Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Thank you to my colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for bringing this important issue to the floor today and for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2600, a commonsense clarification to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, ILSA, to preserve consumer protections while keeping our economic recovery on track. More than 40 years ago, Congress passed ILSA to prevent real estate developers from bilking unsuspecting buyers out of their life savings by selling them parcels of land in the middle of a swamp or of a desert. ILSA requires sellers to disclose critical information about the land being sold, including automobile access to the property, the availability of water on a lot, and access for emergency personnel. These disclosure requirements are clearly necessary and appropriate for individuals who are buying land sight unseen. They do not make sense, however, when you try to apply them to purchases of condominiums in urban high-rise developments. Clearly, a condo in downtown Manhattan or in downtown Dallas will have access to water and emergency services, and purchasers do not need to know about the risk of soil erosion or about the presence of mobile homes within their units on the 15th floor. Although common sense would dictate otherwise, courts have interpreted the vague statutory and regulatory language of ILSA to apply to condo purchases. While that interpretation has been disputed and discussed over the years, ILSA was rarely an issue in private condo sales until the economy collapsed in 2008; and as mentioned by Mrs. Maloney, in facing tough financial times and underwater mortgages, many condo and co-op buyers began to use a developer's failure to comply with ILSA to void otherwise valid contracts for condo purchases and receive full refunds of their pre-cash down payments. These suits slowed the housing recovery and left many large developments in New York, Florida, and in other States unfinished or unoccupied. We can all agree that ILSA provides vital consumer protections for land purchasers, but the law should not be used to void valid contracts because of buyer's remorse. The bill before us today provides a simple clarification to explicitly exempt condominium sales from the law's disclosure requirements. To ensure that ILSA continues to provide the highest level of consumer protection, condominium developers will still be required to comply with the law's antifraud provisions. Developers will also be required to continue complying with all State and local disclosure requirements for condominiums. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is an easy fix to ensure that developers continue to comply with strict reporting requirements, that purchasers have the information they need to make informed decisions, and that our economic recovery remains on track. I congratulate Mrs. Maloney for bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to HR 3102, the majority's extreme legislation to cut 4 million seniors, working families, and individuals with disabilities from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP is an effective, short-term anti-poverty program designed to help families stay on their feet when they face tough times and to ensure seniors and individuals with disabilities have access to the food they need. On average, SNAP recipients receive about $4.80 a day for food. How many on the floor of this chamber spent more than that on their cup of coffee this morning? I imagine very few of my colleagues can honestly say they can feed themselves, let alone their families, every day for that amount of money. Despite these facts, the bill we debate today will gut SNAP. These $40 billion in cuts will eliminate benefits for nearly 4 million Americans this year and further cut 3 million people off the program every year for the next decade. These cuts are designed to reduce SNAP enrollment and spending but ignore the link between SNAP and our economy. When the economy collapsed in 2008, SNAP enrollment increased as more families struggled to make ends meet amid record high unemployment. That is how the program is supposed to work, and as our economy continues to recover and more Americans go back to work, SNAP enrollment and spending has gone down and will continue to decrease. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that if we do nothing and let the economy improve, SNAP spending will return to its low 1995 levels as a percent of GDP in the next six years. The majority claims this bill will increase incentives for SNAP recipients to work. That claim belies the fact that millions of Americans who do work still rely on SNAP to meet their needs. Further, in New York State, the bill would actually have the opposite effect. The state receives nearly $170 million in federal funding, and leverages nearly $140 million in local funding, for job training and placement efforts to get SNAP recipients back in the workforce and transition them away from government assistance. Yet this bill would eliminate or severely cut funding for those programs, making it harder for individuals to find work and get back on their feet. Rather than rewarding states for helping unemployed individuals, in a perverse twist, the only actual incentive this bill contains is one for states to kick SNAP recipients out of the program if they cannot find a job or job training. That approach will only serve to push more families on to government programs instead of lifting them out of poverty. If we really want to reduce the number of people who use SNAP, we should focus on job creation legislation to assist the millions of Americans looking for work and on passing a budget that supports instead of undermines our economic recovery. Putting people back to work and rebuilding our economy is the only responsible way to ensure seniors and working families have the food and the resources they need. But instead, we are voting to slash this vital safety net program and telling millions of Americans: good luck. Good luck putting food on your table tonight and ensuring your children succeed in school without the food they need. Good luck affording your prescription medication and making your mortgage payment this month. Mr. Speaker, I will not turn my back on those millions of Americans who rely on SNAP to feed their families and get back on their feet. I urge my colleagues to vote no on these extreme cuts.