Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we have now entered the final week before the dangerous, arbitrary, and irrational policy of sequestration, which Republicans proposed first in their cut, cap, and balance bill in July of 2011.

If I were the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that policy would not go into effect. Budget discipline is absolutely necessary, but damaging job growth in our economy to do so is self-defeating.

The only responsible way forward is for Republicans and Democrats to work together to achieve a balanced solution to deficits that can turn off the sequestration. House and Senate Democrats have each proposed balanced alternatives that combine smart, targeted cuts in spending and tax expenditures. I would hope the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, would bring that to the floor.

While many Republicans have been praising the sequester as a viable path forward, Democrats recognize this mindless policy for the danger it is.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the sequester's consequences, and to work with Democrats to find an alternative, or, if that can't be done, to abandon this reckless policy.

We only have 4 days left to go, and our country's overall well-being depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 699, which is the balanced Democratic alternative to sequestration, which I know we have ample time to debate over the next few days and, hopefully, send to the Senate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Steve and I were both in the senate, and you have a president in the senate. That's why he was referring to you as Mr. President. I understand that, Steve.

I am pleased to join Marcia Fudge, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and my good friend, Steve Horsford, the gentleman from Nevada. And I notice that Don Payne is here. His father was a very close friend of mine, active some 45 years ago. So it's good to see you here, Don, and Hakeem Jeffries, two of our really great new Members. I'm pleased to join you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing this Special Order hour. America's greatest strength--and its greatest gift to the world--is our democratic system of government based on an equal voice for every citizen. It is what grants legitimacy to our laws and earns us respect from those in other parts of the world who yearn for the freedoms we enjoy.

For most of our history, our democracy was deeply flawed: excluding women, African Americans, Native Americans and many others. But part of what makes America great is that we are constantly working to perfect our democracy by correcting such flaws. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a central part of that effort--and an incredibly successful one. Before that legislation was enacted, millions of African Americans were systematically prevented from registering to vote or casting their ballots across much of the South. And I would venture to say that there were other parts of America where they were dissuaded from voting, as well. Poll taxes, ``grandfather clauses,'' literacy tests and other nefarious devices were employed to keep Americans from exercising their most fundamental civil right.

Perhaps the greatest impetus for enacting the Voting Rights Act was the horrific violence and hatred of ``Bloody Sunday,'' when peaceful civil rights marchers were beaten and turned back at the Edmund Pettus Bridge outside Selma, Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, a number of us here will be traveling to Selma, led by the same man who helped organize those 1965 marches, our friend and colleague, Representative John Lewis, an extraordinary historic figure, an extraordinary gentle man, but a giant of courage and principle. We are going as part of an annual pilgrimage to remember that day, ``Bloody Sunday,'' March 7, 1965, and the cause for which those brave Americans, black and white, risked their lives: political equality and the perfection of our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I've been privileged to walk with John Lewis across that bridge and others, including at least two Presidents, for 10 out of the 13 times that John Lewis has reenacted that walk. Walking in their footsteps is one way to honor that cause. But it is far from the best way. The best way to do it is to carry on their work--to defend and promote the protections included in the Voting Rights Act that they fought so hard to bring about.

On Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, which challenges the constitutionality of one of the Voting Rights Act's central provisions, and that is pre- clearance, making sure that the Justice Department says, yes, this is fair; yes, this will not exclude; yes, this is a policy that will be consistent with our democracy. Pre-clearance, established by section 5 of the act, mandates that jurisdictions with a long history of voter suppression and civil rights violations must submit to the Justice Department for approval any plans to change their election practices or district boundaries before doing so. Section 5 has been instrumental in ending discrimination and protecting eligible voters at the polls. Its constitutionality is rooted in article I and has been working as intended for nearly half a century.

At a time when we are hearing about problems voters faced all over the country in last November's election--with long lines, registration errors, voting machines that malfunctioned and deceptive practices--we ought to be working together to make the Voting Rights Act stronger, not weaker.

I will continue, along with my colleagues, to stand up for the Voting Rights Act on this floor and in every forum of debate. Because those who marched at Selma or braved the dangers of the freedom rides did not do so in vain. Their legacy is our responsibility. The more perfect democracy they helped forge is ours to safeguard, not only for our sake, but for the sake of those who will inherit our democracy in generations to come.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to join my colleagues in the Congressional

Black Caucus in strong support of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act-- and the rest of it as well--as it faces meritless challenges this week that I am confident will be surmounted.

And, again, in closing my part of this Special Order, I want to congratulate Steve Horsford, Congressman Horsford, from Nevada. He's new to this body, but he's not new to legislative representation. He understands the legislative process very, very well; and it is appropriate that in one of his first Special Orders on this floor that it's on behalf of every American--not just black Americans, not just Hispanic Americans and not just disabled Americans--every American. Because if one American's right to vote is compromised, there will be a risk to all Americans that their vote will be compromised. And I thank my friend, Congressman Horsford.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the brink of achieving the Republican policy of sequester. Why do I say it's the Republican policy?

Because on July 19 of 2011, 229 Republicans voted for their Cut, Cap, and Balance bill, which said that the alternative to cutting spending in a rational way would be the irrational imposition of sequester, which cuts across the board irrespective of priorities. It's the wrong thing to do. It will hurt America. It will hurt our economy. It will hurt the growth in jobs.

I am here to tell you, if Democrats were in charge of the House of Representatives, that sequester would not happen; but we've been here 6 weeks, and not a single piece of legislation has been brought to this floor by the majority to stop sequestration from happening, to substitute a rational fiscal policy for an irrational one.

So when sequester hits, as unfortunately as it may, as tragically as it may, as unacceptably as it may, the American people need to know this is Republican policy included in legislation for which 98 percent of them voted on July 19, 2011.

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, there is not time to debate in the time I have available how we determine Federal pay. I was a sponsor of the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act which George Bush signed back in 1990. I know a little bit about this.

