plant in Ypsilanti Township, Michigan, where he was elected officer of his local union. His skill at representing his fellow UAW members was recognized by the leadership of the union, and Mr. Curson went to work for the International Union staff, where he served in a number of important positions. He has participated in hundreds of labor-management negotiations, and played a key role in the development of the bridge loan package that the federal government entered into with General Motors and Chrysler.

It is fitting that we recognize Mr. Curson's career of service and I hope you will join me in congratulating Dave and in wishing him and his wife Sharon, the very best in their next endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, as our economy continues to recover, Congress should avoid any action that would destabilize employer-employee relationships--something that we can all agree is essential for our Nation's economic success. In my home state of Michigan, we have seen the resurgence of the domestic auto industry in large part due to cooperation between labor and management and their shared desire to succeed.

With that example in mind, I cannot understand why House Republicans are supporting H.R. 1120, the so-called Preventing Greater Uncertainty in the Labor Management Relations Act, which would effectively shut down the National Labor Relations Board. Instead of assuring productive employer-worker relations, a vital part of which is giving workers a voice in the workplace, this bill would actually create more uncertainty by rendering inoperable the very agency that protects workers and businesses from unfair and illegal activity.

This country has labor laws for a reason--to protect workers from exploitation and ensure a working environment that benefits both labor and management. And we should not forget that these labor laws helped create the middle class, providing generations of Americans with good pay and quality benefits, safe workplaces, and job security.

If Congress wishes to take action regarding the National Labor Relations Board, I would recommend that action to be the swift Senate confirmation of President Obama's three candidates for the Board. As for H.R. 1120, I will oppose this partisan effort to shut down the National Labor Relations Board.

This Republican budget is tone deaf, the result of blind ideology. But, you know, I've been listening to what's been said so far today, and the Republicans say, but they don't say how. We've just heard, we know we can do it, but you don't say how.

So what we come up with on the Republican side is a mirage--and, I think, a dangerous one.

Let me give you have an example, talking about their proposals on taxes. Under their budget, the top rate is to be reduced from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. The AMT will be repealed. The corporate tax rate will be cut from 35 to 25 percent. But you won't find one syllable in the Republican budget on how all these tax cuts will be paid for. They don't identify a single tax policy that will end.

The Republican budget would mean a huge tax cut for the very wealthy--several hundred thousand dollars a year--and leave a nearly $6 trillion hole in the deficit that would lead to tax increases for middle-income families. That isn't balance. That's total imbalance. At the same time, Republicans propose cutting $3.3 trillion from programs for people with low or moderate incomes, including hundreds of billions of dollars from food nutrition and Medicaid programs.

So I want to end by asking when the Republicans come and talk about their tax proposals, name a specific that they would address. It's not in the Republican budget. Name one, name two, name three. Otherwise, it's worse than empty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a long-time leader in the health care field, Dr. James E. Johnson, who is being honored by the McLaren Macomb Healthcare Foundation at their 28th Annual Crystal Ball on Saturday, March 16, 2013.

Dr. Johnson is a 1975 graduate of the Midwestern University Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine. He completed his internship at the Detroit Osteopathic Hospital and a general surgery residency program at McLaren Macomb Hospital located in my Congressional District.

Throughout his career, excellence in surgical care and surgical education has been Dr. Johnson's top priority. He currently serves as program director for McLaren Macomb Hospital's vascular surgery fellowship program and was also program director of the hospital's general surgery residency program for 17 years. Dr. Johnson also served as the hospital's chief of staff in 2011 and is currently a member of the McLaren Macomb Board of Trustees.

As a leader in the osteopathic profession, Dr. Johnson was instrumental in creating the first osteopathic consortium of general surgery residency programs in the nation through the Michigan State College of Osteopathic Medicine, where he is a clinical professor of surgery. For 10 years, he served as the director of the consortium, which became the model for the Osteopathic Postdoctoral Training Institution for general surgery currently in operation throughout the United States.

Dr. Johnson has been a member of the American College of Osteopathic Surgeons (ACOS) since 1982. He was awarded the designation of Fellow by the ACOS in 1990 and became a life member in 2008. He also served on the College's board of governors for nine years, as secretary- treasurer, and president in 1999-2000.

In 2012 the ACOS honored Dr. Johnson with the Orel F. Martin Medal, the organization's highest award. This recognition was designated to pay tribute to his outstanding career as an osteopathic surgeon, educator, mentor and leader.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. James Johnson. I thank him for his commitment to caring for those in need, and I am pleased to join with the entire community in paying tribute to him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated, compassionate an effective public servant, Ted Wahby, who is being honored by the McLaren Macomb Healthcare Foundation at their 28th Annual Crystal Ball on Saturday, March 16, 2013 for his leadership in the health care field.

