Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest appreciation for the life, legacy, and actions of Mrs. Rosa Parks on what would have been her 100th birthday.

Our society today, is a far cry from the one into which Mrs. Parks was born. We are now living in a time that is a direct reflection of the efforts of the trailblazers who came before us.

Trailblazers like Rosa Parks, Shirley Chisholm, Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Barbara Jordan and Walter Fauntroy whose actions transformed history and paved the way for a brighter future for all of us. Remembering these remarkable trailblazers is just one way to demonstrate not only our appreciation for their efforts but also to ensure that we continue to move forward in society.

While I believe that our fight is not over and that we must continue to address civil rights

issues; I am still in awe of the progress that has been made as the result of decades of work, diligence, sweat and tears of our country's civil rights trailblazers.

One century ago, today, Mrs. Parks was born in Tuskegee, Alabama. As many of you already know, on December 1, 1955 Mrs. Parks refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a Montgomery city bus.

At that time in our nation's history as an African American woman in Montgomery, Alabama Mrs. Parks was actually risking her life by sitting in a seat that was denied to her because of the color of her skin. Although she knew she risked being beaten, insulted, bullied, and jailed that did not stop her from sitting down in order to stand up against injustice.

The arrest of Mrs. Parks led to the NAACP's boycott of the Montgomery, Alabama bus system. The boycott began on the first day of Mrs. Parks first court hearing on December 5, 1955, and did not end until December 20, 1956. It marks the first of many large-scale demonstrations against segregation.

For 381 consecutive days, men, women, and children stood up against injustice. In lieu of taking the bus, in many instances they elected to walk for miles to work, school, or for errands. Just for a moment envision that amount of dedication and commitment it takes in the hot days of a Alabama summer to opt to walk rather than take the bus for over a year.

Rose Parks by taking a seat was just the public spark needed to bring international attention to the civil rights movement and is in no small measure the genesis for the beginning of desegregation.

Again, because of the fearless actions of women and men, like Rosa Parks, the face of leadership in our nations is now more diverse than at any other point in our nation's history.

This change has been seen here within our own walls as well. Members of Congress are now a stew pot of races, ethnicities, cultures, sexual orientations, religions, and genders. This has only allowed us to have a diversity of perspective and has enabled us to better address the needs of our constituencies. Today, Congress in many ways reflects the America, what we represent.

The actions of Rosa Parks and thousands of other proud Americans and their supporters fueled the civil rights movement that advanced the principles upon which our nation was built. As I have stated before, although, we have come a long way we still have a long way to go. As we honor the life and legacy of Rosa Parks. As we reflect upon those who lost their lives standing up against injustice. As we celebrate what was almost unimaginable in 1955, the second inauguration of our nation's first African American President. We must also look again at our democracy and how in a time when we are making so many steps forward there is still an attempt to limit the votes of Americans. Given the progress that we have made as a result of the civil rights movement it is still incumbent upon each of us to continue to fight for the rights of all Americans. Recently, there have been systematic attempts to limit the rights of Americans to vote. Last year we celebrated the 47th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, amid efforts by certain states to erode the right of Americans.

Today, most Americans take the right to vote for granted. We assume, as citizens of this fine Nation, that we can register to vote if we are over 18. Most of us learned in school that discrimination based on race, creed or national origin has been barred by the Constitution since the end of the Civil War. We celebrate moments like today, Rosa Parks birthday, that stands as a reminder of our Nation's honored and sometimes troubled past. Yet, at the time Rosa Parks sat down on that bus, the right to vote did not exist in practice for most African Americans. And, until 1975, most American citizens who were not proficient in English faced significant obstacles to voting, because they could not understand the ballot.

Even though the Indian Citizenship Act gave Native Americans the right to vote in 1924, state law determined who could actually vote, which effectively excluded many Native Americans from political participation for decades.

Asian Americans and Asian immigrants also have suffered systematic exclusion from the political process and it has taken a series of reforms, including repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943, and passage of amendments strengthening the Voting Rights Act three decades later, to fully extend the franchise to Asian Americans.

It was with this history in mind that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to make the right to vote a reality for all Americans. And the Voting Rights Act has made giant strides toward that goal. Without exaggeration, it has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed by Congress.

In 1964, there were only approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were elected anywhere in the South.

The Voting Rights Act has opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the State or Federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. And Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly.

We must not forget the importance of protecting this hard-earned right. I believe that the courage that Mrs. Parks displayed throughout her life helped shaped the United States. I believe that the courage she showed that day, changed our society. I believe that it is our duty to honor the Constitution and to honor the civil rights of all those who stand upon our shores. Today, as we celebrate the life of Rosa Parks, we must continue to push forward in ensuring that all those who have a right to a voice in our society have one. The right to vote is the great equalifyer, one person--one vote. Yet, there are those who are attempting to impinge that right by requiring the use of Voter ID cards. Now these photo ID proposals have a forceful momentum that have not seen in years past, as part of broader legislative movements to limit access to the political process for disenfranchised groups at a level not seen since post-reconstruction era laws that implemented poll taxes and literacy tests. In just over the first two months of 2011, photo ID proposals were introduced in 32 states and passed out of one legislative chamber in twelve states. Lawmakers across the Nation have pinpointed photo ID as a top legislative priority. The Governor of Texas designated photo ID as a legislative emergency in order to allow it to be procedurally fast-tracked through the legislature, photo ID proposals were pre-filed before legislative sessions began in half a dozen states, and secretaries of state in a number of states have listed photo ID as a top priority. I was pleased when the Department of Justice took action to stop that flowed piece of legislation.

Photo ID proposals have garnered significant momentum in more than a dozen states and opponents are having difficulty waging effective counterattacks to curb movement on these bills.

The time is now to stand up to protect the rights of the disenfranchised, the elderly, the disabled, and college student access to the right to vote. Now is the time, to remember the courage of those who participated in the bus boycott, recall their willingness to walk in the hot southern sun for over a year to stand up for their belief is justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now is the time to truly honor the life of Rosa Parks, who by sitting down, stood up for justice. We must continue to move forward rather than backwards in this country. We must honor our past by standing up to protect every one's right to vote.

Today I remember Mrs. Parks for her courage and for everything she has done to advance civil rights movement. And to remember that although much progress has been made there remains much more to accomplish.

My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right. What most of America is waiting for is for us to address the very abyss that we've put ourselves in, the cliff that we've put ourselves in--the fact that we became hostage to this idea of a commission that was necessary because we could not get Members on both sides of the aisle to be able to work together on what should be cut. It was particularly because my friends on the other side of the aisle had Members who did not understand how government functioned. Republicans did not understand that government, in fact, is a rainy-day umbrella, that we are supposed to serve the American people.

So, while we are fiddling, one could say that Rome is burning, or maybe they could say that the cities and towns of America are asking us to finally answer the question. Under the laws that we adhere to, the President has a right to submit his budget. That should be very clear. No legislation here on the floor is going to dictate the President's budget.

There is a law that says it is supposed to be the first Monday in February. We will admit that. But what President has ever had the hostage-taking of the debt ceiling so that you can't write a budget if there are individuals in the Congress that won't do the normal business, which is to raise the debt ceiling so that the American people can be taken care of?

As we speak, however, the President has introduced, today, a short- term fix to avert the sequester. The Democrats have offered a way of averting the sequester. We have nothing from the Republicans except a resolution that says a request for a plan, the very plan that the President knows by law he is going to submit as long as he knows what the amount of money is we have to work on. And, of course, the budgeting process is going through the House. The chairman of the Budget, Mr. Ryan, the ranking member of the Budget, Mr. Van Hollen, we all know the regular order, and we're going to do our work.

But putting us on the floor today and ignoring what we should be doing, I'm saddened that my amendment that indicated that I wanted to make sure that the most vulnerable in any budget process, 15.1 percent of Americans living below the poverty line, which includes 21 percent of our Nation's children, I wanted to have a sense of Congress that whatever we did, we would not do anything to harm these vulnerable children who, through no fault of their own that they may be suffering from the kind of economy, or their parents are suffering so that they live in poverty, whatever we do, we should not do anything more to make their life more devastating.