America is confronting a sequestration that will have a devastating impact on our economy, on every individual in America, and on international confidence in America's ability to manage itself. And what have we spent 2 days on? A quarter percent cap on cost-of-living adjustment for Federal employees. A quarter of a percent. Some of us in this body earn that in about 10 minutes. Not all of us, but some of us. Uh-huh.

Yet we fiddle while America faces a sequester burn. And sequester is Republican policy. July 19, 2011, Cut, Cap and Balance brought to this floor; 98 percent of Republicans, 229, voted for it. What was the fallback position? Sequester, an irrational policy that cuts across the board irrespective of the priority. And so what does the majority in this Congress do? It has now wasted 2 weeks on debate of nickel-diming the people we rely on to protect our domestic safety, our international security, our food and drugs, our health care, our borders.

I join in the remarks of my good friend, Frank Wolf. He and I have been here 32 years. We have some understanding of what is proper and not

proper in terms of managing the government.

Now, the sponsor of this legislation has been here approximately 45 days--45 days--and he introduces a bill to cap, by a quarter of a percent, Federal employees. The animosity directed at our Federal employees is so great that we have now taken 2 weeks to try to diminish their pay and benefits--how sad--while the sequester looms 14 days from today, putting at risk, as I've said, America's economy, creation of American jobs, the sense of confidence in our country.

I thank the gentleman.

And the perception around the world that America is a serious situation. How sad. How shameful.

Will my friend yield on that point?

Is the gentleman aware that 2 weeks ago and this week the majority has denied us the opportunity to offer an alternative?

The gentleman who preceded me is new to the Congress of the United States. I've been here for a little longer than that, some 32 years. This is the least confidence-building Congress, last Congress and this Congress, in which I have ever served. It is taking us from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. It is creating cliffs where no cliffs ought to exist, and they undermine the confidence of business, America, Americans, and indeed, the rest of the world that needs a stable and secure America to ensure that we keep the kind of stability that Americans want here at home and around the world.

We will be dealing with a bill today and tomorrow that could be considered in an hour. We're going to take two days to consider it. And while we consider that, while we fiddle, while the sequester threatens to burn our economy, jobs, and confidence, we do nothing. We have not done anything to avoid the sequester for the last 7 weeks of this year, and nothing in this Congress. As a matter of fact, other than completing the work of making sure the folks who were damaged by Sandy were assisted, which should have been done in the last Congress, we've done nothing here of real substance in 7 weeks, but we are about to confront the sequester.

I want every American to know, I want every person who relies on the Federal Government--and that is mainly all of us--that if Democrats were in charge of this House the sequester would not go into effect. Why? Because we would adopt an alternative policy that would cut spending so that we could move towards deficit and debt reduction, which we need to do as a country, and we would make a balanced proposal that the Senate Democrats will offer this day, and that we wanted to offer and Chris Van Hollen offered last night in the Budget Committee, but which as not made in order.

In his State of the Union speech, the President talked about the American people deserve a vote. He's right. The American people deserve to know how Members are going to vote on issues of consequence to them, their families, their lives, their jobs, and their country. But we were denied a vote last week on this issue, which was a substitute for the sequester, and we are again denied this week a substitute for the sequester.

Some of my Republican friends try to say, Oh, it's the President who wanted the sequester. That is dead flat wrong. Rob Nabors did mention the sequester after the Republicans passed the sequester in this House in July of 2011. They call it the Cut, Cap, and Balance Legislation. Its fallback position was ``sequester.'' It was a policy that all, I think, but two Republicans voted for when it passed this House. It was a policy that they promoted and supported. It is a bad policy. It's an irrational policy. It is a policy that will have great adverse consequences.

At a town meeting, I said the sequester works like this: if you have a food budget and a movie budget and somebody loses their job, the sequester says you cut food by 10 percent and movies by 10 percent. No rational American family would do that. They'd say this month we're not going to the movies or this 6 months we're not going to the movies, but we're going to make sure we put food on our table. Sequester says, No, we cut food by 10 percent and movies by 10 percent.

Sequester is an irrational response to our failure as a Congress, correct, to get our finances on a sustainable path. We need to do that. And Democrats are suggesting a balanced way to do it. By the way, every bipartisan commission that has dealt with this issue has recommended a balanced process to get from where we are to where we need to be.

We're going to go on break next week as if we've done our job. We haven't. We ought to be spending time today, tomorrow, next week, and the week thereafter in avoiding the irrationality of the sequester process, but I have a list of Republicans here, all of whom say, Bring it on. The sequester is okay. Well, if we do the sequester, we're going to find out it's not okay.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the majority leader and I urge the Speaker to bring forth substantive legislation that is balanced and which will avoid the sequester taking place. It's bad for our people; it's bad for our country. It's bad policy.

Mr. Speaker, the President spoke to us last night and he talked to us about avoiding the sequester. I was at a political event being interviewed and a gentleman, Mr. Pompeo from Kansas, was with us as well, and he spoke before I did. He talked about the sequester and he said:

It's going to be a home run. We're doing what the American

people ask the United States House of Representatives to do

in 2010 when I came here.

He then said, in referring to the sequester:

I think the American people . . . will have tremendous

respect for what its House of Representatives led and what

its Federal Government was able to accomplish.

A profound disagreement. I think the gentleman from Kansas is profoundly wrong. The sequester will have an extraordinarily negative effect on this country, on its people, on its economy, and on its national security, and I might say on the confidence that the world at large has in the United States' ability to pursue rational policy.

In the State of the Union address last night, Mr. Speaker, with regard to deficits, the President said this:

None of us will get 100 percent of what we want. But the

alternative will cost us jobs, hurt our economy, and visit

hardship on millions of hardworking Americans.

He went on to say:

The greatest Nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its

business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the

next.

Every 30 days, every 60 days, every 90 days, a manufactured crisis, evidence of a dysfunctional and willful Congress.

He went on to say:

Let's agree right here, right now, to keep the people's

Government open, pay our bills on time, and always uphold the

full faith and credit of the United States of America.

That seems to be reasonable policy.

