Floor Statements

Mr. Chair I rise in support of amendment No. 46 to H.R. 4310 ``National Defense Authorization Act,'' NDAA, offered by Ranking Member Adam Smith and Rep. Justin Amash. It would strike section 1022 of the FY2012 NDAA and amends Section 1021 of same Act to eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in U.S., territories or possessions by providing immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States or by an appropriate State court.

This amendment would bar any President or any other government official from ordering the military to put anyone in the United States, or its territories or possessions, into indefinite detention without charge or trial, or to put anyone in the United States on trial before a military commission.

Federal criminal courts are open, operating, experienced, and secure--and are the appropriate venue for any proceedings here in the United States itself.

The Bill of Rights applies to all persons within the United States and its territories, this amendment is consistent with 232 years of constitutional precedent as it does not pick and choose between which persons on located on U.S. soil will receive constitutional protections.

Further, the amendment bars the transfer of anyone in the United States to the military for indefinite detention without charge or trial. This provision is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act, and would provide an additional protection against any misuse of civilian law enforcement as a way to put suspects into military detention without charge or trial.

It is fully consistent with the Constitution, with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, and with the Non-Detention Act of 1971. It will reinforce the protections that most Americans assume apply--and do apply--within the United States.

Since 2001, this executive power has only been utilized 3 times which makes it clear that it is not necessary to protect our national security; however, creates a gap in our civil liberties.

This amendment would repeal section 1022 of last year's NDAA. Section 1022 requires the military to put some civilian suspects into military detention.

The current Administration has waived application of section 1022 to many groups of potential suspects, it has not foreclosed the possibility of section 1022 being applied to all categories of civilians, including even within the United States itself. To ensure this provision will not be used against those living in the United States under section 1022 of last year's NDAA is to repeal it.

Our military is designed to fight our battles overseas and to protect our borders they are not designed to enforce domestic laws.

The military has not been required to enforce domestic laws since the Civil War. We have a Department of Justice, State and Federal Prosecutors, and local law enforcement that have been successful for hundreds of years.

The amendment reaffirms the importance and availability of due process protections for all persons within the United States. It prohibits the NDAA detention provisions from providing any authority for the military to detain persons under any claim of authority under the NDAA or the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting civil liberties and upholding the constitution by supporting this amendment.

Lodged in between our commemoration of Memorial Day and our fallen loved ones and heroes and Flag Day, which we stand proudly to wave the flag, I really stand here as a friend that is deeply saddened by something that I think has never occurred, and that is to allow Americans, through the McGovern-Smith amendment, to really speak to all of our Members.

And I think America would agree: None of us should be challenged with our patriotism. But if we raise the question of what are the next steps in Afghanistan, it is not a diminishing of the service of our men and women. It is not the eliminating of our responsibility to be able to assure the safety and security of the Afghan people. It is to allow Members of Congress to represent their constituents on both sides of the aisle to raise the question: What are the next steps and how will we bring our troops home safely?

This amendment should be allowed to be discussed, just as we're discussing the potential removal and where we are eliminating the language and the ability to remove citizens and to hold them indefinitely.

It is the American way, Madam Speaker. I beg of us to do this in a bipartisan way and to allow the McGovern-Smith amendment to go forward.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support my amendment to H.R. 4310 ``National Defense Authorization Act,'' which would require the Secretary of Defense prior to the awarding of defense contract to private contractors, to conduct an assessment to determine whether or not the Department of Defense has carried out sufficient outreach programs to include minority and women-owned small business.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have sponsored legislation that promotes diversity. I stand proudly before you today to call for renewed vigor in advocating and constructing effective policies that will make the United States the most talented, diverse, effective, and powerful workforce in an increasingly globalized economy.

This amendment will require the Department of Defense to consider the impact that changes to outsourcing guidelines will have on small minority and women owned business by requiring them to engage with these businesses.

Promoting diversity is more than just an idea it requires an understanding that there is a need to have a process that will ensure the inclusion of minorities and women in all areas of American life.

Small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country.

Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services.

The Small Business Administration, SBA, a federal organization that aids small businesses

with loan and development programs, is a key provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America.

I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center programs.

These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, including business plan development, finance, and marketing.

My amendment would require the Department of Defense to assess whether their outreach programs are sufficient prior to awarding contracts. The Department of Defense should investigate what impact their regulations have on minority and women owned small businesses.

Outreach is key to developing healthy and diverse small businesses.

I thank the gentleman. And certainly I've worked with the gentleman from California on a number of issues, and I rise in vigorous opposition to this amendment as the cochairman and founder of the Pakistan Caucus. And let me frame the reason.

First of all, we have a very responsible and sizable Pakistani American community that champions the idea of a democratic and economically stable Pakistan. It was only a few years ago that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. However, the government that has carried on, although living in a difficult neighborhood and having difficult challenges, is a result of her efforts to try to bring democracy to Pakistan.

The people of Pakistan live in a very difficult neighborhood, and if we abandon this assistance--obviously, defense assistance--we abandon the people of Pakistan. We abandon those who want an education and economic stability. We abandon those soldiers in the Pakistani military who have fallen in battle fighting against terrorists. We will abandon those who have been in the Swat Valley. We will abandon those who have been in the mountains of Pakistan.

It will abandon those who are fighting for democracy, with the Pakistani President heading to participate in NATO with Ambassador Sherry Rehman here, who interacts with Members of Congress.

Let me tell the American people, Pakistan is an effective ally with challenges, and we should not deny them the opportunity to correct and turn the corner. I ask my colleagues to recognize the value of Pakistan's alliance. It is better to be engaged than to not be engaged.

Let us oppose this amendment. It is the wrong direction to go.

I'd like to thank the gentlelady for a very thoughtful amendment. And I again acknowledge the amendment that both Mr. Smith and Mr. McGovern had. Clearly, what this is is an opportunity for the American people to speak through their representatives here on the floor of the House.

None of us want to promote the killing of women, the cutting off of ears, the mutilation of anyone. I have founded and chaired the Afghan Caucus. I have gone to Afghanistan many times. I've delivered books to their schools. What we are suggesting is that the precious blood of our soldiers, first going there after the horrific incident of 9/11, they, after 10 years, have given the fullest measure. What we're suggesting is that we bring them home safely and orderly, and that we begin to use the diplomatic resources, we enhance NATO, we make sure that we work with our allies, and we have the Afghan national security forces stand up. That's what we're saying.

We've given enough ribbons and hero awards because we know that our soldiers would not step away--they want to be there with their comrades. But it is important for us, as Members of Congress, who make decisions to send young men and women into war, to make a decision that their job is well done, and that Afghanistan begin to, in essence, develop the democratic processes and begin to have their national security forces and their police officers stand up. Enough killing of our soldiers by internal acts by Afghan police and soldiers. Let us bring them home now in an orderly way.

God bless our troops, and God bless the United States of America.