My other amendment had to do with the estate tax to raise revenue, and that would have been a reasonable debate to address what we can do to make the lives of Americans better.

Request a plan; a plan is not action. The President does a budget; we do a budget. Mr. Speaker, let's do our work and help the American people and avoid the sequester.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me just say, I don't think anyone on this side of the aisle is not prepared to work collaboratively on the question of the deficit, on the question of growing America's economy and working with our children. Can we find common ground that indicates that we must invest in our children at the same time that we are likewise talking about debt and deficit? And that's what the Democrats are talking about, investing in our children, making their lives better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 297 the ``Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education

(GME) Support Reauthorization Act of 2013'' This legislation would authorize the appropriation of $110 million a year for 2013 through 2017, for payment toward the direct costs of graduate medical education in children's hospitals.

As the Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I understand the important of this vital program. The Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Program (CHGME) trains 40 percent of our Nation's pediatricians and more than half of our Nation's pediatric subspecialists. Each year, over 5,000 residents take part in this program.

We are all aware that we must continue to support the development and training of all medical professionals. Me must do more to ensure that we have enough qualified medical professional choosing to specialize in key fields in order to address the growth in both our baby boomers and child populations. I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction.

In the early 90's, we witnessed a thirteen percent decrease in the amount of qualified graduate medical students entering into pediatrics. Upon the enactment of the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education program we saw a significant increase in the amount of qualified medical school graduates choosing to enter into pediatrics, their numbers increased by 35 percent.

In 1999, Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education, CHGME, was enacted as part of the Healthcare Research and Quality Act to provide freestanding children's hospitals with discretionary federal support for direct and indirect expenses associated with operating medical residency training programs. Since few children's hospitals receive Medicare funds, the program is designed to correct the exclusion of pediatric training in the Medicare Graduate Medical Education, GME, program.

Under the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Program, direct medical education funding is designed to cover costs associated with stipends for residents, salaries, salaries for faculty, overhead and other costs of running a training program. The CHGME also provides indirect medical education funds that are designed to assist in expenditures such as reduced productivity of staff training residents and the processing of additional diagnostic tests those residents may order.

Graduate Medical Education, GME, begins upon graduation from medical school and passed the examination needed to obtain general board certification. GME in a specialty field (residency) and further specializations in a specific clinical field (fellowship) are generally provided in hospital settings with additional clinical experiences in non-hospital site. This can take between three and seven years to complete, depending on the medical, dental or podiatric specialty track chosen.

Freestanding children's hospitals receiving Federal GME funds have increased the number of residents and fellows that they are training since 2000:

The number of residents and fellows claimed for Federal support for the 2000 Federal fiscal year (FY) was about 4,263.

In the latest Government Performance Results Acts, GPRA, report for Federal FY 2009, the hospitals described training 5,631 pediatricians, pediatric subspecialists, and other physicians in the clinical care of children within the U.S.

Of the 5,631 resident FTEs being trained, about 48 percent were in general pediatrics, 24 percent were in pediatric subspecialties, and 28 percent were non-pediatric residents.

In FY 2009, 56 children's hospitals located in 30 states and Puerto Rico had nearly half a million inpatient discharges. Children's hospitals vary in size and service mix. The number of available beds at these hospitals varies from 30 to 456.

These freestanding children's hospitals provide services ranging from outpatient ambulatory care to inpatient critical care.

I'd like to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York and the distinguished gentleman from Nevada. I particularly want to thank them for hosting this vital discussion, this Special Order, and pay tribute to them for doing a service to the Nation.

When we speak on the floor of the House and we come from disparate States, from New York, Nevada, Texas, and Ohio--in fact, I think we have just about covered America--it has an amazing impact on our colleagues, and certainly constituents. So I owe and we all owe you a debt of gratitude for the forward thinking, and particularly since today has a double meaning. This is the 100th birthday of Rosa Parks. She is often called the Mother of Civil Rights. And then our President, over the last couple of weeks, and as the gentleman from Nevada knows, spent time with him, to speak eloquently about the need for this pathway of access to legalization going forward.

So I am grateful again for your willingness to host this and to begin to surge forward, collaborate with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and giving them information in their respective districts, and collaborating with the Asian Pacific Caucus, the Caribbean Caucus, and as well the Hispanic Caucus. I think there are three of us, but we now have a new Caribbean, on which a number of us serve, and as well the African diaspora, which includes our brothers and sisters that have been mentioned already on the floor. We can go vastly beyond them. It's my effort today, and I thank both the gentlemen from New York and from Nevada for some potent posters that I hope that I will share with all of you.

Let me share both words from President Obama and some abbreviated words from Dr. Martin Luther King. But the words from President Obama stated, as it relates to the question of immigration reform, that our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as the land of opportunity, until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.

I think the important part of this discussion tonight is to make sure that the landscape of immigration reform is a landscape of many faces, many heritages, many backgrounds, many regions in the United States, many continents, and that it is important for all of us to have a commitment to better opportunity for all. But as we do that, I think education is crucial. For as this discussion goes forward, I want my friends to know that there will be moments of great contention, there will be moments of disagreement, and there will be moments of misrepresentation.

It is important for the broad diaspora to understand that we are in this leaking boat together, and that when we utilize the term of ``civil rights'' or we use Rosa Parks or we speak to the words that Dr. King said on April 3, 1968, that said that he could see a Promised Land and that he might not get there with us, but he knew that we as a people would get there some day, I cannot imagine in the 50th year of his ``I Have a Dream'' speech that he could not foresee that America's diversity would be its strength, and that African Americans who came first to this country as slaves could then join with others who came in fishing boats, in airplanes, that walked across the border for greater opportunity and make America the dream, the great Nation, the Promised Land of which he predicted.

That is what immigration reform is. It is not to take from someone else and to give to someone else. It is not to diminish the civil rights struggle of the African American population. It is not to ignore the history of others, but it is to say that we have a common ground. That is the way that we're going to pass immigration reform.

If you are a Southerner and a Republican from the South, you have as much invested in an America that gives opportunity to all as you may be from the wonderful districts that are represented on this floor. And until we understand that in the House, and until the Speaker understands and accepts it, that this is not taking away, this is not undermining anyone's view of America, it is to say that the view of America is a promised land that so many come for. It is a recognition that Americans have come through the 1800s when the Irish came because of the famine, the Italians came in the early 1900s. Other groups have come since then, large numbers of Hispanics, Asian Americans, South Asian Americans, those who have come from the Asian Pacific area, those who have come from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, those who have come from the Caribbean, those who come from Africa. They have all come, and we have to recognize that.

One of the issues that seems to be coming up over and over again as we look at this issue, and I will speak specifically to the Senate's proposal, the general path to citizenship, it talks about the 11 million undocumented individuals, that the path of citizenship will only take place if the border is secured and visa overstays are effectively combated.

Let me be clear that great progress has been made over the Clinton administration, moving into the Bush administration, George Bush, and then on to the Obama administration, particularly in the Obama administration because you can begin to see any suggestion that we have not worked to secure the border is based upon lack of information and lack of facts. So I want to thank my colleague for a poster that, in fact, says that the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled in the past 10 years.

When I first began writing legislation in 2004, 2003, 2005, we were shortchanged on border security agents. Working with the Senate and working with Presidents, we funded the increase of border security or Border Patrol agents, and we can see now that the majority of agents are assigned to the U.S.-Mexican border, more than 16,000, and more-- and it's growing--that are basically at the border now. I think we can do more, if you will, for the northern border; and I look forward to working with my chairperson of the subcommittee on that issue.

But we cannot let the discussion get bogged down in talking about we can't provide some access to citizenship. In my legislation, I called it ``earned access to citizenship,'' which means there were fines to be paid, charitable issues to be paid, you must be vetted; but here on the Senate proposal, it talks about securing the border.