Mr. Wahby has been a pillar of the community in Macomb County for nearly 50 years. He

and his wife Yvonne moved to the City of St. Clair Shores in 1964, where they raised six children and still reside today.

Mr. Wahby began his successful career in the financial services industry working at Comerica Bank, serving in numerous high-level capacities for 31 years. In addition to his accomplishments as a businessman, Mr. Wahby believes in giving back to the community and has devoted his immense talents to serving the public for the last 34 years. Since 1979 he has served as a school board member, city councilman, Mayor, and as County Treasurer from 1995 to present.

However, the main reason for this honor is for his strong leadership and advocacy for better health care. Mr. Wahby has been a charitable leader for over four decades. Through the years, he has strategically leveraged his business and political skills to make critical advances for very important causes. He has served as a member of McLaren Macomb's Hospital Board of Trustees since 2000 and has been chair of that board since 2002.

In 2001, almost 70 percent of cancer patients in Macomb County had to drive far from their home. McLaren Macomb saw the need for compassionate cancer care of the highest quality close to home and with the leadership of Ted Wahby, they decided to open a cancer center.

This mission of opening the center was very personal for Mr. Wahby, as he and his wife both lost family members to cancer. Those involved with the project felt profoundly that the generous amount of time and expertise Mr. Wahby gave was vital to its success. He was a tireless supporter and fund-raiser from the very beginning, and worked for many years to influence other local leaders to get behind the project and to invest in the capital campaign. The hospital was proud to name the facility the Ted B. Wahby Cancer Center, which opened its doors in 2004.

For his selfless efforts, Mr. Wahby has earned many accolades, including the 2005 Health Care Leadership Award from the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, and the 2005 Thanks for Giving Award, presented for extraordinary volunteer service to hospitals in the Metro Detroit area. For all of the numerous awards he has received, Mr. Wahby summed it up best when the cancer center opened, by stating that ``his greatest reward will come when the center is operating and more people can access the quality care they need.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Ted Wahby. I thank him for his immeasurable contributions, and I am so pleased to join with the entire community in paying tribute to him.

I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

Bringing up this bill today is doubly unfortunate. Number one, this is a time when we should be coming together--or at least trying to. This is a time when we should not try some partisan efforts. Unfortunately, that's what this is all about. This bill is essentially a pure fabrication of what is true.

Last summer the administration came forth with a proposal: states would be allowed to apply for waivers and have some flexibility in terms of the application of the work requirements--not the end of them or changing them, but the implementation of them--provided any project would be required to increase employment by at least 20 percent. So this claim that what is being done here is an effort to put at risk the work requirements is fallacious.

What happened? After HHS spoke, the Romney campaign decided they might have a campaign issue. So they essentially put together a campaign ad with the fallacious claim that what the Obama administration was trying to do was to weaken welfare reform. The instantaneous reaction of fact checkers was four Pinocchios, pants on fire, complete untruth.

And this is what Ron Haskins had to say, the Republican person on the staff most involved with the chairman and myself:

The idea that the administration is going to try to

overturn welfare reform is ridiculous. States have to apply

individually for waivers, and they have to explain in detail

why the approach would lead to either more employment or

better jobs for people who are trying to stay off welfare.

Indeed, earlier in 2005, 29 Republican Governors wrote asking if they could obtain a waiver in terms of the implementation of the work requirements, and on three occasions the Republicans brought legislation to the floor which would have brought about this kind of a waiver.

Here's what was said by President Clinton, who worked on welfare reform and signed it in 1996:

When some Republican Governors asked if they could have

waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to

work, the Obama administration listened.

And I insert at this point that there was a request from the Republican Governor of Utah.

I continue with the quote:

Because we all know it is hard for even people with good

work histories to get jobs today. So moving folks from

welfare to work is a real challenge, and the administration

agreed to give waivers to those Governors and others only if

they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20

percent, and they could keep the waivers only if they did

increase employment. Now, did I make myself clear? The

requirement was for more work, not less.

So this was tried last year. There was an effort by the Republicans. They came forth with a bill. The campaign was full blast. And what they wanted to do was to reaffirm or to support a political ad by their candidate for President. That's what that was all about.

We had a vote along partisan lines. And as we said, it went nowhere in the Senate. By the way, I don't think it helped their Presidential candidate as it was so blatantly false, so patently political.

The election is over. The people have spoken. The President has been reelected. Why bring up this political horse? It's worse than lame; it's mistaken.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 2 minutes to another gentleman who has worked on welfare reform over the years, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Human Resources with jurisdiction over TANF.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), another member of our committee, and a most active one.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), another distinguished member of our committee.

I now with great pleasure yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It's so ironical it's worse than that. The Republicans are in their budget saying, ``let's block grant Medicaid and all nutrition programs and send back those programs entirely to the States in the name of flexibility.'' And now they come forth arguing that the proposal of this administration to provide flexibility to the States, if requested, and if it increases work participation 20 percent, they throw up their hands and say, ``no.'' It's worse than contradictory.