Let me thank the gentleman for his hard work, and let me have an open letter to our friends in Pakistan, Pakistani Americans, that your friendship is appreciated. The hard work that we have done together is appreciated.

But we are looking to begin the reopening of those borders that are crucial to the survival and the efforts of our men and women who are presently in Afghanistan and on that border. And I would also say that with the leadership of the new ambassador, with the efforts that have been made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, they understand, and have made announcements that they would begin the opening of those lines, not only of communication but travel, and we would hope that that would happen soon.

Again, I emphasize working with the Pakistani people is crucial. Developing allies is crucial in that very difficult neighborhood where Pakistanis themselves are subject to terrorist acts.

I thank the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, and I thank him for his leadership.

Many Members have firsthand experience in addressing some of the angst of our constituents, whether it's in West Virginia or in the State of Texas, California, Ohio, maybe even Utah. We recognize that we have an obligation as part of the international family to engage in trade. That it's part of the economic fabric of this construct in which we work together.

But Mr. Rahall's motion is both instructive and vital. For those who have had the opportunity to receive most recently Federal transportation dollars, the city of Houston has waited a mighty long time. But in the course of doing that, unfortunately, over two decades of trying to secure funding for a light rail project, we have seen the steel industry in America decimated.

The story of the San Francisco bridge is not only tragic, it is with great sadness that one would lose jobs and opportunities because of the way that particular project was bid.

It is no insult to China for America to stand up and demand that we Buy American. It is no insult to our other allies for, Mr. Speaker, that is what everyone does.

This motion creates an even playing field in a new world matrix where every man and every woman on the international field of trade is for themselves. Let me tell you the story of dealing with Federal funding. I've made every effort to press for the building of railcars. We don't make railcars. What we have are companies that are based here in the United States, owned elsewhere, but are based here and therefore they make these particular railcars in the United States. That's at least halfway because it does create jobs. I frankly believe that if we are giving Federal funding, those same companies should try to relocate the rail-making process in the area where the light rail or the rail system is going.

The prohibiting of the segmentation of highway transit and Amtrak projects is brilliant because what it does, again, it creates an even playing field for the construction companies, for those who are in essence experts on making the aspects of highway and transit, and allows them the even playing field of bidding.

To require opportunities for public notice is crucial to give our companies an even playing field. Why should we be ashamed of trying to rebuild manufacturing, to try to put life back into the steel industry, because nothing is ever final until you make the effort to do so.

This gives us the opportunity again to match what is being done in other countries. There will be American companies that will tell you that bribes are passed, while they are trying to negotiate, by others trying to do business overseas.

I had a constituent in my office today that said that they engaged with a Korean company. They went in with an agreement; they had a signed agreement. They gave them their intelligence and proprietary information. They said that we will match this and do this together. When they got to the endpoint, that Korean company said, well, we've got to go out for bid, when they had been promised, the American company, that that would not be the case, that they would be partnering all the way.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what the final results were. The Korean company didn't go out for bid. They took the proprietary information and they did the job themselves--never did this kind of work, don't know how to do the work, but the American company was left out the door. Not exactly fitting what Mr. Rahall is saying, but as an example of why we have to match the kind of intensity on the international arena. We have to match it by protecting American companies.

I would say that this is an important, vital motion to instruct, and I want Federal dollars to be utilized for American companies. I believe this is the right approach to Buy American.

I thank both the ranking member and the chair.

I have so much to say about this very passionate issue. I will quickly say that I have two amendments. One deals with outreach on behalf of small and minority businesses for defense contracts, and I truly believe it is enormously important for the vast number of those businesses; but I really rise today to talk about triple negative breast cancer, which has killed so many women.

I am very, very pleased to say that my amendment, with the Office of

Health within the Department of Defense, will identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for triple negative breast cancer, provide information useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trial design that will enable both triple negative breast cancer patients to be identified in the progression of the disease and also to provide for therapies.

I do this in the loving memory of Yolanda Williams, whose funeral I spoke at last year. She was the daughter of Dr. Lois Moore and the wife of Mr. Williams, and she had two beautiful daughters. This wonderful, caring woman died so quickly because of triple negative breast cancer. Also, in the loving memory of Betty Sommer's daughter, Stacey Michelle Gaecke, she shares her story that she also died from triple negative breast cancer.

I ask for the support of my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment # 91 to H.R. 4310 ``National Defense Authorization Act,'' which would direct the Department of Defense Office of Health to work in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for Triple Negative Breast Cancer, TNBC. In addition, my amendment is intended to result in information useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trials design that will enable both TNBC patients to be identified earlier in the progression of their disease and develop multiple targeted therapies for the disease.

Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.''

I offer this amendment in hopes that through a coordinated effort DOD and NIH can develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer strain.

Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment.

Today, breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease.

Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39% higher death rate from breast cancer than other groups.

African American women are also 12% less likely to survive five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that African American women are disproportionally affected by triple negative breast cancer.

More than 30% of all breast cancer diagnoses in African Americans are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

The Story of Yolanda Williams

Mr. Chair, last year, I spoke at a funeral for Yolanda Williams, one of my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. Yolanda died from her battle with triple negative breast cancer. Like many other women who are diagnosed with this aggressive strain, she did not respond to treatment. Yolanda, wife and mother of two daughters, was only 44 years old.

This strain of breast cancer is not only more aggressive, it is also harder to detect, and more likely to recur than other types. Because triple negative breast cancer is difficult to detect, it often metastasizes to other parts of the body before diagnosis. 70% of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.

Research institutions all over the nation have started to focus on this dangerous strain of breast cancer. In my home city of Houston, Baylor College of Medicine has its best and brightest minds working tirelessly to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer subtype. It is time for the Department of Defense to follow that example and commit additional funding to study the triple negative strain.

I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting women across the nation from this deadly form of breast cancer by supporting my amendment.

(Fast Facts)

Breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among

women in this country.

The survival rate for breast cancer has increased to 90%

for White women but only 78% for African American women.

African American women are more likely to be diagnosed with

larger tumors and more advanced stages of breast cancer.

Triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC, is a term used to

describe breast cancers whose cells do not have estrogen

receptors and progesterone receptors, and do not have an

excess of the HER2 protein on their cell membrane of tumor

cells.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) cells are:

Usually of a higher grade and size;

Onset at a younger age;

More aggressive;

More likely to metastasize.

TNBC also referred to as basal-like, BL, due to their

resemblance to basal layer of epithelial cells.

There is not a formal detailed classification of system of

the subtypes of these cells.

TNBC is in fact a heterogeneous group of cancers; with

varying differences in prognosis and survival rate between

various subtypes. This has led to a lot of confusion amongst

both physicians and patients.

Apart from surgery, cytotoxic chemotherapy is the only

available treatment, targeted molecular treatments while

being investigated are not accepted treatment.

Between 10 17% of female breast cancer patients have the

triple negative subtype.