I want to be able to be responsive to their concerns, but they should also look at the facts, and they can see that between ICE and CBP, ICE is the internal enforcement, CBP, you can see the increase in the amounts of money that have gone up in the billions of dollars, now close to $18 billion between ICE and CBP, CBP being a little bit under $12 billion, that we have truly under the Obama administration been serious about border security. In fact, there is a poster board here that suggests that the deportations have gone up. That's not the right way to proceed.

So my point today is that there must be common ground. In the Senate, they talk about young, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. when they were children will have a more direct path to citizenship. That must be clear because those are the DREAM Act kids. And, in fact, those individuals are the talent that we are throwing away, young people who are in college who are contributing to society who can help bring their families, reunite their families, have been forced to deportation.

I want to congratulate the President for his executive order that provided a deferred adjudication for DREAM Act youngsters as a basis of saying that the ICE should enforce deportation on those who are a threat to our community and prioritize those distinctive from those who are here who are not doing us any harm who are being educated. So the Senate proposal talks about young people. It talks about the backlogs of legal immigration and family reunification and the employment visa process.

It also allows more immigrants performing lower-skilled occupations to

enter the country when we were created. I want to change that word. I don't like the idea of lower skilled. People come to work, if they are skilled, they have something to contribute, that is the basis upon which we should look at it. But I think for the Congressional Black Caucus it is always important to say because our communities suffer unemployment in many parts of the country more so than others, that it is important in any immigration reform that we ensure that the employer has looked very hard for a person who is eligible for that job here in the United States.

That's how we educate our population. That's how we bring together the right kind of collaboration. High-skilled immigrants should be all of us. High-skilled individuals should be those in historically black colleges, Hispanic-serving colleges. We should encourage them to be part of science, technology, engineering and math. However, when there is an immigrant that is graduating from our top universities, or any of our universities, we should not ask them to leave. It is very important to do. And we should ensure that they have opportunities.

The President's general path to citizenship provides a pathway to citizenship. These immigrants can register for provisional legal status. And his point is, which I believe we should join in, that we should not let border security get in the way of making sure that we move forward on a legal status process. Young people who, again, were brought here as children should have an expedited path to citizenship by attending college or by serving 2 years in the military. Slight differences that we can find a common ground, legal immigrants, he speaks to the plan would increase the percentage of family-sponsored immigrants coming into the country over every 7 years, from 7 to 15 percent.

This goes to a complaint that you will hear from those in Nevada, those in New York, those in your very diverse districts, they complain about--not complain--let me say it differently. They want to be reunited with their family members. And one of the starkest things that happens to any of us who visit with immigrants in our congressional office, what about the immigrant who wants to go home for a dying relative, or the relative wants to come because there is a dying relative here in the United States.

I had that happen in my district. I had a South Korean student who was shot on the streets of Houston, and tragically he became paralyzed. When his father came here to be able to comfort him, his father had been here, he went back out, he was held and detained. We finally got that resolved. But we must find a way to have this punishment, this pain, that so many of our immigrants are experiencing, we must find a way to be able to work on this in a productive and smart manner. This speaks to the fact that we have not been slouches, we have not been slouches as it relates to border security.

I want to speak to the issue of the diversity visa program, which was a target of our friends who maybe did not understand what that means. But the diversity visa program was to allow people who did not get in the normal visa system. It has proven to be a way of helping those who come from the continent of Africa, those who come from a number of other areas where it is very difficult to get a visa. Nearly 15 million people representing about 20 million with family members included were registered late last year for the 2012 diversity visa program under which only 15,000 visa winners were to be selected.

That shows the intensity of the diversity visa. And some want to get rid of it. It's a lot of African immigrants; it's a lot of people trying to come to be with their families. Diversity visa immigrants succeed and contribute to the U.S. economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY 2009, diversity visa immigrants were 2.5 times more likely to report managerial and professional occupations.

The founder of it, Representative Bruce Morrison, said that the heart of the definition of America is what this program is about. All nationalities are welcome. Ambassador Johnny Young said the program engenders hope abroad for those who are too often without it, hope for a better life. And so I hope as we look at immigration reform we will not attempt to eliminate opportunities to bring families together.

Finally, with respect to security issues, there's no significant evidence of a security risk with the diversity visa. The GAO found in 2007 no documented evidence.

These points about the issue of where we can come together and where there are distinctions is to raise the specter of how serious and difficult this process may be. The Congressional Black Caucus will be pivotal in its role, one, because it is the conscience of this Congress; two, because we have the uncanny ability of seeing from a broader perspective what we have gone through in our lifetime, what our communities go through. We've seen discrimination, and we are sympathetic and sensitive to how we can help others.

So I think the challenge is as we proceed on this process that all of us be included in this discussion, that the working group includes members of the Congressional Black Caucus and that as we encourage legislation to come to the Judiciary Committee, which is the committee that I sit on, the Immigration Subcommittee that Zoe Lofgren chairs and which I'm second on that committee, and as it goes through Homeland Security where the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. McCaul share the leadership, in Judiciary Mr. Conyers and Mr. Goodlatte, where I am the ranking member on the Border Security Subcommittee, that we, through the Congressional Black Caucus, find a way to uphold the values of our ancestors, uphold the values of the pioneers and leaders who have traveled through the journey of civil rights that we can see the plight and the pain of those who come now.

I want to say in closing that as a Member of the Congress having the privilege of serving the 18th Congressional District, even in a city like Houston, it is enormously diverse, having a large number of counselor offices, and people who have come from all walks of life, who have come through outdoors in the 18th Congressional District begging for help, pleading for their children not being deported, and I would say to my colleagues you can not, and those of you who come from this diverse background, fully understand what it's like to hear a mother's shrill scream in your office when you said to them that we are going to stop the deportation of your child. We've all understood that pain if we've encountered immigrants who do nothing more and want nothing more than to live the American Dream, who are paying taxes, building houses, and working for the betterment of us all, serving in the military and shedding blood.

For this reason I think it is crucial that we try to overcome the hurdles, the differences of opinion, the tension that will rise, and have a common place to start from and a common ending. And that is the betterment of all people who contribute and make America great.

Comprehensive immigration reform will not hurt those of us who stand on this floor, and we will not allow it to hurt those who we represent. It will be a focus roadmap for all of us to work for a great and wonderful promised land that Martin King dreamed about and spoke about a few years ago.

Will the gentleman yield for just one quick moment. I want to applaud him for that and just add two groups that we did not mention yet that will really be impacted by comprehensive immigration reform: Liberians who came here on deferred enforcement, who are now still in limbo and worked with us over the years. We've been, if you would say, advocates for them. And Haitians, who have a distinctive pathway into citizenship, who have certainly been contributing, fought with us in the Revolutionary War.

And you are absolutely right, the diversity visa has been a lifeline, not for terrorists, but a lifeline for hardworking immigrants. And I hope that when we debate this, as I said, mountains of tension or disagreement, that we can find common ground to include all these groups that will help better America and grow America strong.

I thank the gentleman very much from Massachusetts, and I thank my friend from Texas.

I would hope that all of us would commit to doing our job. And I know that my good friend recognizes that the Constitution in article I, section 8, requires the Congress to have the power to collect taxes and duties and to pay the debts, but also to be concerned about the general welfare.

Really what the administration says is that they support a long-term increase in the debt ceiling. And the reason why the people of the United States have not heard of this controversy is because the normal course of business constitutionally is for the Congress to consult with the Treasury, the Treasury to consult with the Congress, and the debt ceiling is raised in a manner that protects the general welfare of the American people.

But now we have a proposal that is driven by polling and brinksmanship. This is not the way to run a country. I heard a comedian some years ago say, What a great country. We are a great country. I love America. The Constitution emphasizes the greatness of this Nation, but we don't play politics with something that is the ordinary course of business.