We now have two and a half weeks before the sequester takes effect, with devastating consequences for our economy and national security, yet the gentleman from Kansas welcomes that policy. In fact, the Republican leadership of this House has not put a single bill on the floor in this Congress that would have any impact on avoiding the sequester.

We now find ourselves facing yet another manufactured crisis. Instead of preventing it, as I've said, Republicans appear to be willing and enthusiastically welcoming the sequester.

Mr. Speaker, every American ought to take note of that enthusiasm for an irrational policy, referred to as irrational by its own leader, Mr. Cantor, who said it was not the way we ought to do business. He's right, but he's brought nothing to the floor to avoid it.

The sequester, though, was meant to be so undesirable an outcome that it would force us to agree on a better approach. It married the worst consequences for both parties when it came to spending cuts: indiscriminate cuts to the defense budget alongside cuts to critical domestic programs.

In politics, often the key to compromise is crafting a package that contains something, some provision that everyone can love, although everyone will not love every provision. Here, Congress took the opposite approach and included something everyone could despise.

A faction of the majority, which is not a majority of this House by itself, has become so zealous in its drive to pursue a spending-only approach that it has embraced the sequester's Draconian cuts. Mr. Pompeo's quote this morning affirms that assertion.

They've used their clout within the majority to hold Congress hostage from one manufactured crisis to the next, and they nearly brought us to the edge of default for a second time last year. There have been several reports in a number of news outlets that Speaker Boehner promised their faction that the topline for appropriations would not exceed the level it would be after sequestration cuts, already adopting the premise that sequestration has gone into effect.

It was further reported that while the sequester levels would be kept, the cuts would be rearranged in order to protect defense spending at the further detriment to domestic parties, like NIH, cancer research, heart research, prostate cancer research, diabetes research, all the other maladies that--Dr. Bera is sitting here shaking his

head--afflict us in this country and around the world.

By injecting additional partisanship in this way, Republicans would be taking a further step away from compromise. We need compromise. Each of us in this body understands we represent a certain segment of society, but not everybody agrees with everything we believe. Therefore, if we are to act on behalf of the country in a responsible, effective fashion, it's necessary to compromise.

Mr. Speaker, the sequester is real and is rapidly approaching. It is not a rational approach to deficit reduction. Even Republican Leader Cantor, as I said, admitted on ``Meet the Press'' on Sunday about the sequester, and I quote the Republican leader:

I don't want to live with the sequester.

Let me repeat that.

I do not want to live with the sequester. I want reductions

in spending that make sense.

These indiscriminate reductions don't make sense. That's what Mr. Pompeo was welcoming: indiscriminate cuts that do not make sense. We need serious action in Congress to deal with the sequester, and that action cannot wait. But there's been nothing on the floor in this Congress to deal with that sequester--nothing. Not a single piece of legislation has been brought forth by the majority.

I used to be the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, and I had the power to bring legislation forward, and I would do it. I'm no longer the majority leader. The majority leader, notwithstanding this quote that these indiscriminate reductions don't make sense, has not brought an alternative to this floor.

Democrats are ready to make tough choices, and we're ready to work with Republicans to do what is necessary to solve this problem of our deficits in a balanced way. We must reduce spending, but we also need to raise revenues. Every bipartisan commission, everyone has said the only way you're going to solve the arithmetic is to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to yield back the balance of my time so that my colleagues have an opportunity to say their piece, but I lament the fact that we're going home next week. We ought to be here working to avoid what the majority leader says are indiscriminate cuts that are not the way to do business. Yet, we rush headlong to do that.

I hope the Senate acts. I hope the Senate passes a bill that will be rational, will get us out of this conundrum of a sequester that nobody should want, and that when it does, Majority Leader Cantor and Speaker Boehner will bring it to the floor and let us vote. And if you don't like it, vote against it. But let the American people know where we stand.

Let us avoid the sequester. Let us get ourselves on a fiscally balanced path, but let us do so responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to learn this week of the passing of Edward L. Maxwell, an old friend who was a community

leader in Prince George's County, Maryland. He was 80 years old when he lost his battle to cancer on January 29.

Born in 1932 in Phenix City, Alabama, a stone's throw from Fort Benning, Edward dreamed even as a boy of serving his country in the U.S. Army. At age 13, he rode a freight train to Washington, DC, with his older brother Stephen to chase the dream of a better life, and he attended Spingarn High School. In 1950, at age 18, Edward volunteered for the U.S. Army and was sent to Korea, where he was wounded in both legs and expected to be paralyzed permanently.

With grit and hard work, Edward spent time in rehab at Walter Reed Army hospital and was able to walk again. Following his military service, he studied at the Veterans Vocational Institute, the Cortez Peters Business School, the LaSalle School of Accounting, and the George Washington University. With a penchant for math and a love of learning, Edward embarked on a career in business that would eventually lead him to become a successful small business owner and founder of the Best Value and Allen's Discount retail stores. He started it all by selling encyclopedias, vacuum cleaners, and insurance policies--and working at fast-food restaurants--until he could afford to start his own businesses.

Later, Edward started other successful businesses, including a casino that contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to help individuals in the community afford college and pursue opportunities for their families. He launched a non-profit to help disabled veterans like himself access their earned benefits and find jobs, and he donated so much food to the needy over the holidays that, over the years, he became known locally as the ``Turkey Man.''

I first came to know Edward in the 1970s, when I was working as a lawyer in Prince George's County. He was a cherished member of the community who was not only a man of business but a man of deep faith in God and faith in his fellow men and women. Edward was also a loving husband, father, grandfather, and uncle.

Edward married his wife Freida in 1962, and after 50 years together, she survives him. So does their daughter Gene and four sons: Kermit, Zach, Edward Jr., and Mike. He was also blessed with six grandchildren.