Triple-negative breast cancer most commonly affect African-

American women, followed by Hispanic women.

African-American women have prevalence TNBC of 26% vs 16%

in non-African American women.

TNBC usually affects women under 50 years of age.

African American women have a prevalence of premenopausal

breast cancer of 26% vs 16% for Non-African American women.

Women with TNBC are 3 times the risk of death than women

with the most common type of breast cancer.

Women with TNBC are more likely to have distance metastases

in the brain and lung and more common subtypes of breast

cancer.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I sadly rise in opposition to the rule.

I really cry out to ask the question: Who should refuse to help a victim of domestic violence? Who has the right to deny a victim--Native American, immigrant, LGBT community; who has that right?

It is obvious that this legislation is not bipartisan, and it is obvious that there is still a divide. It is obvious that the groups who obviously work with these victims--many whom I have the opportunity of seeing through the eyes of the Houston Area Women's Center--realize that no provider wants to pick and choose.

It is clear that the underlying bill does not work. The Senate bill is what answers the question of these victims who now have been harmed, because what you're saying to an immigrant who is here on a visa, you are saying to them that they have no relief.

I believe this bill will not work.

It really is a question as to whether or not the new included funding for rape kits will actually be able to go to providers and solve the problems of rape kits in places around the Nation.

We need to do this in a bipartisan way. Who will say ``no'' to a victim because they are Native American, they are immigrant, or they are LGBT. Who will say ``no?''

Why do we find ourselves here today having this kind of debate that calls upon the higher angels of all Members, recognizing that as I stand on the floor today, some woman is losing her life. She may be a Native American woman. That individual may be from the LGBT community or the immigrant community.

Why are we here today divided when all we needed to do was to work in a bipartisan manner? The Senate bill, which tracked the process and the strategy and the approach that we've used in all of the reauthorizations of VAWA; we have always expanded it to reach the needs of new victims. What do you say to a Native American woman when you limit the ability for that woman to be protected? In fact, in particular, you make it that much harder, for what you do is that it authorizes tribal governments to seek protection orders on behalf of victims with or without their protection or permission, violating the core principles that such victims must have autonomy. Why that language?

With respect to the LGBT community, my friends on the other side will say, They're already protected. But we realize that the clarity of the law gives the protection that is necessary when someone is desperate, because as the Federal Government passes laws, it permeates to counties and cities and hamlets that need to have the interpretation to ensure that the law is equally applied. So this is why we call for the passage of the Senate bill and a bipartisan bill.

And my friends on the other side of the aisle--seven Republicans wrote Chairman Smith and said, We want the bipartisan bill. That's what we're asking for, not anything extraordinary.

When you talk about providing for rape kits and someone says on the other side, We've increased it to 75 percent to address the backlog-- well, in actuality, they have not because they've taken money from some other programs. So, Madam Speaker, all I can say is, Why are we here? Let us stand united to help women. Let us not default on our allowance that we've

been given to serve the American people, and the women are desperate. Someone is dying as I speak.

Vote for the Senate bill. Let us do this in a bipartisan way.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1864, The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2011. This is a commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation.

Every day millions of American workers travel outside their home state for business purposes. Each state into which they travel has its own set of unique requirements for filing a non-resident personal income tax return. As a result, in addition to filing a federal and any applicable home state income tax returns, these workers may be legally required to file an income tax return and pay non-resident state taxes in virtually every other state into which they have travelled.

H.R. 1864, the ``Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2011,'' would simplify the onerous burdens placed on employees who travel outside their resident states for temporary periods and on employers who have corresponding withholding requirements. The bill would establish fair, administrable and uniform rules to ensure that the appropriate amount of tax is paid to state and local jurisdictions without placing excessive burdens on employees and their employers.

This bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, by a bipartisan voice vote, which speaks volumes. I hope you will join me in supporting this important legislation impacting millions of American employees who travel for work to support their families.

Forty-one states currently impose a personal income tax on income earned within their borders regardless of whether an individual is a resident of the state--thereby requiring non-resident employees who must travel to other states for work purposes to pay tax after performing work there for even a limited amount of time. Employers are required to withhold that state's income tax on behalf of the employee and remit it to the state at the end of the year.

The committee notes that while some states require an employer to withhold income tax on the first day of the employee's travel, others use a hybrid system of time spent and dollars earned to trigger withholding, requiring individuals who travel for work to track and comply with the income tax laws of up to 41 different states. For instance, a nonresident's income tax liability is triggered in New York the moment he or she earns wages in the state, but the employer's withholding requirement is not triggered until the 14th day of wage- earning. In Idaho, meanwhile, a non-resident's income tax liability is not triggered until after he or she makes $1,000 in wages in the state.

I note that some committee Democrats oppose the bill because they fear it will lead to severe state revenue losses but believe that this is a solid bi-partisan piece of legislation.

This bill limits the authority of states to tax the income of nonresident employees who work for a limited amount of time in the state, allowing such individuals to be taxed only if they work in the state for 31 days or more.

Those limits would become effective on January 1 of the second year that begins after the bill's date of enactment, and it would not apply to any tax obligation that accrues before that time.

The bill prohibits states from taxing the wages or other earnings of non-residents unless they work in the state for 31 days or more during the calendar year. Similarly, states could not subject such income to state income tax withholding and reporting requirements, unless more than 30 days of work was performed.

Under the measure, an individual is considered to be present and performing employment duties within a state for a day if that individual performs more of his or her work within that state than in any other state during the day. If an individual works during one day both in his or her resident state and in just one non-resident state, the individual would be considered to have performed more of his or her employment duties in the non-resident state. Portions of the day during which an individual is in transit would not be considered in determining the location of where work was performed.

The bill provides that for purposes of determining state income tax withholding and reporting requirements, an employer could rely on an employee's determination of the time expected to be spent working for the employer in other non-resident states (absent the employer's actual knowledge of fraud by the employee in making the determination, or collusion between the employer and the employee to evade tax).

Employers could rely on an employee's determination even if the employer regularly maintains records of the location of employees, but if the employer maintains a time and attendance system that tracks where an employee works on a daily basis the data from the time and attendance system must be used instead of the employee's determination.

The bill stipulates that the term ``employee'' has the same meaning given to it by the state in which employment duties are performed-- except the term would not include professional athletes, professional entertainers or certain public figures. States could, therefore, continue to tax those non-residents as they do now.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 568, ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.'' This measure affirms that it is vital to our national interest to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It also makes clear that our time is limited and we must act to prevent Iran from acquiring full nuclear weapons capability. As a Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security, I am well versed in the dangers posed by allowing countries who are against our interests to gain nuclear weapons. I have always been and will continue to be concerned for the average citizen of Iran. This measure is not a reflection of the will of the average Iranian but a reflection of the government which currently represents them. H. Res. 568 represents our commitment to national security.