Spending cuts is the responsible way to govern, but it is to govern in a way that we sit at the table of reconciliation and we don't break the backs of seniors who utilize Medicare and Social Security and veterans benefits. What we do is we sit at the table and we understand how to deal with the oncoming issue of the deficit. How do we do that? We do it with growth. But the Constitution has nothing in here that suggests, under this article, that we are to do brinksmanship and do 2 weeks or 3 weeks or to May. What happens in May, a crisis where we can't pay our military? The debt ceiling is paying the debt, and I am troubled by the fact that we would use this tactic.

I want bipartisanship. In fact, someone who raises issues about the vulnerable, like myself, has worked with my Republican friends. I look forward to do it. I'm an American. I believe in the Constitution, but you do not raise the debt ceiling in increments. The administration says, We won't stop it, but we want a long-term increase so that we can begin the rebuilding of this Nation.

Growth, the Constitution, that's what we should be talking about, making America better.

Madam Speaker, this measure will continue to ensure funding for all federal government obligations and allow the government to continue its day to day operations through May of 2013.

The U.S. Constitution is clear on the subject of the debt limit. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states in clear language that: ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.''

The American people and our economy are being held hostage to gimmicks driven by polls, and unfettered brinkmanship. On the cusp of the inauguration of our 44th President--a glorious occasion--the people deserve better.

Americans want a clean debt limit increase, which has been done numerous times, but the normal process by which the Treasury Secretary consults with the President and Congress seems to have hit a major roadblock. This obstructionist governing is based on a practice that seems to put ideology over pragmatism.

The President has stated:

``The Administration supports a long-term increase in the debt limit that would increase certainty and economic stability. . .Instead of short-term management of self-inflicted fiscal crises, the President believes there is now an opportunity to strengthen the economy by putting the Nation on a sounder fiscal path. Progress has already been made towards that goal.''

I would hope that my colleagues on the other side realize that these are trying times for the American people and brinkmanship is not the answer. This body must come up with a sensible solution to the pressing financial problems which plague our economy.

It is truly shameful that during the beautiful transcendent inaugural weekend, in which many of my Houston constituents were able to come and enjoy Washington, DC, hospitality; capped off by the celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday, Congress is back to the same bad sportsmanship which has crippled this body to the point of gridlock.

The measure provides funding authority for the first five months of 2013, through May 2013, to allow the government to service debts and obligations which we have previously incurred.

This legislation is filled with gimmickry because it would require House Members' salaries to be held in escrow if we House do not adopt a budget resolution and Senators' salaries to be held in escrow if the Senate doesn't do the same. It appears that my colleagues on the right have opted for form over substance.

We cannot continue to hold our Nation hostage, keeping the benefits of recipients of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare who have must have sleepless nights because they are worried about the disappearance of their monthly checks.

I support a long-term increase in the debt limit that would increase certainty and economic stability. The bill before us this morning, H.R. 325, is a short-term measure with unnecessary complications, needlessly perpetuating uncertainty in the Nation's fiscal system, though I would note that the Obama administration has given somewhat tepid support, and only because H.R. 325 lifts the immediate threat of default and indicates that my Congressional Republican colleagues have backed off an insistence on holding the Nation's economy hostage to extract drastic cuts in Medicare, education, and other programs that middle- class families depend on.

My colleagues want to buy time so that they can figure out how to squeeze the American taxpayer even more by devising bone-crunching cuts and slashes to entitlement programs--all of which is driven by rabid ideology--as opposed to sitting down and working with Democrats to come up with reasonable budget reforms which do not hurt seniors and the disadvantaged.

That is why Madam Speaker, I submitted an Amendment to the Rules Committee yesterday which:

``Establishes that it is the sense of Congress that the safety net for the most vulnerable among us, the 15.1 percent of Americans living below the poverty line which includes 21 percent of our nation's children, must be protected in any budget negotiations.''

Madam Speaker, Social Security is currently the only source of income for nearly two-thirds of older American households receiving benefits, and roughly one-third of those households depend on Social Security for nearly all of their income.

Half of those 65 and older have annual incomes below $18,500, and many older Americans have experienced recent and significant losses in retirement savings, pensions, and home values. Today, every dollar of the average Social Security retirement benefit of about $14,800 is absolutely critical to the typical beneficiary.

Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing. Social Security must pay all benefits from its own trust fund.

If there are insufficient funds to pay out full benefits, benefits are automatically reduced to the level supported by the program's own revenues.

For reasons like these, I may not oppose a short-term solution to the debt limit and look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues here in the House and the Senate to provide certainty and foment stability for the economy.

I would add that instead of short-term management of self-inflicted fiscal crises, I truly believe we have an opportunity to strengthen the economy by putting the Nation on a sounder fiscal path.

Progress has already been made towards that goal. In 2011, the President signed into law $1.4 trillion in spending reductions, not counting additional savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to seize this template and move forward--not backwards.

The fiscal agreement the President signed at the beginning of January increased revenue from high-income households by over $600 billion. Together with interest savings, these two steps will cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion over the next decade. We should have done more to address our revenue problem.

The President has made clear that he remains willing to work with both parties in the Congress to budget responsibly and to achieve additional deficit reduction consistent with the principles of balance, shared growth, and shared opportunity.

The President has also made clear that he will not have another debate with the Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they have already racked up through the laws that they passed. The President has made clear that the Congress has only two options--pay their bills, or fail to do so and put the Nation into default. And I am in complete agreement.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, spending for Medicare and Medicaid is projected to increase from 21 percent of non-interest federal spending in 2010 to 31 percent by 2020. The numbers are wonkish sounding but in terms of real dollars, the increase is mammoth. That is why we must address the spending issue in earnest but not using the paltry monthly income of seniors to pay for yachts for millionaires.

National spending on health care has grown about 2 percentage points per year faster than GDP over time. Federal revenues, however, have not kept pace, growing at roughly the same rate as GDP.

As a result, federal deficits will be driven upward by federal health programs unless their rate of growth is tamed. This discrepancy must be dealt with sooner rather than later, but no matter how you couch it, there is no better translation than the word: b-r-o-k-e.

I hasten to add that community health centers provide much needed, high-quality healthcare to over 20 million Americans. These centers are able to serve vulnerable portions of the American population, including racial and ethnic minorities, as well as rural and low-income Americans.

I want to give some pertinent facts about my district and why the certainty provided by H.R. 325 is so important.

The Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown Metropolitan Area consists of 10 counties: Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, San Jacinto and Waller.

The Houston metro area:

It ranks sixth among U.S. metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 5,867,489 as of mid-2009, and it covers more than 10,000 square miles, and has a gross product of $403.8 billion, according to The Perryman Group. This area recorded 2.54 million payroll jobs in November 2010, more than the job counts of 31 U.S. states, including Arizona, Colorado and Alabama.

The Houston economy has experienced a resurgence but let's remember the economic history:

The recession hit Houston in September '08. Our region lost 152,800 jobs through January '10. We began to recoup jobs starting in February that year and by October '11, the region had gained 153,000 jobs, or 101.1 percent of what we lost in the recession.

And though Houston faces some challenges in the near term, the long- term outlook is bright. The challenges are those of managing growth rather than economic stagnation. The long-term outlook for the Houston metro area is positive, and steady growth will be the norm for Houston for the foreseeable future. What Houston cannot afford right now is continued uncertainty from Washington, D.C.

Moreover, given the uncertainty of final funding decisions and the possibility that across-the-board spending cuts will occur in March unless Congress and the President can reach agreement to prevent the currently scheduled ``sequester,'' it is critical that we work towards bipartisan solutions to our nation's financial woes.

Given the U.S. economy is showing signs of progress, it is crucial that we continue to fund government programs without interruption.

Lastly, as a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees I understand the importance of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection mission to enforce drug, trade and travel laws in efforts to keep our borders safe; and the importance of ensuring that our nation remains safe from terrorists and others who would do harm to our nation.

In summation, I urge my colleagues to reject this poll-driven exercise in futility and give a clean debt ceiling vote so that the American people can carry-on with the business of achieving prosperity.