I join in mourning Edward's passing and in offering my condolences to Freida and their entire family. He will be missed by the entire Prince George's County community, and his generosity, big heart, and warm spirit will be long remembered.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, the President will once again walk into this Chamber and lay out a vision for how to strengthen America in the years ahead. Properly, part of that vision will include the need to solve our deficit challenge and address the looming sequester. That dangerous set of automatic and indiscriminate spending cuts is due to take effect in just under 3 weeks. But instead of working with Democrats to avert the sequester through a big and balanced solution-- or, frankly, even a short-term balanced proposal--a growing number of House Republicans are, instead, engaged in a dangerous blame game.

Majority Leader Cantor joined in that this weekend, claiming that the President is the one who proposed the sequester in the first place. What he didn't say was, of course, the Republicans offered a piece of legislation called. The sequester was an integral part of their policy proposal. In fact, the sequester was part of a bipartisan

agreement instigated by Republicans, which we supported. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that it was Republican hostage taking of the debt limit in 2011 that brought about the Budget Control Act, which created the sequester.

Speaker Boehner himself, after the deal creating the sequester was struck, said about the Budget Control Act, which included the sequester which faces us at the end of this month:

When you look at this final agreement that we came to with

the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted.

Now, let me again stress that many of us voted for this. For the past 2 years, however, the Republican majority in this House has had our country lurching from one fiscal crisis to another. Repeatedly, they have threatened to default on our obligations, shut down government operations, and to slash spending in an irrational, meat-ax way.

They have shaken the confidence of our people and of all those throughout the world who look to America for security and stability. They have undermined, in my view, the growth of economy and jobs--and that's the view of CBO as well--and have put in question our commitment to investing in our defense and in job creation.

In short, the Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, in this House has given us the most chaotic and confidence-destroying leadership I have seen in my 32 years of service in this House. And now, many of them suggest the sequester that is scheduled to occur on March 1 is an acceptable way forward. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the time to quote the number of Republicans who have said that, but I believe all of them are profoundly wrong.

Sequestration will have a devastating impact on both domestic programs and on our national security. If the sequestration were to take effect, it would mean 70,000 children dropped from the Head Start program; loan guarantees to small businesses would be cut by as much as $540 million; and just as we are engaged in a national discussion about how to address mental health, up to 373,000 people suffering from mental illness could go untreated.

That is not the President's vision for America, nor is it the vision of Democrats in this House. Now, here we are at the 11th hour once again.

First, House Republicans walked way from the Simpson-Bowles recommendation to adopt a balanced way forward; then they refused to compromise on a balanced alternative to the sequester, starting the clock of sequestration. Then we came down to the wire on the fiscal cliff and delayed sequestration for 2 months, and here we are, once again, with Republicans continuing to cast blame on others.

Mr. Speaker, the blame game must end by us and by our Republican colleagues. The issue is not who is at fault. As the previous speaker indicated, we're all at fault; we're all responsible; we all serve in this House. Many of us voted for policies that spend money. Some of us voted for policies to pay for what we bought. Others voted against policies for paying for what we bought. Here we are, once again, on the brink of a fiscal meltdown.

It's a game that has no winners, only losers, like the 14,000 teachers, teacher assistants, and other education staff who would lose their jobs; or the 125,000 families who would be at risk of losing their homes when our rental assistance program is cut; or the thousands of civilian defense personnel, in my district alone, and throughout this country who would be furloughed for up to 22 days during the year; and the hundreds of thousands around the country across every service branch, not to mention the tens of thousands of defense contractors critical to our national security, who would be at risk of losing their jobs.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, we need to get serious and work together to avert a sequester that could stop our recovery in its tracks and defeat our common goal of helping America's economy grow and its businesses create jobs.

Reducing spending in a rational way is important for us to do, let there be no mistake. Considering additional revenues will be essential--every bipartisan group has said that--if we are to get on a sustainable financial footing. The sequester, however, Mr. Speaker, is dangerous and unacceptable. We must stop simply fiddling while the sequester's flames threaten to burn our economy, our national security, and our people.

Mr. Speaker, we have no time to waste. I would urge the majority leader to bring a bill to the floor today that would comply with what Mr. Lankford, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, said that we ought to pass things that we think the Senate can pass, not just messages, not just political spin, but we ought to pass things that can actually be passed through the United States Senate and signed by the President.

Senator Lindsey Graham has said:

We have our fingerprints as Republicans on this proposal,

on this sequestration idea. It was the President's idea,

according to Bob Woodward's book. But we as the Republican

Party agreed to it.

Let's make law and make policy so that America has the confidence that its Congress can work. It must work. America needs it to work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, for the purposes of telling us the schedule for next week.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

I might ask a preliminary question. When the gentleman refers to the bill that is to be considered next week, I presume he is referring to the cost of living adjustment increase?

With that, I yield to my friend.

Which deals with a cost of living increase. Am I correct?

And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I disagree with his conclusion because, clearly, what we're dealing with is a cost-of-living increase similar to that which is given to Social Security recipients and others to make sure that the pay is not degraded that average working people in this country, in this Federal Government, receive, including a large number of people in Virginia and in my State, but that's only 15 percent of the Federal workforce which is around the country. I think it's unfortunate that now, for 2\1/2\ years, the only working people in America who have received a freeze or a decrease or who have contributed to solving the debt crisis which confronts us, on which the gentleman and I agree, are Federal workers. I'm not talking about Members of Congress, and I'm not talking about the President or the Vice President. The President doesn't get a COLA adjustment, obviously, but it's a cost-of-living adjustment.

I will say to my friend--and I have worked over the last 20 years with his counterparts, either in the majority or in the minority, to ensure that we made the distinction so that people understood and didn't demagogue that issue--that I regret that we are doing so here again. While it may well be appropriate to, from time to time, freeze even the cost-of-living adjustment, it is also appropriate to refer to it for what it is and not as a pay raise. In fact, the courts have indicated, as the gentleman knows, that it is a cost-of-living adjustment, but we don't need to debate that further unless the gentleman wants to say something.

In reclaiming my time, the gentleman, respectfully, misstates what I said. There are a lot of people sacrificing and a lot of people who don't have jobs. I want to talk a little bit about that as we deal--or don't deal--with the sequester.