The United States of America should increase economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran to secure an agreement that includes: (1) the suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, (2) ensures Iran's complete cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, regarding their nuclear activities, and (3) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful.

I support the Iranian people's universal human rights and access to inclusive, democratic representation. H. Res. 568 urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran that has nuclear weapons capability. This piece of legislation calls for enforcing tougher sanctions against Iran. Iran has been involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, whether they are nuclear or chemical or biological.

This timely piece of legislation addresses the need for the U.S. to take a strong stance against the aggressive and hostile behavior of these three countries. These governments are not our friends. We must not underestimate their ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. The government of Iran, under its president and leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has pursued policies undermining democracy and

threatening regional security as well as our own national security.

Iran's actions regarding its nuclear program have been highly troublesome. Investigations conducted by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, have revealed that Iran has been in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty time and time again. In 2003, Iran confirmed that there are sites in the cities of Natanz and Arak that are under construction. But Iran insisted that these sites, like Bushehr, are designed to provide fuel for future power plants and nothing else.

Subsequent actions, however, have led us to believe otherwise. Stemming from the most recent IAEA report, experts believe that, with further enrichment of its existing stockpile of uranium, Iran already has enough raw material to make two or three nuclear weapons. Even though having the raw material is different from having an actual weapon, Ahmedinejad's belligerent and hostile actions create an atmosphere dangerous to U.S. national security.

Iran also has a horrific human rights abuse record. On December 26, 2011, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution denouncing the serious human rights abuses occurring in Iran.

The resolution included torture, cruel and degrading treatment in detention, the targeting of human rights defenders, violence against women, and ``the systematic and serious restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly'' as well as severe restrictions on the rights to ``freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.''

The Iranian regime's treatment of women is particularly heinous. Prominent human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, has faced intensified persecution from the Iranian government for her courageous activism and efforts to promote women's rights in Iran.

On 21 December 2008, dozens of government agents carried out a raid on the Defenders of Human Rights Center, run by Ms. Ebadi. The Center provides legal assistance to victims of human rights violations.

The raid on the Center occurred hours before they were planning on holding an event there to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Center staff members and guests were harassed and intimidated and the center was forcibly closed. Later, officials identifying themselves as tax inspectors came to the Center to remove documents and computers, despite Ms. Ebadi's protests that they contained protected lawyer-client information. Ms. Ebadi has repeatedly been subjected to threats and intimidation for the work she does. Occurrences like this must stop.

The United States' relations with Iran have been volatile and tumultuous for almost 60 years. We are engaging with a hostile regime that has not demonstrated a desire to compromise or an ability to admit to its wrongdoings. Our focus now is to address the security concerns in the region.

The provisions put forth in this bill are vital to ensuring our nation's security interests. Those who govern Iran must be held accountable for its actions.

Mr. Speaker, there's nothing more precious than the Nation's children. Of course, we love and respect our seniors, respect our families, and respect our men and women in the United States military. In fact, America has a great future. But all of us realize that that future is grounded not only on our democratic principles, but on what we do for our children.

Bullying in the Nation's schools is at epidemic proportions. Two weeks ago, in my community, one young person

took a sock with a lock in it and caused another young person to leave that school in an ambulance to go to the hospital for some 15 to 20 stitches. We've seen the results of bullying that resulted in the suicide of one college student and the suicide of a 13-year-old. And we've certainly seen the movie ``Bully.''

I want to thank Lee Hurst for joining me last week in listening to the stories of those who tell real stories. Today, I introduced H.R. 5770, which is a bullying prevention law, including the reauthorization of the Juvenile Block Grant. It is imperative that this Congress make a national statement that bullying is unacceptable, but more importantly, that we give the tools to school districts around the Nation and communities to intervene and prevent bullying.

Our children are precious. I ask my colleagues to join in a bipartisan manner on this legislation.

Let me thank the gentleman from California and applaud the gentlewoman from Maryland for her early, early involvement and leadership on this issue. It was certainly advocates like herself that allowed members of the Judiciary Committee, of which I was a very young member, to be able to draw upon that advocacy and write the VAWA legislation at that time. And I did it with bipartisan support. Chairman Hyde was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, and I remember distinctly. In fact, I was with Senate Members today who remember us from the House coming down to the swamp on the Senate side in a bipartisan manner to stand and support VAWA and its writing. And it couldn't have been done without the many stories and the many advocates like yourself. And so I'm delighted to serve on the Judiciary Committee on each and every reauthorization that has come about. I have been involved with it and been involved legislatively in a bipartisan manner.

The sadness today to all of us is that we're not able to do this in a bipartisan manner. And I will just briefly recount, if I can, what it means to a woman--and the enormous range of ages--and then conclude my remarks by indicating that the legislation that will be on the floor of the House tomorrow, H.R. 4970, is sad because it has not given the opportunity to do the right thing for women in a bipartisan manner.

Just let me cite these stories: Jonathan Barnes, 23, strangled his girlfriend, Jessica, to death. Barnes was charged with Jessica's murder.

Carlos Rodriguez, 38, strangled his wife, Rumalda, who was found deceased in her bed. She was 27.

Lucy Garcia, 63. Florentino Suchil, 54, beat and then ran over his girlfriend, Lucy, with a vehicle. She died from severe trauma.

Yolanda Punch, 47. Lonnie Punch, 47, shot his wife, Yolanda, to death at her friend's apartment complex.

Lucinda Bernard, 34. Donald Bernard, 44, stabbed his wife, Lucinda, to death in their home.

Rosa Limon, 25. Victor Azua, 28, shot his girlfriend, Rosa, to death before he shot and killed himself.

Shannon Strickhausen, 38, was shot by Jimmy Yarbrough. He shot Shannon to death before he turned the gun on himself. Her 14-year-old daughter who was at home called the police.

Vanessa Favela, 23, was shot and killed.

Donna Baeza, 48, was stabbed to death by Harold.

Marquita Brown, 25, was shot to death.

Another unidentified victim was shot by someone they believed to have been her husband, and the children discovered both deceased.

Someone by the name of Fortunata was killed by Juan Perez, shot to death.

It goes on and on in terms of the violence. It is not a respecter of age.

And what we have in this legislation, H.R. 4970, that is so striking for those of us who have dealt with women, I sat on the Houston Area Women's Center that provided refuge for women. I have dealt with women who have had their faces shot off and have had to run for their life.

Here's what we have in this legislation, very briefly. As we commemorated law enforcement officers who lost their lives today, we know when they come upon a domestic violence circumstance, they are in jeopardy. But what they want most of all is for that victim to be able to talk to them.

In a series of amendments to this legislation that is not in the Senate bill, we have taken to do immigration reform or immigration enforcement or immigration oppression, and we have used it in the wrong way. We have decided to take victims who happen to be immigrant women who happen to be here legitimately through the visa of their spouse, and we've indicated these three points. It would unduly restrict what we call the U visas. Currently to obtain a U visa for victims of serious crime, Federal, State or local law enforcement certifies that the applicant has or is likely to be helpful in the investigation, but this bill would restrict the law enforcement agency certification only to victims for 60 days. Some of these women are running for their lives. Some of these women cannot be found.