This is not a new law, new outlay, or some random exercise in the fulfillment of the Obama Doctrine. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, since March 1962, Congress has enacted 76 separate measures that have altered the limit on federal debt. Typically, the Treasury Secretary consults with the President and Congress, and the limit has been subsequently raised to accommodate our fiscal needs.

And I close with the sacred words from our Constitution. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states in clear language that: ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be question.''

And the President himself was transparent and sincere when he stated:

``H.R. 325 would temporarily allow the Congress to fund commitments to which it has already agreed. A temporary solution is not enough to remove the threat of default that Republicans in the Congress have held over the economy. The Congress should commit to paying its bills and pass a long-term clean debt limit increase that lifts self-inflicted and unnecessary uncertainty from the Nation's economy.''

I echo President Obama's words and wish that this House gets its house in order.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a magnificent day: the coming together for the second inauguration of Barack Obama and the honoring of Dr. Martin Luther King. In his speech, President Obama said something potent and powerful, and that is that freedom is a gift from God, but it is one that is not self-executing. A gentleman that I know very well, Dr. Reverend Samuel Smith of the Mount Horeb Baptist Church, knows about fighting for freedom.

Today, I rise to again affirm Roe v. Wade, which speaks about individual freedom, and to indicate that even as we discuss budget talks and the debt ceiling, we must recognize the freedom of the vulnerable to be safe and secure and to have the support to be able to have food and clothing and a home. That is freedom as well, my friends.

And so as we debate the questions of the debt ceiling and whether we have a budget, let us be reminded that freedom is a gift of God and that it should not be denied to those who are most vulnerable, those who are the weak, those who cannot stand for themselves. And the President made it very clear that freedom is not to the powerful. It is for all of us. We all are created equal, with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following excerpts from the Constitution.

article i

``Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and

collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts

and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the

United States . . .''

amendment i

``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the Government for a redress of grievances.''

amendment xiii

``Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,

except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have

been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or

any place subject to their jurisdiction.

``Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this

article by appropriate legislation.''

the 14th amendment xiv section 1

``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the

United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''

Madam Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 152 ``the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013,'' which will provide relief to citizens devastated by the impact of Superstorm Sandy.

Last month, the Administration requested $60.4 billion in federal aid to provide financial assistance to homeowners and businesses affected by Hurricane Sandy. Back on December 28, 2012, the Senate passed a $61 billion comprehensive aid package for the victims and communities by a vote of 62-32.

I am pleased that this body was able to pass H.R. 41, a $9.7 billion dollar bill which temporarily increased the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.

Now that the President has signed H.R. 41, victims of Superstorm Sandy are finally able to receive some much-needed relief from the federal government. The issue before us is that in no other time in the last 2 decades have victims had to wait this long for relief.

hurricane ike

Right after Hurricane Ike devastated Texas in September 2008, I worked hard with the Members of the Texas Congressional delegation to ensure that Texas was appropriated the recovery funds it so desperately needed. In early 2009, the State of Texas received part of these recovery funds, namely $219 million under the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Overall, the Federal Government provided over $1 billion of federal aid for hurricane Ike relief by June 2009 including: $103 million to the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston for debris removal, $35 million to the Sam Houston Electric Cooperative for restoration work and $10 million to the Trinity Bay Conservation District for debris removal. I understand the plight of the New York Delegation.

Hurricane Ike wreaked havoc on Texas, particularly in Galveston and Houston. As we move forward with recovery efforts, it became clear that the impact of the storm had been widespread and many people were still in need of assistance. I suspect that these are the same circumstances under which the survivors of Hurricane Sandy find themselves. I want to remind everyone in this Chamber that during Hurricane Ike, more than 60 Americans and over 26 Texans died. Moreover, it resulted in the evacuation of over 1 million residents and caused over $11 billion worth of damage.

Hurricanes of the magnitude that we have faced over the last decade require a federal

response. We have a duty and an obligation to help our neighbors. I am surprised by those who are quick to say that this situation is different that the Hurricanes that came before. Hurricane Sandy like Ike and Katrina took lives, destroyed homes, and devastated communities. Again, Hurricane Ike caused millions of dollars in damage throughout Houston and Galveston. The local agencies processing the people impacted by Hurricane Ike for which these funds were utilized, received these funds from the state and federal agencies six months late, but they did receive funds because the funds were available. The victims of Sandy are still waiting for a federal response.

The road to recovery and reconstruction was not easy after hurricane Ike, but with the cooperation of the United States government, those states affected were able to recover. I saw the destruction that hurricane Ike caused to the city of Houston's infrastructure and I have also seen how the city of Houston was able to rebuild damaged roadways and bridges. Galveston was able to rebuild its shoreline, which has recently experienced its most lucrative tourist season since Hurricane Ike. With the necessary federal assistance, communities can recover from disaster.

Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina took the lives of 1,833 men, women, and children, while leaving roughly 400,000 people without jobs. Close to 275,000 homes were lost as a result of the record-breaking storm surge that developed and the dozens of levees that couldn't withstand the rage of Katrina. Hurricane Katrina caused an estimated $108 billion in damage, becoming America's costliest hurricane.

I would like to take a moment to paint a picture for Members of this body about the differences in response to this Hurricane and that of Hurricane Katrina, just in terms of funding. On the morning of August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the United States ravaging Americans from Texas to Florida, and even as far inland as the Ohio valley. In 5 days, on September 2, 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law a bill to provide $10.5 billion in emergency funding for disaster relief related to Hurricane Katrina. Six days later, Congress passed another bill for $51.8 billion in emergency appropriations. It took a total of 10 days for Congress to approve $62.3 billion in emergency funding for Hurricane Katrina relief. Here we are today, nearly 2 months after Sandy, still debating Hurricane Sandy funding.

Over 7 years ago, I sat down with NPR's Ed Gordon as a part of a special roundtable to discuss the impact of Hurricane Katrina and Washington's tremendously slow response time to disaster relief efforts. I recall the anger and frustration in the hearts and minds of Americans across the country at the Bush Administration's seemingly lack of urgency in dealing with the disaster.

At the time, Congress was able to pass an initial emergency relief bill worth $10 billion 4 days after Katrina made landfall, and then pass an additional $52 billion in funding 6 days after that. It took 10 days for congress to pass a Katrina relief bill worth $62.3 billion, and yet a comprehensive relief bill for Sandy has not yet been approved.

We now stand 78 days after the hurricane, which is appalling when you consider the fact we are dealing with Americans' humanity and livelihoods. We forecast these disasters; 10 days was too long for Katrina, and 78 days after Sandy is simply unacceptable.

After Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast of the United States I, along with several other Members of Congress, introduced legislation to protect the families and businesses financially overwhelmed by the disaster.

When the Judiciary Committee considered the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act at the beginning of 2005, I offered an amendment to protect the victims of natural disasters like those who were unfortunately, eventually, devastated by Hurricane Katrina later that year.

Immediately after Hurricane Katrina, Members of Congress and I continued to fight for financial relief for those affected by natural disasters because that is the American way; we take care of our nation's most vulnerable citizens regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status or unfortunate circumstance. I'd like to think that 7 years after the passage of federal funds for the most expensive hurricane in our nation's history, that when the next massive storm arrives, law makers would be able to approve emergency relief bills in less than 10 days. Sadly, with Sandy, it seems as though we are moving in the opposite direction.

Since this historic storm devastated the east coast in late October, the people impacted by the storm, particularly those in the Tri-State area of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, have been waiting patiently for the federal government to act as they continue to engage in efforts to rebuild their communities.

However, the time for patience has long since expired, and these Americans can no longer wait for Congress to act to provide comprehensive relief.

For families without a home, and for businesses without a storefront or customers, this situation has been an ongoing nightmare. These families and businesses have been waiting for Congress to join them in their struggle to pick up the pieces and put their communities back together.

The proposal before us is our opportunity to step up and help to restore these suffering communities; that is the role of the federal government. Every state in this country is, at any given moment in time, at risk for experiencing a devastating and costly natural or manmade disaster.