What I said was that the only people we had, as a policy, reduced-- and the gentleman is correct. We did raise taxes on those over $400,000. There is nobody in the Federal service, of course, who makes over $400,000. The

President makes $400,000. He is at the top, as he should be, and he doesn't get a COLA adjustment, but there is nobody in the Federal service who makes over $400,000. They are the only people we've raised contributions on. Others have, in fact, indeed, sacrificed because they've lost their jobs; they've had their pay frozen because of the bad economic times. This sequester is going to make it worse, and we'll discuss that.

What I am simply saying is that the gentleman is not serving the long-term interests of this institution, in my opinion, in not accurately describing what we're doing. That's what I said and that's what I mean.

Of course, that's what we all agree on, but, frankly, that rhetoric does not substitute for action. Automatic budget cuts, known as the sequester, as you know, would cut U.S. growth in half in 2013 if allowed to go into effect. The CBO said that what we've already done has harmed the economy.

It is time for us to get on and deal with real solutions, not message bills as we did this week and as we did 2 weeks ago. That's all we've done. We met 6 or 7 days this month and last month in this Congress. We're dealing with message bills. The bill that we considered this week--the only bill of substance that we considered this week other than suspensions--will not have any positive effect on the sequester. The sequester is going to hurt our people; it's going to hurt jobs; it's going to hurt economic growth; it's going to do exactly the opposite of what the gentleman says--and I agree with him--that we agree ought to be our objectives.

As you know, the fiscal cliff deal postponed the sequester until March 1. Now, an overwhelming number of your folks did not vote for that, of course. The gentleman did, and I joined him in that effort. We've postponed that until March 1, the sequester. We're 20 days away from the sequester. We didn't do anything about it 2 weeks ago; we didn't do anything about it this week; and we're apparently not going to do anything about it next week either. There is no legislation which has been proposed by the majority party to make sure that the sequester does not go into effect.

The President of the United States spoke about that yesterday. Mr. Van Hollen had a proposal to specifically deal with the sequester, to specifically preclude the sequester from going into effect, from specifically precluding the adverse effects that are going to occur to our national security structure and to our non-defense discretionary spending structure. We still now haven't seen anything from your party that would help stop the problem of the sequester. I was deeply upset that you did not make in order the Van Hollen alternative. Clearly, that alternative would have made a very substantial difference on the sequester. The President would have signed that, and the Senate, in my view, would have passed it, but we didn't even get to consider it on the floor.

Mr. Majority Leader, we are either going to consider alternatives-- and I read the majority leader's speech yesterday about reaching out and doing things in a bipartisan way. One way we can do that is to allow both sides to offer their alternatives and have an up-or-down vote and to let the American people make a judgment on that. Very frankly, I think that the American people would have said that the Van Hollen alternative was the preferable alternative to the sequester. Now, there are a lot of your Members who apparently think the sequester is okay.

In your own quote, Mr. Majority Leader:

Under the sequester, unemployment would soar from its

current level up to 9 percent, setting back any progress the

economy has made. According to the same study, the jobs of

more than 200,000 Virginians, in my home State, are on the

line.

That's what you said on September 13, 2012. I think you were right. I applaud you for that statement, but I regret that we had no legislation put on this floor 2 weeks ago, this week, or in your announcement next week to preclude the sequester from going into effect, which you say, Mr. Majority Leader--and I agree with you--will have an adverse effect on up to 200,000 Virginians.

Another quote from Representative Rooney, with which I agree:

We've tried to replace the sequester with other things, but

it seems now that the large portion of our Conference is

resigned to the fact that sequestration is okay.

Mr. Rooney correctly says it's not okay--that it's dangerous, a huge mistake, a threat to our liberty. That's what Tom Rooney of Florida said, and I applaud him for that statement, and I think he's accurate.

Bill Young, who has made his whole life's career in making sure that we have a strong national security, said this:

``I'm reading what a lot of different Members are saying, and I find,'' lamentably--that's my word, not his--``there is not as much opposition to sequestration as I thought there might be.''

In other words, a lot of your folks are saying that sequestration is the way to go. In fact, Representative John Shimkus said:

He, President Obama, can announce all he wants,

Sequestration is coming. It's coming. We've got to get

spending cuts--no new revenue. It's all about spending.

So he is welcoming the sequester.

Tom Coburn:

I think sequester is going to happen. I think people want

it to happen.

I don't want it to happen, Mr. Leader. I don't think it ought to happen. I think it's going to be bad for the country if sequester happens.

The President doesn't want sequester, Harry Reid doesn't want sequester, and I don't want sequester. I would hope, based upon your comment that I just quoted, that you don't want sequester, but we're not going to get away from the sequester unless there's legislation that you bring to this floor--and you have the authority to do that-- which will obviate going to sequester and will put in place an alternative which will do what you and I both want to do, and that is address the deficit and debt, both short term and long term.

Senator Mike Johanns said:

I just have a feeling sequester's going to happen. I just

think there's so much concern about the debt and spending

that it overrides most issues these days.

Now, those ``most issues'' are those 200,000 people that you talked about in your statement.

Senator Ayotte said:

Looks like where we're headed, sequestration.

John Cornyn:

The sequester is the only cuts we've got right now.

So that the consequences of the sequester, apparently, are not something he wants to avoid.

Gridlock is leading to spending reductions. If the

government does nothing, spending goes down. We have to claim

victory.

Congressman Mulvaney from South Carolina said that.

Now, in terms of the sequester, I want to point out to you that there's been some comments on your side that this is the President's initiative. That is absolutely 100 percent inaccurate. In fact, the alternative in your Cut, Cap and Balance bill--and I know the majority leader knows it--is sequester; that's the fallback. We put sequester in place thinking it was so irrational and would have such a negative effect that clearly we would address the matter in the last 14 months. We didn't. We ought not to quit trying to do it, though--getting an alternative. Mr. Van Hollen had an alternative.