Another provision on this would encourage vulnerable victims of particularly serious crimes, this would deny them the opportunity for a green card. That has always been law, that you have the access. And then, of course, it would suggest that these victims are using their abuse to fraudulently get a status or to get an immigration process. So it would enhance the penalties for those women if they found some flaw in their testimony.

Clearly, a whole segment of the population would be ruled, in essence, ineligible for relief or help. But, more importantly, you would cast a whole litany of women who have been involved in this violence who happen to be immigrants, whose children happen to be immigrants, it would, in essence deny them the rights that they had before. It would take away current law.

Let me close by saying the Senator from Minnesota offered an amendment that I have offered and hope even though it may be a closed rule to be able to provide 70 percent funding to end the backlog of rape kits. There is a massive backlog of rape kits, which means that a woman is denied justice because those rape kits are not being processed. These rape kits are in hospitals. They are in evidence rooms. They are in back-door pantries. They are in places where they cannot be found, but they are there. We need to be able to put an emphasis on ensuring that these rape kits, sometimes years old, sometimes women haven't gotten justice. Sometimes the perpetrator, having raped again, has not been brought to justice because we have not been able to process those kits.

So there are many things that we could have done in a bipartisan manner. Tomorrow we will be debating this bill. Many people will be left out. I only say to the women and men who are on the floor tonight and those who may be listening to us, let's put this back. Let's go forward in a bipartisan manner. Let's make this bill the kind of bill that answers all of the concerns that have been expressed, and let's do better than H.R. 4970 because the women of this Nation deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I thank the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, who worked extensively to bring reason to this discussion.

I must remind my colleagues that this is a debate that is, of course, necessary, but it is not going anywhere. This is in essence to respond to the potential and pending sequestration and the deadlock of the committee, but the deadlock of the committee gave us an opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner.

My good friend who just spoke on the other side of the aisle talked about abundance and prosperity and talked about welfare. What I would say to the gentleman is that we're not talking about welfare. We're talking about investment in people, and we're talking about not having a siege upon our children.

On April 25, 2012, we were back in the Judiciary Committee again looking at medical malpractice for the umpteenth time. I wondered why we were there. It was because each committee was told to find a way to find money. So the directions of the Republicans for the Judiciary Committee were to oppress the sick and to be able to cap medical malpractice insurance on innocent victims such as women and children and the elderly when the medical system fails us as it relates to medical devices and other elements.

We were told to eliminate for the children of America by limiting noneconomic damages, restricting punitive damages, limiting access to courts for poor victims of medical malpractice, shortening the statute of limitations for claims, eliminating the protections of children, and prohibiting joint and several liability. We were simply told to shut the courthouse door for children that needed to be able to have the opportunity to have their lives saved, just like a little boy who needed surgery in a hospital in San Antonio. They told the family it was a serious surgery and they needed to have a cardiologist on staff. He went into surgery, and, of course, things went wrong. There was no cardiologist there; there was a mishap; there was a fault; and that little boy died. They want to deny that poor family access to the courthouse. That is what that bill does.

When my friends begin to talk about what else it does, it cuts SNAP, the nutrition program. It cuts Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that this bill is a siege on children. We should oppose it. It is not reconciliation. It is oppression. I would ask us to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the ``Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012'' This piece of legislation should really be entitled the ``Ryan's Replacement Sequester to Thwart the Bipartisan Budget Control Act of 2012''

Whatever anyone wants to entitle this measure, one thing will still remain true . . . this legislation is unfair. It literally takes money out of programs dedicated to serving low income families, children, seniors, the disabled, the most in need of our assistance. Why isn't the funding coming from war savings. There has been a consistent attack on the other side of the aisle on programs that are proven to be affective at combating the stresses associated with poverty, aging, and long term care. Before us is a measure that is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I support bipartisan efforts to decrease the debt and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to give the American people the impression that their sentimental and unbridled concern for the military means that it is necessary to take an ax to programs for seniors and low income that is not something that our military would be proud to be connected too. Why not use, instead, war savings and a small finite tax on income over $1 million dollars.

This unbalanced bill modifies last year's bipartisan Budget Control Act to cancel the sequestration of discretionary spending currently scheduled to occur in January 2013 in order to prevent cuts to defense. That is fine but Republicans have already voted twice this year to pass their budget to end the Medicare guarantee and increase costs for seniors while giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

While the U.S. economy is healing, the world economy continues to be in a fragile state and all economies are linked through trade and finance. In this environment, this bill sends the economy downward. However, over the last few years the economy has been steadily growing. We are not where the American people should be but the economy has gained jobs.

According to Secretary Solis she stated ``know where our nation's unemployment rate stands. I have to report it every month. But we've now added private sector jobs to our economy for 26 months running. Since President Obama took office, we've created 4.2 million new jobs. That's no small potatoes when you consider we were bleeding 750,000 jobs a month when this President took office. I know we've got a lot more to do. But we're making progress.'' During this time of progress, this is no time to cut the social safety net for those still unemployed--no time to cut food stamps, medicaid, or medicare.

The President signed the Recovery Act which invested in mass transit, roads, and bridges to build critical infrastructure and secure construction jobs. The Recovery Act also included strong Davis-Bacon and Buy American provisions, to stimulate local economies and create high-quality jobs. In total, the Recovery Act supported up to 3.5 million jobs through the end of 2010.

It is essential that we allocate the money spent on previous wars to programs to help expand opportunities for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, if you asked the typical American family what they would need to do to balance their family budget, they would respond: spend less. But they would also be quick to acknowledge that without a job, or in the case of the federal budget, tax revenue, the budget will never balance. It is critical to address both sides of the ledger. It is also imperative for the Republicans to place the President's jobs bill on the agenda to vote on and pass.

Sure, save money but cutting benefits but without additional revenue, the budget is doomed. Moreover, you surely would not find any family in Texas that would suggest buying luxury items, while struggling to balance the family budget is a sensible approach. But Republicans insist on advocating for tax breaks for the wealthy--the luxury class.

Economists

Economists have long pointed to investments in ``human capital''--the productive capability that is embedded in people--as one of the most important determinants of economic growth. A large and growing body of literature has examined the returns to investments in human capital from both a societal and individual perspective.

In his book, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense, Pfeffer writes: ``There is compelling evidence that when companies use Human Resources best practices based on the best research, they trump the competition. These findings are replicable in industry after industry, from automobiles to textiles, to computer software to baseball. ``We must use our Human Resources wisely.

energy and deficit reduction

And speaking of saving money and reducing the deficit, I have introduced H.R. 3710 which increases the acreage to 10 percent of what is already allocable under a proposal by Interior Secretary Salazar, as announced on November 8, 2011. In other words, more land will be available for exploration, in line with two objectives: decreasing our dependence on foreign sources for oil, and plugging our budget deficit.