When state and local governments face overwhelming challenges that are too big and too expensive to ever hope to resolve in isolation, the federal government should be there to quickly assist them in their recovery. That is what makes us strong as a nation; that we can come together when necessary to prevent the pieces of our country from crumbling individually.

Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding my excused absence from rollcall votes 11-23 on Tuesday, January 15, 2013. I was unavoidably delayed on my return to Washington due to official business in my district.

I would have voted ``aye'' for my following rollcall votes: 12, 15, 22, 23.

I would have voted ``no'' for my following rollcall votes: 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

Authorizing the Clerk to Correct Engrossment

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and join the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus to address the pervasive culture of violence that exists in America today.

The community in Newtown, Connecticut--along with the rest of the country--is still reeling from the inconceivable tragedy that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012; our hearts still ache with sadness and disbelief for the families and loved ones of the children and women who lost their lives in this senseless act of violence.

As the Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have listened to the tragic testimony of individuals who have survived or lost loved ones as a result of gun violence.

In the words of President Obama after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, ``We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.''

While it is certainly true that violent crime and homicide rates in this country have been declining in recent years, they are still far above those in other industrialized nations.

Moreover, in America, there exists a pernicious culture of violence; a subculture that with today's technologically advanced weaponry is far more dangerous to public safety than ever before. At no point in our nation's history has a single human been more capable of inflicting massive death and misery, and our society is producing more individuals who wish to employ such means to carry out their ill intentions.

Far too often, the tool of choice for would-be killers is a firearm. Moreover, military-style assault weapons with high-capacity magazines are not just in the hands of our men and women in the armed services; they on our streets. Many of them are in the wrong hands, and end up being the highly efficient tools of criminals and mass murderers.

Today marks a month since the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. In that time, at least 836 more people in America have died from gun violence and accidental shootings.

This isn't a fluke; every day, on average, 33 Americans are murdered with guns, amounting to more than 12,000 people a year. In addressing this issue, I recognize and respect other cultures that exist in America; law-abiding citizens who are responsible in their ownership of firearms. Many of these citizens are reasonable with respect to the lethal capacity of their firearms, opting not to obtain assault weapons or to equip assault weapons with 30, 50, 75, or 100-round magazines.

Our reaction to, God forbid, the next time a madman enters a crowded movie theatre with the intent to kill, cannot simply be to wish that there was an armed good Samaritan in the audience who had the courage, opportunity and ability to stop a psychopathic shooter wielding a semi- automatic weapon equipped with a high-capacity magazine.

I commend the President for convening a Gun Violence Task Force, and Vice President Biden for his outstanding leadership.

As the President develops policy recommendations, as Members of Congress, we need to act as well.

H.R. 65: ``The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013''

We have all been shaken by tragic events in which children are the victims of gun violence or accidents. Whether these events occurred in Newtown, CT, Aurora, CO, or on the streets of Chicago, IL, we need to effectively address the safety of our children immediately. Urban, suburban, or rural, guns have impacted children across the demographic spectrum.

While the nation's attention has often been drawn toward some of the more high-profile events, the broader statistics are disturbing, demonstrating a real need to address how we protect our nation's children from gun violence.

Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America dies or is injured by a gun. Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm. In 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns. To put that in perspective, 58 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty that year.

As the 113th Congress debates various proposals for gun legislation in light of recent tragedies, we can act now to pass H.R. 65, a bill with common sense standards that is focused on protecting our nation's children from gun violence and accidents.

H.R. 65 will raise the handgun eligibility age from 18 to 21, and will prohibit persons under the age of 21 from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity magazines.

Moreover, H.R. 65 increases penalties on individuals who knowingly transfer a handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device to a person under age 21.

In addition, H.R. 65 will also prohibit importers, manufacturers, and dealers from transferring firearms without providing the purchaser with a gun storage or safety device.

Finally, H.R. 65 authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to provide grants to enable local law enforcement agencies to develop and sponsor gun safety classes for parents and children.

These provisions, and others, can go a long way toward making our homes, schools, and streets safer for children across this country. We may not be able to prevent every gun-related tragedy from occurring in the future, but we have a responsibility to implement reasonable standards that will prevent the loss of innocent lives.

As we call for legislation to address gun related violence, it is also important to address another growing epidemic . . . the epidemic of bullying. We live in a society where children are exposed to so many different influences. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of children who have to face bullies in the classroom and in cyberspace. As we discuss the culture of violence, we must always remember the impact that this culture has on our nation's children.

Madam Speaker, I thank very much the gentlelady from the District of Columbia for her clarification; and I, frankly, thank you for having the wisdom in months and years back to have these corrections and these improvements in FEMA, and I know they welcome it.

I am a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and served as the ranking member on Transportation Security, but know firsthand, as the committee that shares jurisdiction over FEMA, firsthand, in living color, the catastrophe and tragedy of Hurricane Katrina; both in my visits and almost living in New Orleans, as many of our Members did, and then in welcoming over a quarter of a million-plus of New Orleanians into Houston, Texas, being there inside the Astrodome, and seeing eons and eons and layers of beds of people who are Americans and who were Americans who, one could not call them broken, those survivors, if you will, from Hurricane Katrina were not broken. They were people who had worked and had homes and paid taxes.

And so today, Madam Speaker, those who are survivors of Hurricane Sandy are not broken. They are not the cornerstone of the fault of bureaucracy or misuse. They are, in fact, survivors. They are Americans who need our help.

And I'd like to add to this discussion, certainly. I join and want to comment on one or two of the changes here. In particular, the individual assistance factors, I think, will be very helpful to expedite the declaration process for individuals.

I'm very grateful that one of the changes they made, thank goodness, and this is what happened to our seniors, fixing their homes instead of putting them in FEMA trailers. What a celebration.

How many had to stay in FEMA trailers down in the gulf forever and ever and ever while they watched their homes deteriorate because a few simple repairs could not be made. That is a much-needed step.

But I join my colleague from New Jersey and say, how can people who are broken and who are in need come up with 35 percent? And I hope that this will be one that is reconsidered.

Let me quickly suggest that I am in support of the $5.4 billion for FEMA disaster relief. I'm in support for the $5.4 billion for the Department of Transportation. Anybody who's been on the east coast and seen the transportation corridor and the congestion

and the synergism between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New York realizes that this is crucial.

The $3.9 billion for community block grant, I am told that there are Hurricane Sandy islanders, people on Staten Island, people on Coney Island, who are living in New York downtown hotels. I'm sure in a better day they would enjoy living in high-rise, high-class hotels; but they are people that want to go back to their home, and I'm delighted that we'll have that.

And then I want to support the additional amendment that calls for, the gentleman from New Jersey, $33 billion unfettered dollars that will help additional resources.

I believe that we should have done this last week. But I know that my colleagues will be reading the Constitution tomorrow, so let me read from article I, section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,

duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for

the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

My God, my God, can we provide for the general welfare of those Hurricane Sandy survivors who are not victims but have lost loved ones and, in fact, are the second most-costly hurricane in America's history, Katrina, Sandy, and Hurricane Ike.

I speak from what I know. I beg of this Congress to vote for the New Jersey amendment for $33 billion and, as well, the others; and let us be able to look back on their needs and go back to the table to help them if they are in need. The Constitution asks us to do that.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 219, ``the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013,'' this bill is designed to speed up disaster relief granted through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) it amends Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to Expedite hazard mitigation projects by streamlining the environmental review and requires the President to establish an expedited review for environmental and historic requirements for rebuilding damage infrastructure. Further, the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act will give local governments' greater flexibility to consolidate or rebuild facilities by allowing FEMA to issue fixed price grants on the basis of damaged estimates instead of a traditional entitlement guarantee to cover all cost increases over time.

Last month, the Administration requested $60.4 billion in federal aid to provide financial assistance to homeowners and businesses affected by Hurricane Sandy.