As a matter of fact, in terms of the agreement that we reached, Speaker Boehner said, back on August 1, 2011:

When you look at this final agreement that we came to with

the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm

pretty happy.

That's John Boehner's quote.

So it's not as if this was our deal. The Speaker says he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now he says sequester is happening because the President didn't lead. Respectfully, I think that is totally, absolutely inaccurate. The President was prepared to be supportive of Mr. Van Hollen's alternative yesterday. You can say you want a plan. That was his plan. We offered it. That was Mr. Van Hollen's plan we offered. That was our Democratic alternative, and it would have avoided sequester.

So I say to the gentleman, I'm disappointed that the schedule does not reflect substantive, meaningful legislation to avoid the sequester which we certainly don't want. I don't know about your side based upon the quotes that I've just given you, but I would hope that the majority leader would, with the Speaker and with others in his caucus, seriously think about next week making in order a substantive alternative to the sequester.

Mr. Price says we did something in the last Congress. The last Congress is gone. You passed something in the last Congress. If you want to bring that to the floor and pass it again, you know the Senate won't pass it and the President won't sign it. The fact of the matter is we've got to get to compromise, Mr. Leader; and if we don't get to compromise, we're not going to get a solution to sequester or to bringing our debt and deficit down.

I'm glad to yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

It's good spin, but it's not substance. It was a silly bill. The Senate passed it and the President signed it because it was the only way we could make sure that we did not put the creditworthiness of the United States at risk because we're playing this game of chicken because there are some people in this Congress who believe that putting America's creditworthiness at risk is a worthwhile objective. We reject that out of hand.

And I continue to believe that it was a silly bill that we passed. Yes, it was a bill that the President signed because he wanted to make sure that we didn't default on our debts, and we tried to give some confidence, as the gentleman talked about for years, to the economy. So, yes, he signed the bill, but it had nothing to do with obviating the sequester.

The bill that we passed today affects no substantive progress--none, zero, zip. And the gentleman talks about your plan. The Ryan plan, as the gentleman well knows, does not balance the budget until well into the thirties, late into the thirties, 2030s; and, therefore, heaven knows what's going happen in the next 25 years.

I yield to the gentleman.

I'm looking forward to that.

Well, as the gentleman knows, I've been one of the leaders, certainly on this side, and in this House, to get to a balanced plan. A balanced plan, yes, does include revenues. You want to say get more money from the American people.

We buy things. As a people, we buy things. People send us here, 435 districts, and we vote on buying things. One of the things we bought, of course, was defending ourselves from terrorists, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It cost us $1.3-, $1.4 trillion when you were fully in charge. We paid zero for it. That's the largest expenditure, other than the two tax cuts which we did in 2001 and 2003, which we did not pay for by cutting spending, which you say is the problem.

You didn't cut spending when you were fully in charge of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. That's one of the reasons the Tea Party was so angry at some of your people, because they felt you all were in charge and you didn't cut spending. Maybe some of the people in this Chamber share that view.

Let me finish my thought, if I can, Mr. Leader.

So I say to you, right now, you're talking about a plan. Paul Ryan said yesterday the Founding Fathers would be upset with the President for not coming up with a plan. The Constitution contemplates the President having very little, if any role, other than execution of the budget in the budget process. That didn't come until the last century.

The fact of the matter is it is our responsibility. Not a nickel can be spent in America unless the Congress authorizes it to be spent. The President can't spend money on his own. Not a nickel can be raised in this country, of revenue, without the Congress acting on it. The President can't do that.

It is the Congress of the United States, under article I, that has this responsibility. We're not taking that responsibility. We're trying to shove it off on somebody else, in this case, the President of the United States.

The President has a plan. He's offered it a number of times. I just read a book that discussed our discussions for some period of time with the President on his plan. He's sent budgets down here. Your side doesn't like his plan because it involves revenues.

There is not a bipartisan commission that I know of that has not suggested, in order to solve our debt and deficit problem, that we don't have to have a balanced plan, which will involve revenues and will involve cuts in spending, cuts in spending to entitlements, cuts in spending to discretionary spending. I agree with that.

I'll now yield to my friend.

We're not going to resolve this argument, Mr. Speaker. It's the same litany on both sides. The difference is, the gentleman cannot name a bipartisan commission that doesn't say that we need both sides of the equation addressed if we're going to get from where we are to where we need to be.

On my side, we have to deal across the board with spending. You're correct on that. On your side, you're going to have deal with revenues. A lot of your people understand that, like Mr. Coburn and others. I won't mention anybody on this side of the aisle because I don't want to get them in hot water, but they all understand that.

And what you're saying is, the Senate needs to compromise, the President needs to compromise by doing it your way. That won't work. Your way or the highway is not the way we're going to have compromise.

Reclaiming my time if I can, the gentleman voted for the Budget Control Act. How much in cuts were in the Budget Control Act? $1.2 trillion, as I recall, or $1 trillion, excuse me, $1 trillion, which is why we had the Supercommittee to get the additional 1.2 that the Speaker said he wanted.

So your side assumed that we'd already done a trillion of the $2.2 trillion that the Speaker said was necessary. So the Speaker and your side, I presume, already adopted the premise that we'd cut $1 trillion in the Budget Control Act.

Now, do we need more? I think the answer to that is yes.

Mr. Van Hollen, in his proposal, made some cuts. I'm not saying you should have supported it. I'm saying you should have allowed the American people to have that alternative on the floor to consider.

You say it wasn't germane. You and I both know--you know the Rules Committee process as well as I do--we could have waived that because the issue in front of us immediately--we're talking about the long term--immediately, is in 22 days, or 23 days, we're going to have a sequester. Almost everybody agrees that the sequester will have an adverse impact on the economy, and on our national security, and on discretionary programs because it would be irrationally done, across the board, without recognition of priority status.

So that I tell my friend, I regret that we're not dealing with the sequester. I would hope the gentleman would put legislation on the floor next week to deal with the sequester, deal with an alternative to the sequester, not talk about what we did last Congress. We didn't agree with that. You're right. We voted against it. But put something on the floor that deals with the sequester.