The monies will be deposited into the DRES Fund and invested by the Secretary of the Treasury, until the money is transferred to the Coastal and Ocean Sustainability Health Fund (COSH). Annually, the Secretary of the Interior is required to lease 20 percent of the DRES. In addition, this bill will help foment job creation in an industry that is already responsible for 9.2 million American Jobs.

The bill also establishes the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund, housed within the United States Treasury Department, which will receive the accrued funds that are dedicated to deficit reduction. In order to ensure that the putative funds generated from the leasing activities which derive from this bill inure to the goal of deficit reduction, the legislation also sets up the aforementioned COSH.

This bill establishes in the Department of the Treasury, the COSH, which shall fund grants for addressing coastal and ocean disasters; and programs and activities that restore, protect, maintain, manage, or understand marine resources and their habitats, and ocean, and coastal resources, including baseline scientific research, and other programs in coordination with federal and state agencies. Monies will be deposited into the COSH fund from interest accrued on OCS royalties, rents, revenues, and fees that will remain, for the period of one year, in the Fund before moving the entirety of the principle in the general Treasury. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants for such purposes. I look forward to working with members of this Committee and our colleagues to ensure passage of this legislation.

Simply put Mr. Speaker, my bill does not rob Peter to pay Paul but actually requires that money made from the hard work of drilling by our companies is rededicated to reducing our deficit--common sense fiscal and energy policy.

As called for by the House's FY 2013 budget resolution, it replaces the $98 billion sequester in discretionary spending with a $19 billion reduction in the discretionary cap for FY 2013 and with ``reconciliation'' savings from mandatory programs recommended by six House committees. These cuts hurt the American people, children and families.

It also eliminates the separate cap on defense spending for the year to allow for higher spending levels. The measure would modify mandatory programs to save $19.7 billion through FY 2013 and about $315 billion over 10 years, including by decreasing benefits and eligibility for the food stamp program, reducing and repealing elements of the 2010 health care law, and requiring all current and future federal workers to pay an additional 5 percentage points of this salary toward their federal pensions.

President Obama and Democrats oppose the GOP measure, and say that preventing the January 2013 sequester and replacing the savings that would come through sequestration should be done in a ``balanced'' approach in which revenue is part of the solution.

Republicans must abandon their ideological agenda and join Democrats to restore fairness, opportunity, and prosperity to our budget and our economy.

taxes and the buffett rule and taxes

Mr. Speaker, the cloud looming over this Congress is an unintended ``triple-watching hour'' of tax increases that will take effect at the beginning of 2013.

The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, the end of the recently extended Payroll Tax Cut, and increases in capital gains and dividends taxation will shock the conscience and wallets of the American people. That is why Congress needs to enact bi-partisan legislation that helps lower the deficit but does not wreck havoc on the financial soul of the middle class. This is a moral document and frankly, the other side is getting more than a little fresh with the American people. It is May and we are voting on a vacuous budget that will likely pass but is doomed to failure in the Senate.

But again, tax reform that lowers the rate, reduces the deficit, and does not pick winners and losers is not easy, but let's not forget, if President Reagan and then-Speaker Tip O'Neill could do it in 1986, anything is possible. But this morning we are not doing a bipartisan dance, but participating in a roller-derby, a truly zero-sum game.

In the budget, the Administration calls for individual tax reform that: cuts the deficit by $1.5 trillion, including the expiration of the high-income 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. As a matter of sound fiscal policy, I am supportive of this effort. I recognize the economic benefits that many attribute to the Bush Tax Cuts, but we must ask ourselves are they affordable at this time.

The President's budget also eliminates inefficient and unfair tax breaks for millionaires while making all tax breaks at least as good for the middle class as for the wealthy; and observes the Buffett Rule that no household making more than $1 million a year pays less than 30 percent of their income in taxes.

The individual income tax is a hodgepodge of deductions, exemptions, and credits that provide special benefits to selected groups of taxpayers and favored forms of consumption and investment. These tax preferences make the income tax unfair because they can impose radically different burdens on two different taxpayers with the same income. In essence, Congress has been picking winners and losers.

the hope and promise of the democratic alternative budget

Preserves the Medicare guarantee and the Social Safety Net. The Democratic budget rejects any policy to end Medicare's guarantee of health care coverage for seniors and disabled workers, and ensures the social safety net remains intact.

Protects Medicare Beneficiaries. Rejects the Republican budget's proposal to end the Medicare guarantee. It supports reforms in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to close the prescription drug ``donut hole'' for seniors with high prescription drug costs and ensure free preventive care. As a result of these measures, as well as provisions in the ACA to make Medicare spending more efficient, a person in Medicare will save an average of about $4,200 on premiums and coinsurance from 2011 through 2021. Medicare beneficiaries with high prescription drug costs will save even more--an average of nearly $16,000 over the same period.

Preserves Medicaid for Low-Income Families and Seniors. Maintains Medicaid to ensure that 57 million low-income people continue to get health care. Seniors and people with disabilities account for two- thirds of Medicaid spending, and children account for another 20 percent.

Preserves Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP). Fully funds SNAP and supports the President's proposal to continue certain benefits added because of the economic downturn. Nearly three-quarters of people served by SNAP are in families with children, and one-quarter are in households with someone who is elderly or disabled.

Protects Social Security from Privatization. Social Security is not responsible for our current deficits and should not be cut to reduce the deficit. However, many Republicans continue to advocate privatization, which would put retirees' financial security at risk and worsen the deficit for decades. Our budget affirmatively rules out privatization.

Helps Create More Jobs Now. Unlike the Republican resolution, our budget includes the President's jobs initiatives, including the following:

Transportation Jobs. $50 billion to fund jobs that address immediate surface transportation priorities and $10 billion to establish an infrastructure bank.

Tax Credits for Job Creation. A temporary 10 percent tax credit for new jobs and wage increases.

Tax Incentives for Manufacturing. Includes a number of incentives for domestic manufacturing, such as providing a tax credit for companies that return operations and jobs to the U.S. while eliminating tax breaks for companies that move opertions and jobs overseas.

Education Jobs. $80 billion to promote jobs creating the infrastructure to help students learn and create a better future workforce, including $30 billion to put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work upgrading at least 35,000 crumbling public schools, and $25 billion to help prevent hundreds of thousands of educator layoffs.

First Responder Jobs. $5 billion to help states and localities hire police officers and firefighters and reverse previous layoffs.

Jobs for Veterans. $1 billion for the President's proposal to establish a Veterans Job Corps and employ at least 20,000 veterans.

Builds a Stronger America through Long-Term Growth. Our budget invests in research,

education, and innovation that will create a globally competitive workforce for the future.