In the 112th Congress, on December 28, 2012, the Senate passed a $61 billion comprehensive aid package for the victims and communities by a vote of 62-32.

I am pleased that this body was able to pass H.R. 41, $9.7 billion bill which temporarily increased the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.

Now that the President has signed H.R. 41, victims of Superstorm Sandy are finally able to receive some much-needed relief from the federal government.

However, the relief that H.R. 41 granted was limited in scope and insufficient to address the entirety of the situation faced by residents of the affected areas. The House must finish the job. Again the measure before us today does not appropriate additional funds, but it does attempt to address the backlog. This bill would:

Cut debris removal costs dramatically by utilizing reforms from a successful 2006 Debris Removal Pilot program that enable operations to be conducted in a more cost-effective manner and incentivize the completion of projects on-time and under budget.

Save money, as demonstrated by a 2006 pilot program, by authorizing FEMA to make limited repairs to existing housing structures when those repairs cost less than a lease payment for traditional FEMA trailers.

Adjudicate claim disputes quicker and avoid cost overruns, the bill establishes a limited dispute resolution pilot.

Require FEMA to review and update factors for individual assistance disaster declarations to make them less subjective. Provides for disaster declarations for tribal communities.

Direct FEMA to submit recommendations to Congress for the development of national strategy to reduce future costs, loss of life, and injuries associated with extreme disaster events.

Since this historic storm devastated the east coast in late October, the people impacted by the storm, particularly those in the Tri-State area of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, have been waiting patiently for the federal government to act as they continue to engage in efforts to rebuild their communities.

However, the time for patience has long since expired, and these Americans can no longer wait for Congress to act to provide comprehensive relief.

For families without a home, and for businesses without a storefront or customers, this situation has been an ongoing nightmare. These families and businesses have been waiting for Congress to join them in their struggle to pick up the pieces and put their communities back together.

The proposal before us is our opportunity to step up and help to restore these suffering communities; that is the role of the federal government.

Every state in this country is, at any given moment in time, at risk for experiencing a devastating and costly natural or manmade disaster. When state and local governments face overwhelming challenges that are too big and too expensive to ever hope to resolve in isolation, the federal government should be there to quickly assist them in their recovery. That is what makes us strong as a nation; that we can come together when necessary to prevent the pieces of our country from crumbling individually.

I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the proponent of this legislation. It is obviously needed.

I come from the gulf region. We lost thousands and thousands and thousands from hurricanes. Hurricane Ike saw this Congress give us $3 billion. I stand here today to remind you that a police officer died, a 13-year-old died from debris falling on her, and a mother saw her two children drawn from her hands and drowned in Hurricane Sandy. It is long overdue.

I stand here as someone who has been a beneficiary, who has cried with those

who have lost. I demand that this money be passed today, but more importantly, I demand that we pass the total amount of money right now, today. Let's help the American people. Let's help those impacted by Sandy. Let's help my fellow Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 41, ``To Temporarily Increase The Borrowing Authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for Carrying Out National Flood Insurance Program.''

I urge this new 113th Congress to start the New Year off right by acting swiftly in support of legislation to fund disaster relief assistance for the victims of Superstorm Sandy.

Since this historic storm devastated the east coast in late October, the people impacted by the storm, particularly those in the Tri-State area of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, have been waiting patiently for the federal government to act as they continue to engage in efforts to rebuild their communities.

However, the time for patience has long since expired, and these Americans can no longer wait for Congress to act.

68 days have passed since the storm surged onto the shores of Atlantic City, New Jersey. It has been a long 67 days for families without a home, and for businesses without a storefront or customers. For 67 days, these neighborhoods have struggled to pick up the pieces and put their communities back together, and Congress must step in-- immediately--to lend a helping hand.

As the representative for the 18th District in Texas, I know the massive and protracted destruction that storms like this can cause both to property and, more importantly, to the lives of citizens who are left to rebuild their lives and restore all that they have lost.

After the initial disaster response and search and rescue phases, we must begin to rebuild, a process that calls for a long-term commitment from officials in state, local, and federal government.

We can all recall Hurricane Ike in 2008, which heavily impacted many constituents in my district. At least 74 people lost their lives in the State of Texas, with 28 in Harris County and 17 in Galveston. Over 200,000 homes in the Houston-Galveston region were left damaged or destroyed as a result of Ike.

Congress appropriated $3 billion to Texas to help finance the infrastructure and housing recovery, which included individual and household assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, public assistance grants to state and local government and nonprofit organizations to pay for debris removal, emergency protective measures and road repairs, and low-interest disaster loans provided by the Small Business Administration.

My visits to the affected areas fundamentally evidenced the need for long-term recovery and to get people back on their feet. My constituents and others in the affected areas needed and greatly appreciated the federal assistance they received, and so now that Americans in other parts of our nation need our help, we must move in a bipartisan fashion to provide it.

As a nation, we continue to mourn the loss of at least 125 people in the United States and a total of 253 people due to Superstorm Sandy (60 in New York, 48 New York City; 34 in New Jersey; 16 in Pennsylvania, 7 in West Virginia).

As devastating as Hurricane Ike was, the damage to property it caused (an estimated $29.5 billion) the costs associated with Superstorm Sandy are expected to be significantly higher. While we do not yet know the final numbers, the total amount of property damage resulting from Superstorm Sandy exceeds $62 billion. In terms of dollars of property destruction, this ranks Superstorm Sandy second only to Hurricane Katrina ($128 billion, adjusted for inflation)(note: Hurricane Ike ranks 3rd).

Food, shelter and clothing are basic necessities, and right now far too many people are without access to them during these holidays and in brutally cold weather. With more cold weather in sight, things are not going to get any easier for residents of those communities.

Economic conditions in many affected communities are stagnant; stalled because the federal government has yet to provide funding. It took 10 days for Congress to approve roughly $50 billion in aid for Katrina, but Congress has not provided aid for those affected by Sandy for more than two months.

We need to restore a sense of calm and stability in the lives of people affected by Superstorm Sandy. We need to ensure that small businesses in the affected areas are able to rebound as expeditiously as possible so that they can get the local economies moving again.

I am encouraged that relief for Superstorm Sandy has received bipartisan support, but now we must follow through with action. We know that disasters affect all of us at one point or another, and we must come together as one nation to give people access to relief that, realistically, only the federal government can provide. However, this should have been done no less than 5 days after the horrible Hurricane Sandy--now we are only during half way--let's vote today on the full 60 billion dollars in relief today. Let's not watch people died and people are suffering after hurricane! We can not wait until January 15, 2013-- now is the time to help the people suffering in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

I join with my earlier colleague in acknowledging the 150th year of the Emancipation Proclamation. What a moving moment last evening at the National Archives when I read the words: Hence forth these slaves are free.

I rise with a more optimistic view and a view that says we have the opportunity to do what is right by the American people. But we must also recognize that we have to tell the truth. At the end of the Clinton administration, this Nation had $5 trillion in surplus. But with wasteful tax cuts and spending by our Republican friends, we find ourselves in this deficit.

I don't know what my decision will be as we move forward on this issue of the fiscal cliff, but I will say this: we will not tolerate the American people being held hostage over the debt ceiling and these unhelpful cuts that will cut into those who are the most vulnerable. That will not be the pathway that we will take because every economist will tell you that if you invest in your people and build infrastructure, you will grow this country and you'll turn this economy and you'll be able to get people jobs. That's the message that will come forth from this day, January 1, when we are here in this Congress.

I want the American people to be optimistic because there are Members of Congress that will fight for your growth, your opportunity, your freedom. That is what America is all about.

I'll add my appreciation to the service of Mr. Dreier as well.

And ask the question: Why are we here? I know why I'm here--to protect working Americans, the vulnerable and middle class. The reason why we're in this position is because at the end of the Clinton administration we had $5 trillion in surplus, and it went out the window with Bush tax cuts and wars that we could not pay for.