And I will tell my friend, I liked his speech. And he said again today he wants to work in a bipartisan fashion.

The fact of the matter is, we had an election, and in the election the American people said they thought the President's view had merit, which was a balanced approach. Yes, revenue, but also cuts in spending. And the Senate expanded its numbers, notwithstanding the fact that they agreed with the President's position and not with yours. And, in fact, more people voted for Democrats in the House of Representatives than voted for Republicans, but the redistricting resulted in your continuing to have the majority.

So we have a joint responsibility to get there. And I would urge the gentleman to please consider putting something on the floor, not these message bills, but putting something on the floor that will substantively deal with avoiding the sequester.

Now let me go on to another issue that I know that the gentleman's been working on, and that's the Violence Against Women Act. I know he's been working, he said, with Vice President Biden, who was very involved in this. Can the gentleman tell me the status of that piece of legislation?

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank him for his work on this as well. This is a critically important issue, and I am hopeful that we can come to an agreement which will provide for the passage of that piece of legislation and send it to the President. I thank the gentleman.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Price of Georgia said what the American people want. What the American people don't want is games. This is a game. This is a sham. This is a shame.

What the American people want is honest legislation to address the challenges that confront us. In 23 or 24 days, we are going do face a sequester. That sequester, as has been pointed out, Mr. Cantor and I agree on, it will have devastating, adverse, negative consequences for our economy, for the American people, and for the confidence of America.

But we are not spending time to avoid the sequester. Mr. Price of Georgia, in fact, says this is not about the sequester. He's right.

Mr. Ryan said the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers had no idea and no intention the President of the United States would be involved in the budgeting process, period, none. Read the Constitution, my friends. I've heard a lot about that. The Founding Fathers thought it would be the legislative body, and the legislative body alone, that would have responsibility. It wasn't, frankly, until the last century that the President played a significant role in the budget, because the Founding Fathers, if you read the Constitution, thought, under Article I, we were responsible.

And now, my friends, we have a game. My friend from Georgia, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, said that we want a contrast. You have a contrast. You didn't want a contrast. You didn't make it in order, because you don't want the contrast.

What you want is your political messaging bill that at the end of the day will do zip, nada, zero to address the problems confronting America. It's a game. Sadly, it's a game because the American people deserve and need better from us--more responsibility, more reality, more honesty in the actions we take on this floor. This is a political messaging bill. It's not even a very big bill.

By the way, the bill to which the gentleman from Georgia referred is not before this Congress. It was the last Congress. That Congress, I tell the gentleman, is over. But we have a responsibility in the 113th Congress to act responsibly, not just to point to what was or was not done in the 112th Congress.

This is a political messaging bill, Mr. Chairman, pure and simple. It does nothing to solve the most immediate problem we are now facing that is the looming sequester and all the uncertainty it is causing.

What we ought to be working on this week is a bipartisan solution to the sequester that averts the negative cuts, the adverse consequences that will take place, as I said, 23 to 24 days from now. Instead, Mr. Chairman, we hear not only silence from many on the Republican side, but irresponsible acquiescence.

Yesterday Republicans brought consideration of an amendment by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, that would replace the sequester with spending cuts and additional revenue, a balanced package. Now, my Republican friends probably would have voted against that, but they didn't even allow the contrast of which the gentleman from Georgia speaks. Why? Because they want a unilateral message for their hardline constituents. That is why, Mr.

Chairman. And it's a shame, because the American people and our economy are suffering because of these actions.

This is very disappointing, as Mr. Van Hollen's amendment is exactly the approach we ought to consider on this floor.

And the President of the United States, for contrast, I tell my friend from Georgia, supports this exact alternative.

Will he support others in a compromise? He will. But this is the alternative that he supports, so it's the contrast that the gentleman seeks.

I suggest perhaps we ask unanimous consent that they change their mind. To do so would be devastating, if we don't fix the sequester, to our economy and our ability to create opportunities for America.

It's time that our friends in the majority in this House stop pretending that the sequester is not dangerous or that it can be a viable tool to achieve the fiscal discipline we need. It's not that tool and, in fact, it's very dangerous.

As we move closer toward the March 1 deadline, I want to tell my friend from Georgia, whom I respect, that I would hope that we could engage in a positive discussion and consideration on this floor of an alternative like Mr. Van Hollen's, not because you will support it, but because it is a viable, effective alternative, and then you provide an effective alternative. There is no alternative in the bill you provide on this floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember my friend, the late Judge James H. Taylor, who passed away on October 31 at his home in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. A prosecutor, judge, and family man, Jim was also a trailblazer as the first African-American to serve on the circuit court in Prince George's County.

Raised in Howard County, Maryland, Jim was one of ten children in a family that emphasized hard work and education. As a young man, he attended Carver Vocational-Technical High School in Baltimore to learn bricklaying, and he worked as a postal employee, a railroad oilman, and a cook to help support his widowed mother and his siblings.

After serving the nation in the Army Air Corps in 1945-1946, Jim matriculated at Howard University, where he graduated in 1950. In 1953, he was the first African-American law school graduate at American University.

In practicing law as one of the first African-Americans admitted to the bar in Prince George's County in 1956, Jim was described as a bold prosecutor who took risks and achieved results. Named Maryland's first African-American assistant state's attorney in 1963, Jim rose through the ranks of our state's legal establishment, breaking barriers along the way. In 1969, he was appointed to the bench by Governor Marvin Mandel and served for eighteen years before retiring from Maryland's Seventh Judicial Circuit in 1987.

Much of his casework dealt with family and child custody issues, and Jim drew on the experiences of his youth to help ensure that rulings of the court served the best interests of children and their future success.

An advocate for education in the study and practice of the law, Jim was a trustee of Prince George's Community College, which named a scholarship in his honor for paralegal students in 1992.

Above all else, Jim was a gentle giant who was able to accomplish great things in service to his fellow citizens without seeking attention for himself. He was a master of working behind the scenes to help others climb mountains and overcome hardships.