Education Investments. Follows the President's request for increased investment in education and includes his request for $6 billion to prevent the interest rate on subsidized student loans from doubling this July.

Innovation and Research Investments. Funds science and engineering workforce development and supports innovative manufacturing processes that will reduce costs by using less energy, improving product quality, and accelerating product development.

Small Business Investments. Provides additional resources for the Small Business Administration (SBA) to ensure that the lending volume for loan programs remains the same, rather than shrinking and denying many small businesses' access to capital.

Infrastructure Investments. In addition to short-term jobs initiatives for transportation, our budget includes the President's six-year surface transportation proposal to create construction jobs and fuel long-term economic growth. It also includes additional funding to maintain America's harbors, seaports, and waterways.

Reduces the Deficit through Shared Responsibility. Congress has already reduced projected deficits by more than $1 trillion through discretionary cuts for 2011 and 2012 and enacting tight spending limits for the next nine years. Our budget further reduces the deficit with policies that balance spending cuts increased revenue.

Gets Deficits Under Control. The deficit falls from 8.7 percent of GDP in 2011 to under 3 percent of GDP by 2015, and it remains there through the ten-year budget window.

Cancels Sequestration and Replaces it with Balanced Deficit Reduction. Replaces the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction under the scheduled Budget Control Act sequestration with greater deficit reduction from targeted spending cuts and revenue increases.

Provides Tax Relief for Working Families and Ends Tax Breaks for the Wealthy. Extends the 2001 03 tax cuts for the middle class and rejects tax increases on the middle class. Accommodates expansion of incentives for low- and middle-income families to earn income, save for retirement, and attend college. To increase fairness and reduce the deficit, this budget ends unwarranted and fiscally irresponsible Bush- era tax cuts for millionaires, closes a variety of corporate tax loopholes, and establishes a ``Buffett Rule'' to ensure that working families do not face a higher tax rate than the wealthiest Americans.

ryan republican alternative: hurt and pain--part II

Ends the Medicare Guarantee. The Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee, giving seniors a voucher with an artificial price cap to purchase insurance and leaving it up to them to figure out how to keep their costs down as the value of their voucher fails to keep pace with projected growth in health care costs. This plan will raise health care costs for seniors and leave traditional Medicare to ``wither on the vine.''

Reopens the Medicare ``Donut Hole'' and Increases Costs of Preventive Care Services. The budget takes away important Medicare improvements for seniors and persons with disabilities by repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The budget reduces the prescription drug health by re-opening the coverage gap, or ``donut-hole,'' and it increase costs to seniors for preventive care services. Reopening care services. Reopening the donut hole alone will increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries with high prescription drug costs by an average over $10,000 over the next ten years.

Abandons American Workers. Putting Americans back to work is the fastest and most effective way to reduce the short-term deficit-in fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that slow growth and under-employment account for over one-third of the projected deficit for 2012. But the Republican budget turns it back on American workers, ignoring the President's proposals for new jobs for teachers, first responders, construction workers, and veterans involved in building a better infrastructure that will boost our economy now and in the future. Independent analysts have found that the Republican budget could lead to the loss of more than 2 million jobs over two years.

Transportation Jobs. Instead of investing in infrastructure, the Republican budget reduces transportation spending by at least one- quarter over 10 years. Next year, transportation spending would be barely one-half of this year's level, a steep cut that could delay or stop projects already underway. A failure to invest in transportation will also hurt businesses' ability to transport goods and supplies in the long run, weakening future economic growth.

Tax Breaks for Outsourcing jobs. The Republican budget boosts tax incentives that encourage multinational companies to ship profits, intellectual property, and thousands of jobs overseas while costing the American economy billions of dollars.

Makes College More Expensive, Undermining U.S. Competitiveness. The budget eviscerates funding for higher education, eliminating the $104 billion that Congress has already enacted to help sustain the maximum Pell grant award and to provide for yearly inflationary increases. It adds an average of $2,800 in higher loan repayment costs to more than 7 million low-and moderate-income college students by letting the interest rate on subsidized students loans double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. It also eliminate $47 billion for lower-cost loans for low-income students as well as repayment plans enacted and paid for by previous Democratic Congresses. It even rejects the President's proposal to extend a $2,500 tax cut to working families to help cover the costs of college, refusing to extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit beyond December. Overall, mandatory higher education funding is cut by $166 billion over ten years versus current law levels, and by $285 billion below the President's request.

Slashes the Social Safety Net. The Republican budget shreds the social safety net for seniors, low-income children, persons with disabilities, and families struggling to get by in a challenging economy, all while cutting taxes for the very wealthy.

Slashes Medicaid for Seniors and Low-Income Families. The budget slashes Medicaid by $810 billion and converts it into a block grant to states. ``Block-granting'' Medicaid is not entitlement reform it is entitlement destruction. This is simply code for deep, arbitrary cuts in support to the most vulnerable seniors, individuals with disabilities, and low-income children.

Block-grants and Cuts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP). The budget slashes SNAP funding by $133.5 billion over ten years, harming the million who rely on this aid to feed their families. Nearly three- quarters of people served by SNAP are in families with children, and one-quarter are in households with someone who is elderly or disabled.

Abandons Fairness. The budget provides tax breaks for the wealthy and special interests at the expense of everyone else. Republicans' refusal to ask millionaires to pay one more penny in taxes leads them to place the entire burden of reducing deficits and debts on the shoulders of middle-income families and seniors. This budget dismantles the Medicare guarantee, cuts back and nutritional assistance for low-income children and families, and severely underfunds the crucial health care safety net for more than 56 million Americans provided by Medicaid. At the same time, it showers an additional $4.6 trillion in tax cuts (over and above extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts) that primarily benefit the wealthy. Overall, millionaries can expect an average tax cut of $394,000 in this budget, which includes $129,000 just from extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, again I call on my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5652, an unrealistic, unpragmatic, and unPATRIOTIC so-called bill that is a punch to the gut of the most vulnerable Americans.

International Association

of Fire Fighters',

Washington, DC, May 10, 2012.

Member of Congress,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the nation's 300,000

professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel, I

write to express my strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the

Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. This

legislation would rewrite the bipartisan Budget Control Act

of 2011 by placing greater economic hardships on working

class Americans or vulnerable populations.

Although the IAFF is deeply concerned with the impact that

defense cuts will have on our federal members employed at

defense installations, we cannot support unraveling the

Budget Control Act through the unbalanced and draconian

approach of H.R. 5652. Balancing the budget on the backs of

fire fighters without requiring those who are well off in our

society to share more of the burden is simply inexcusable. To

solve our fiscal challenges, we must have shared sacrifice

from all members in our society. Instead of shared sacrifice,

H.R. 5652 just leaves fire fighters sacrificed at the altar.

