Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Which deals with a cost of living increase. Am I correct? And I yield to my friend.

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

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. I'm looking forward to that.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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?

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. ``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.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it was to my profound disappointment that I learned last night that the House would adjourn the 112th Congress without providing assistance to the victims of Superstorm Sandy. I am joined today, Mr. Speaker, by many of my colleagues from the jurisdictions whose people received the most damaging blow. Though my district did not sustain the extreme damage that those in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut did, the President declared several Maryland counties eligible for Federal assistance from this storm, but it was minor, and my citizens are not in dire circumstances; but the citizens of some from whom we will hear today are in that condition. Those counties joined hundreds in the 1,000-mile diameter of this storm--the largest geographically in the history of the Atlantic hurricanes. Now, at best, the Speaker has said that Sandy's victims will need to wait until the next Congress to receive assistance--Wait, they say, to millions who are in pain and in distress. We should not be waiting. We should be voting this very morning, which I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I expect to happen from my discussions with the majority leader. As I said last night, I went with Congressman Greg Meeks to Breezy Point and the Rockaways in New York, and what I saw there in Sandy's aftermath defied description and demanded action. To those who say that FEMA has not yet disbursed all the funds it has to assist families and businesses, I would tell them that they deeply underestimate the damage in these areas and the wide range of assistance required to alleviate the pain and suffering. At Jacob Riis Park, I saw the mountains of debris that the Corps of Engineers had begun to remove from neighborhoods. That debris represents people's lives, homes, and businesses. With this legislation, we would have provided up to $1.6 billion to the Corps to continue removing debris so that families could begin rebuilding. Would we have had to borrow that money? Yes. Just as if the furnace went out and the temperature were at zero, you would immediately replace the furnace to keep the families safe and borrow the money to do so; and, yes, we would have had to repay it, and we would. This bill would have allocated $6 million in emergency aid for food banks to make sure that people in the richest country on the face of the Earth have some sustenance for them and their children. I saw an area of Breezy Point where more than 100 homes were devastated by fire when an electric transformer malfunctioned. The many firefighters who lived in that neighborhood could not get additional help from surrounding boroughs due to the severe flooding. They battled mightily and they saved many lives, but there is little left--indeed, none--of their homes. I saw local businesses, Mr. Speaker, which had been there for years, completely destroyed, waiting for the $620 million in SBA assistance this bill would have provided. We talked a lot about not imposing burdens on small business by additional taxes. These small businesses are out of business without our help. We walk away today from nearly $4 billion in assistance to help reconstruct Rockaway Beach and other places, which is critical to the area's economic recovery and important to prevent further storm damage. Finally, there is also the toll on transit and infrastructure, including inundated subway and traffic tunnels that were referred to last night. This bill would have provided up to $10.9 billion for transit and $2.2 billion for highways to help make sure that the area is not just cleared of water but repaired. If small businesses are going to be able to operate, it will be because consumers and customers can get to them and get to the schools and get to the hospitals and get to their families. Waiting to act until later this month when Members were here and ready to vote last night is not the right choice. No Member of this House could travel to the Northeast, see the damage, and tell anyone in those areas to wait--wait for us to act, wait for us to help, wait for us to come to your aid. We cannot and we should not wait. We must not walk away. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Speaker of this House to reconsider and to act immediately. Now is the time to act.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Is it in order to ask unanimous consent to extend that time for 1 minute?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may revise and extend their remarks on the issue that has been before the House in these 5-minute speeches.