CRS has made clear the following:

The Secretary's interpretation of her current authority

under section 1115 with regard to waivable TANF provisions

under section 402 appears consistent with the Secretary's

practice under the same provision as it existed under the

AFDC program.

TANF is going to be extended. We don't need to do it with this provision that harks back to the campaign. The 20 percent requirement, the Secretary made clear, it isn't waiving the work requirement; it's letting the States implement it. It was requested by the Governor of Utah, a Republican.

Bill Clinton has been mentioned so often. And I just urge everybody to listen to what he said. It strengthens the work requirements:

The requirement was for more work, not less.

So to come forth here and say that it weakens it is fallacious, to put it mildly.

Do you know what this is in a few words? This is an effort in 2013 to validate a fallacious political ad of the year 2012. And that's worse than unhappy when this place is searching for some ability to work together.

The election is over. Let's get on with the work ahead of us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, in the wake of the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy, Congress must be an active partner in the effort to rebuild, so I will vote in favor of the bill before the House today, which extends FEMA disaster relief assistance to houses of worship on an equal footing with other not-for-profit organizations affected by the storm.

I wish, however, that the House had taken the time to hold hearings on this legislation before bringing it to the House Floor so that we could have more fully explored the constitutional issues involved with this matter. Clearly, the federal government can and does provide federal resources to houses of worship for a variety of purposes, including homeland security grants and small business loans, but we must tread carefully in this area to ensure that the assistance extended passes muster with the basic provisions of the Constitution. It would have been better to thoroughly vet the language of this bill, among ourselves in the House and with constitutional scholars before bringing it up for a vote. As this legislation must pass the Senate in order to become law, I hope there will be in their proceedings a careful review of these issues before they act, including making any needed changes, which would bring the bill back to the House for final enactment.

The Republican mantra is no revenues, cuts at any price, whether it damages health research, our kids' education, our national defense, or our national economy. So beneath their new talk of softening their image remains their hard edge.

Now we're less than a month away from a sequester--$85 billion in arbitrary, across-the-board cuts just in 2013. Just yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warned us that allowing the sequester budget cuts to take effect would reduce GDP growth by more than 25 percent this year, wiping out hundreds of thousands of jobs-- hundreds of thousands of jobs--and pushing the unemployment rate back up to 8 percent.

So I say to the Republicans, instead of opening your arms to the sequester and risking our Nation's economic recovery, Republicans should be opening their minds to a balanced, bipartisan solution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

This Republican bill is not a change in policy. It's a change in tactics. House Republicans continue to play with economic fire. They're playing political games with the debt ceiling, and that undermines certainty.

Yesterday, economist Simon Johnson of MIT testified before our committee saying that a short-term increase would only extend uncertainty. He said:

You will continue to undermine the private sector. You will

continue to delay investment and to reduce employment

relative to what it would be otherwise.

Let's, for a second, remember history, the last time the House Republicans played political games with the debt ceiling. In August 2011, our economy produced the lowest job growth in 3 years. During that 2-month period, the Dow Jones plummeted 2,000 points, including one of its worst single-day drops in history--635 points on August 8. S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time in history.

Leading Republicans in June, 2011, criticized the notion of a short- term debt ceiling increase as providing a lack of certainty. The majority leader said:

We feel very strongly that one of the reasons why we

continue to see an ailing economy is that people have very

little confidence, have very little certainty in terms of

where we are headed.

Our Ways and Means chairman echoed that feeling only days later saying about the prospect of a short-term debt ceiling increase, It does not give you certainty.

This bill does not give certainty, but uncertainty.

The action we took New Year's Day to avoid the fiscal cliff brought our total deficit reduction over the past 2 years to $2.5 trillion. What's more, it set the stage for future further balanced agreements that include both spending cuts and new revenue. We should proceed with that effort, not plunge into further uncertainty.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to another member of our committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I now yield 1 minute to a member of our committee and chairman of our caucus, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I yield 1 minute to another member of our committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of our committee.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our whip.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Can I ask how much time we have remaining?

I yield 1 minute to a member of our committee, the Congresswoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

This isn't: no budget, no pay. This is: 3 months, no certainty. It's been said it kicks the can down the road--a road paved with uncertainty.

What this does, in a few words, is keep default hanging over the heads of this Congress and over the heads of the American economy and the American people. It's unwise to do that. We tried that in the summer of 2011. The Republicans more than flirted with it, and they flirted dangerously. Now they're pulling back.

But instead of meeting this head-on, they essentially bring a bill here that presumes that it moves us ahead, when it moves us into more and more uncertainty. This is unwise. Politically, they think it's smart policy. For the American people, it's very dumb.