One of the main ways H.R. 5652 achieves savings in the

federal budget is by shifting a greater burden for funding

essential services to state and local governments. Over the

past five years, states already have cut nearly $300 billion

from their operating budgets as a result of the Great

Recession. Even as the private sector recovers, state and

local governments are still struggling to balance their

budgets, leading to continued job losses among fire fighters

and other public sector employees. Since April 2012, the U.S.

economy has lost 584,000 jobs in the public sector. Further

cuts in federal aid for essential government services will

only exacerbate public sector job losses and undermine core

functions of government such as fire protection and emergency

medical treatment.

Specifically, H.R. 5652 would completely eliminate the

Social Services Block Grant, saving the federal government

$18.7 billion. Originally established during the Reagan

administration, these critical funds help state and local

governments provide essential

services to 23 million seniors, children, and disabled

Americans. Home-based services like Meals on Wheels, child-

care services for low-income families, and programs to

prevent child abuse and neglect all receive funding, in whole

or in part, through the Social Services Block Grant.

H.R. 5652 would also cut $22.7 billion from the Medicaid

program. Created along with Medicare in 1965, Medicaid

represents an historic joint commitment by the federal

government and our states and territories to provide

essential health care to our nation's poor. Medicaid is one

of our nation's core safety-net programs. As the depths of

the Great Recession grew, so too did Medicaid enrollment,

creating increased pressures on state budgets. The proposed

cuts in H.R. 5652 to Medicaid will only add to state budget

pressures. For example, nearly half of the cuts will come

from a reduction in the state provider tax threshold. States

can use the revenues generated from the provider tax to

offset their share of Medicaid payments.

Eliminating the Social Services Block Grant and cutting

Medicaid would have disastrous consequences for our local

communities. State and local governments would be hard-

pressed to fill the budget holes created by H.R. 5652.

Without these funds, state and local governments may be

forced to eliminate these programs or cut funding from other

essential programs such as the fire service to balance their

budgets. Either way, the consequences to our local

communities would be devastating.

Furthermore, the IAFF strenuously objects to forcing

drastically higher pension contributions from current and

future federal employees. H.R. 5652 would require all current

federal employees to contribute an additional five percent in

pay toward their defined benefit pension plan, with no

enhancement in benefits. Federal workers have already

contributed $60 billion toward deficit reduction through a

two-year pay freeze. Forcing greater economic sacrifices from

federal fire fighters is particularly insulting, given the

sacrifices these brave men and women already make on the job.

The nation's federal fire fighters protect many of America's

most vital national assets, ranging from sensitive military

bases to Veterans hospitals. Federal fire fighters should not

be treated like a piggy bank for Congress.

For these reasons, we urge you to reject H.R. 5652, the

Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 when it

comes for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. Thank

you for your consideration of the views of America's front

line domestic defenders.

Sincerely,

Harold A. Schaitberger,

General President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to the Nation's mothers and to be able to wish them a wonderful and happy Mother's Day.

This morning I had the privilege of going to the women's war memorial at Arlington Cemetery to lay a wreath for our fallen women who fell in battle and in service to their Nation; many of them were mothers. I stand today to say to them, even in the loss of life, we thank you. We honor you.

I honor my mother, who lost her life in 2010, Ivaleta Jackson, along with my aunt, Valerie Bennett, along with my living aunt, Vickie Bennett, and as well Audrey Bennett and some of the mothers of my community: Ruby Mosley, Dany Simmons, Sylvia Gonzalez, Ester Campos. So many mothers who have served their communities. The late Beulah Shepard. So many of them.

But I want to say to the Nation's mothers that we have an obligation to ensure that your children are protected and that the lives of women are protected and that we recognize and respect all of the service, all of you that are stay-at-home mothers who take care of the children at home; those who work; those who work and have children. To those who do so many things, I am so honored to be able to say, you are, in fact, America's sheroes. We honor you this weekend. But, actually, as we're taught, we honor you every day of the year.

God bless you. God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in recognizing the crisis that is being faced by the postal offices across America, both urban and rural. We look forward to bringing a contingent of workers and postal persons from around the country to this Congress to urge it to move forward quickly and utilize the Senate proposal.

At the same time, I am deeply saddened by a reconciliation budget proposal by my friends on the other side of the aisle that's going to cut the Social Services Block Grant, it's going to cut Medicaid, it's going to cut Meals on Wheels. As a former chairperson of the Interfaith Ministries in Houston, Texas, what a sad day to cut Meals on Wheels.

Today and this week is Teacher Appreciation Week, and I salute them. They are great and grand as they teach our children that they can reach for the sky. That is why today, the Congressional Children's Caucus will host Lee Hirsch, the producer and director of the movie ``Bully.'' Eighteen million children have been bullied, like Asher Brown, who lost his life, like a 13-year-old Girl Scout who said that she's been bullied since age 5.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me at 1:30 in 2237 for a press conference saying there should be a national call to ending bullying-- intervention, and at the same time to come at 2 o'clock to see the movie. Third floor, Library of Congress, Madison Building. There must be, and I call for, a national solution to bullying in our children's lives.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio who just spoke on the floor of the House. He's an appropriator, and he sees this litany of limitations as being challenging. I know that Members are probably drafting some more limitations as we speak, and I certainly respect their prerogative.

I would just add this point: as I listened to my good friend from Iowa--who I know is certainly a civil libertarian and believes in individual rights, and I would imagine the proponent of this amendment does as well--I would ask the proponent of the amendment, as he has listened to the debate, to simply withdraw the amendment.

There are several factors that would contribute to that: one, the query that was made by the gentleman from Massachusetts as to whether the amendment even does anything. But as well, if we look at the 10th Amendment--which my friends on the other side of the aisle have always paraded before us--that even though there is a Federal law, the DOMA law, that there are matters that should be left to the States.

As recounted by the gentleman from Colorado, there are many different positions on this issue throughout the different States. Some have positions, some do not. Now we have an amendment that simply seems to deal with actions stated by the executive on this very day.

My friend from Iowa wanted to speak about what the President has said and what he has not said. What are we discussing here, the views of the President or the actions of the executive? The actions of the executive, as has been stated, are their prerogative. And clearly, there have been no actions by the government that should be contravened.

More importantly, I believe in the civil liberties of all people and the rights of all people. I believe that this amendment undermines the rights of all people and would graciously ask this Member to look at it from both the perspective of individual rights, of civil liberties, of the 10th Amendment, and whether or not the executive has done anything that relates to his amendment.

I, lastly, will say that the President of the United States, who commented today, has every right to speak either his conscience, his heart, or his mind. An amendment on the floor attempting to question that has no relationship to speech today versus actions which need to be contravened. There are no actions to be contravened, so I ask the gentleman to respectfully withdraw his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the distinguished gentleman from California. I'm not sure if he misinterpreted comments that have been made on the floor of the House, but I will just speak to this point.

That is too broad a statement to say about the present Department of Justice when every single day lawyers in the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, go out and defend the laws of this land. And so I'd ask the gentleman to reflect on that broad statement because that is not accurate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.