So I stand here today to say that working class and the vulnerable will have their unemployment insurance and earned income tax and cuts in their taxes that they really need, but we still have work to do. I want to make sure that we restore some very serious cuts that impact on the health care of Americans.

We have work to do on the sequestration. Our fight is the same fight that Richard Trumka has with the AFL-CIO. We're here to make sure that the working Americans, the most vulnerable, do not pay for the rich getting richer. We're going to fight against Social Security cuts and Medicare cuts and Medicaid cuts.

What we have to do today is to make sure that we can go forward, but we should not do it without the understanding that there's some restoration work and there's some fight work in the sequestration. It will not be done on the backs of those who cannot pay. But we will work together as Americans to make things better. That is what I hope we will see as we go forward.

I want to thank the Senate for putting that bill forward that now we have to address.

First of all, I want to thank Mr. Gowdy very much for the attentiveness to this legislation and shepherding it so that it has come from the Senate and accepting the Senate amendment.

I am on Homeland Security, and I believe that the amendment that has been provided under this legislation originally, H.R. 2076, will expand your intent, and I believe that you believe it as well.

I think it is very important to emphasize that we now have extra investigatory skills and techniques and a collaborative effort between Homeland Security personnel and those in the Department of Justice to be utilized by the Homeland Security Secretary, and as well the Attorney General, helping to investigate violent acts or shootings that occur in venues such as schools, colleges, universities, non-Federal office buildings, and other places of public use. This includes mass killings that are three or more killings in a single incident.

We all recognize the tragedy of Newtown, but there are tragedies that have faced us over the last couple of years. The President indicated Newtown was the worst day of his administration, but compounded was the Aurora killings, the killings in the Sikh temple, and the acts of heinous murder that occurred in Houston, Texas, where a mother and her daughter were murdered on Christmas Eve. So there are times when the local authorities need immediate assistance.

Or the time when we had a child predator. Although this legislation may not define violent acts as such, I can tell you that the community felt violated when a number of children were preyed upon. Through the kindness and the understanding of the local FBI office in Houston and my persistence and the difficulty of coordinating with local authorities because of the sort of uncomfortableness of the involvement of the Federal Government, we overcame that and they participated, and shortly thereafter the predator was captured. Children are impacted, and that is why this legislation is enormously important.

I also want to take note of the fact that the gentleman from South Carolina is right that the FBI did not have statutory authority to assist in the investigation of mass killings or other violent crimes that are carried out in non-Federal public places such as schools and universities. We now have put forward this Federal law.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2076, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2011. This legislation is an appropriate and necessary measure to keep our citizens safe.

Currently the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, does not have statutory authority to assist in the investigation of mass killings or other violent crimes that are carried out in non-federal public places, such as schools and universities. As of now, when the FBI is asked by state and local law enforcement to assist with related investigations, they frequently comply with the request, despite the possibility that in doing so, the responding officers may be found to be acting outside of their jurisdiction.

The Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act grants specific authority to the FBI to respond when asked for help by state and local law enforcement, without expanding the jurisdiction of the FBI. The bill allows the FBI to assist in the investigation of a violent crime or mass killing only when asked to do so.

The FBI has lent their resources to several high profile investigations in recent history. Last September, when an armed intruder entered the Discovery Communications Building in Rockville, Maryland, the FBI SWAT team assisted the Montgomery County Police Department, and FBI investigators processed the crime scene. In 2009, the American Civic Center in Binghamton, New York was the site of a mass killing when an armed subject killed 13 people. The FBI was asked to assist, and lent their Evidence Response Team, Victim Assistance program, and Behavioral Analysis unit. The FBI also assisted in the investigation to identify the student who opened fire at Virginia Technical Institute in 2007.

The FBI lent invaluable assistance to state and local law enforcement to these and many other cases. However, as the law currently standards, there is no specific statutory authority allowing them to do so. The Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act specifically authorizes, by legal statute, that which the FBI is consistently asked and expected to do.

This bill is an important measure aimed at increasing the safety and security of the American people. When faced with a mass killing or other violent crime, our state and local law enforcement officials should have access to every necessary resource in order to mitigate the situation, identify the perpetrators, and bring them to justice. In Houston, Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, the FBI reports that 22,491 violent crimes in 2010. I know that my constituents would appreciate knowing that their local law enforcement officials have access to the resources of the FBI, should they need them.

As a senior Member of both the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, I have worked tirelessly to ensure the safety of the American people, and this legislation does just that. I am pleased at the bipartisan manner in which this bill is being considered, and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2076, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act.

I think that is enormously important. Again, I congratulate the passage of this legislation, and I am particularly sensitive to the utilization of the SWAT team.

I will take a moment, just to deviate, to be able to thank the chairman of the

committee and the ranking member and the ranking member on the Crime Subcommittee for their commitment and interest in children. Today, we were going to further proceed with our commitment to children, and that is in the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant. But my fight will continue in the next term, and I want to thank you, Mr. Smith, for understanding that the practical aspect of what we were doing was to save children and to prevent a youngster like this from not having a juvenile system that they could in fact have access to. It plays into some of what Mr. Gowdy is speaking about, but it plays into an earlier stage, and that is to ensure that there are court systems, there are mental health systems, there are a number of other systems that our juveniles can have access to that are intervention; that in fact we can take note of the fact that juveniles are bullied, that there's cyberbullying. But I believe it's important to stand to fight for another day.

So as we support the legislation of Mr. Gowdy, I want to be able to thank all of those who stood crying in a hearing in Houston, Texas, in the fall of 2010, fighting about whether or not this Federal Government would make a statement, a positive statement, about resources to help with bullying and the intervention of such, and to do it in a way that could be effectively utilized. I think we came up with that in H.R. 6019, in all the compromise that we came about, and frankly sometimes the English language is not perfect and people cannot understand what we are trying to do.

But to come back to this legislation, H.R. 2076 will be a good, fitting end for the Judiciary Committee, and in 2013 I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant reauthorization so that critical issues such as youth violence, juvenile crime prevention, mental health screening and treatment, among others, that would help millions of children can be in place. If we can have a situation where we reauthorize what my original bill, H.R. 83, offered to do, I will be right there being enthusiastic. If we have to find a common place of compromise, I will be there as well, because that is what we are here to do, to work on behalf of the American people and the children that we represent.

It is important to note that we are doing something good in the Judiciary Committee. I hope that we will have the opportunity to work together more closely in 2013 and be able to do the good work that many of us have advocated and work with a number of groups and families who have been victims without the right kind of resources, which we were trying to implement.

With that, I want to submit into the Record a number of documents on my remarks that I have just made, and I ask my colleagues to support the legislation of Mr. Gowdy.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC.

Support H.R. 6019: The Juvenile Accountability Block Grant

Reauthorization Act 2012

Dear Colleague: I invite you to join me in supporting

legislation that seeks to provide grants through the

Department of Justice to States for the creation and

operation of programs that address critical issues such as

youth violence, juvenile crime prevention, and mental health

screening and treatment, among others, which would help

millions of children throughout our nation. H.R. 6019

reauthorizes the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants, JABG,

and would allow a portion of those funds to also be used by

States for a number of intervention programs.

H.R. 6019 authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to

States and local governments to strengthen their juvenile

justice systems and foster accountability within their

juvenile populations. As previously stated, JABG funds

support seventeen program purpose areas, allowing local

governments to utilize funding for a variety of activities

including hiring juvenile court judges, probation officers,

and court-appointed defenders. Moreover, local governments

will have access to funding for programs derived from

evidence-based models and best practices that address, among

other issues, those related to bullying and cyberbullying,

including prevention and intervention.

I hope you will lend your support to this effort on behalf

of our nation's children to create and support programs

designed to address these critical issues and help create a

better juvenile justice system in America. Together, we can

do a great deal to ease and end the suffering of millions of

children nationwide.

If you have any questions or need further information,

please contact Janice Bashford at 202.225.3816, or,

[email protected].

Very Truly Yours,

Sheila Jackson Lee,

Member of Congress.