Jim, who was age 86, is survived by his wife of forty-four years, Jan Johnson Taylor; three children, and one stepdaughter; seven grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren. He also leaves behind his first wife, Lillian Miles Taylor, and a brother, Captain Milton Taylor (Ret.) of the Maryland State Police.

I join in remembering the life of Judge James H. Taylor and in celebrating his groundbreaking achievements as he helped advance the cause of justice in Maryland. He will be dearly missed by me and many others across my home state--but surely never forgotten.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to say to the Speaker before he leaves the floor, I believe the Speaker wants to get to a responsible agreement between our parties, between the House and the Senate, and between the Congress and the President on getting to a responsible way to reduce the budget. This bill is not that vehicle.

This bill, in my view, is an irresponsible waste of our time. This bill does not do what Republicans said they wanted to do over and over and over again, and that is give a sense of certainty to our economy, to our people, and to the international community.

This bill kicks the can down the road for 90 days one more time. This bill simply puts a leverage point another 90 days away, so that we can continue to roil this Congress, roil this country, and roil our people and our economy.

This bill is a political gimmick. This bill was cooked up a few miles from here when, frankly, the majority party said, We're in trouble. The people don't like us. Things aren't going well. How do we fix it?

Well, they came up with this gimmick, and the gimmick was, if you don't vote the way we want you to vote, we won't pay you.

Now, very frankly, the problem with that premise is that we are elected by 435 districts who have different perspectives. And my view is the overwhelming majority of us come here, work very hard on behalf of our constituents, but your constituents may not like what my constituents want. But that doesn't mean you have the right to say you're not going to get paid, Mr. Hoyer, because we don't like what you're working for. If that's our premise, we are holding hostage policy in an undemocratic, dictatorial fashion.

Not only that, this 90-day kicking the can down the road has got to stop. We need to come to reality that it's not the debt limit that's the problem--and the President's absolutely right. The President has nothing to do with the debt limit. Only this House and the Senate can spend money. The President can't spend a nickel. Only this House and only this Senate.

The other problem with this, of course, is we're now going to spend till 12:30 today discussing this critically important issue. We treat it like just a throwaway. I can't discuss the substance of this issue in the time allotted to me, nor can any other Member.

When I had a magic 1 minute, it was a little better when I was majority leader. I miss that very much.

But I urge both of us, both Republicans and Democrats, to come to grips with making the hard decision, not the political demagoguery decisions that this bill projects. Let us sit down together and come to grips with the fact that, yes, my friend, we need more revenues and, yes, we need to restrain spending and, yes, we need to restrain entitlements.

I say that as a leader of my party.

But I say to all of us, you will not get there with gimmicks. You will not get there with pretense. You will not get there with irresponsibility and kick the can down the road.

I understand what you have done. You've taken your most controversial leverage point and put it at the end, rather than at the beginning of the process. But you still have the CR, and you still have the sequester, and we'll have to debate those.

What we ought to be doing is extending this debt limit for 1, 2, 4, or 6 years, or eliminating it all together. When you spend money, it has nothing to do with the debt limit and everything to do with the actions of this Congress.

I thank the ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, and I thank Mr. Rogers for his work, as well, on bringing this bill to the floor.

I rise not only in support of the chairman's mark at $17 billion, but also for the Frelinghuysen amendment. I think both of these together meet our responsibilities in responding to one of the most historic and damaging storms to hit the country--not only the Northeast, but the country.

People throughout New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and the whole

mid-Atlantic region are still struggling to pick up the pieces after the most devastating storm in years, and Congress has a duty to help. As I've said before, it's never too late to do the right thing. I thought we might do this previously, but now is a good time to act, and hopefully today we will act.

Earlier this month, we took action to help ensure that flood insurance benefits will be available for those still recovering from Sandy. Today, however, we must finish our work and take action on the comprehensive aid package that communities in the Northeast need to rebuild.

This is not a moment for partisan difference or gimmicks. Amending these relief bills will make it harder to get aid to those who need it as soon as possible. The American people, especially those impacted by Sandy, will not look kindly on such delay.

Congress appropriated $62.3 billion in emergency relief less than 2 weeks after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans and the gulf coast in 2005. I voted for that; that was the right thing to do. As it was then, it is now the right thing to do. There's no reason why the people of New York, New Jersey, and affected areas should have to wait any longer.

This is a bipartisan effort. When Americans are in trouble, in pain, at risk, we respond, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans, to their needs.

We must pass these relief bills. So I urge my colleagues on both sides to oppose any amendments that diminish our ability to provide this much-needed assistance. Only by setting party aside and coming together as fellow Americans and fellow Representatives can we achieve this goal.

I urge all my colleagues, not only on my side of the aisle, but on the other side of the aisle, to join together to make sure that the relief necessary is given this day to this region for this storm.

``The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to congratulate all of the Members who represent New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and other jurisdictions who have been united in a bipartisan way to say, let us reach out; let us act now to help those who have been savaged by Sandy.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill that will help ensure flood insurance benefits will be available for those still struggling to recover from Superstorm Sandy. But I agree with Frank Pallone: while it is never too late to do the right thing, it is late that we are doing this thing--and we are doing only the bare minimum, because the flood insurance will expire. But Frank Pallone is absolutely right, the Senate, hopefully, can act by unanimous consent--hopefully--on this small portion. But as we did in Katrina, we should have acted almost immediately to meet the pain and suffering and loss of the citizens-- our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans--who were the victims of Sandy, but should not have been the victims of our delay.

I support this legislation. I urge the Speaker and all of us on both sides of the aisle to ensure that on the 15th of this month we act for the balance of the initial dollars that will be available to assist those who have had this loss.

I will be very supportive on the 15th. I know that the people of Connecticut, of New Jersey, of New York, of Pennsylvania, and of all America will hold the Speaker and all of us to the promise that no later than the 15th of this month--some 11 days from today--that we will make a full contribution to those people.