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, under current law, Congress can disapprove any proposed rule and regulation under the Congressional Review Act. Under this bill, no regulation could go into effect until Congress affirmatively approved the regulation. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were to approve some rule that reduces nuclear safety, Congress, under current law, could block that rule. What this bill says, and what my amendment seeks to exempt the NRC from, is that no safety regulation can go into effect until Congress gets around to approving it. The Republican leadership took the appropriations bill for the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Departments off the floor yesterday allegedly because they have no time to consider it. We've passed all of 12 bills this year for the President's signature, and we would have hundreds or thousands of regulations by all the different agencies that we would have to consider. Most would never be approved simply because we would not have time to consider them. All this amendment says is, for regulations regarding nuclear disasters, to prevent nuclear disasters, let Congress veto them if necessary, but not kill them by not having the time to get to them. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would exempt the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the bill so that the NRC can continue to protect Americans from nuclear disasters under current law, rather than the bill's proposed system. Today's bill, H.R. 367, in the name of so-called reform, adds over 60 new procedural and analytical hoops agencies and departments must go through before a regulation can be issued. The result is simply to impede, obstruct, and delay the attempt of government to accomplish one of it's most basic functions: protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. Not surprisingly, groups who care about protecting public health, safety, and the environment, such as the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Public Citizens, Defenders of Wildlife, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, oppose this bill. According, to the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which represents a coalition of many such groups, this bill ``will grind to a halt the rulemaking process'' and ``is nothing less than an attempt to roll back our critical public safeguards and promote industry interests instead of protecting American citizens.'' Americans should rightfully be scared that this bill will put their health and safety at risk. One example that highlights this fact is the subject of this amendment--nuclear power. The risks and dangers of nuclear power were made all the more real by the nuclear disaster in Japan at Fukushima 2 years ago. We all watched in horror when that country was devastated by the earthquake and resulting tsunami. That disaster then caused its own disaster--the meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. That led to the release of radioactive isotopes, the creation of a 20- kilometer exclusion zone around the power plant, and displacement of 156,000 people. Inside the evacuation zone all farming has been abandoned. In 2011, Virginia itself was struck by a relatively rare but strong earthquake felt up and down the eastern seaboard. It caused a nuclear power plant near the epicenter to have to go offline. For me, this concern hits close to home. A nuclear power plant, Indian Point, about which many people, myself included, have had concerns for years, lies just less than 40 miles away from my New York City district on an earthquake fault. There are 20 million people living within a 50-mile radius around the plant, the same radius used by the NRC as the basis for the evacuation zone recommended after the Fukushima disaster. Indian Point also sits near two fault lines and, according to the NRC, is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience core damage due to an earthquake. To keep my constituents, and indeed all Americans, safe, I am offering this amendment today. Because of the catastrophes that can result in disasters--be they natural or manmade--at nuclear power plants, prevention of meltdowns is the key. Since Fukushima, the NRC has issued new rules designed to upgrade plants to withstand severe events like earthquakes and to have enough backup power so as to avoid a meltdown for a significant period of time. The NRC must have the ability and flexibility to issue new regulations to safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans and to prevent nuclear disasters. However, this bill is intentionally designed so new and vital regulations will likely never be put into place. We cannot permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to never be able to create new regulations ever again should the need arise. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to exempt the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the onerous new requirements for rulemaking imposed by this bill. In that way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would continue to have the ability to safeguard public health and safety, as it should. We should not risk the lives of millions and millions of people. If a danger becomes evident and the experts in charge of protecting against that--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--deem some new protection necessary, this bill would prevent those protections from going into effect. So my amendment would exempt the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with respect to safety regulations for nuclear power plants. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to increase transit funding for Capital Investment Grants, also known as the New Starts program, by $127 million, which would bring it to the same level as the bill currently being considered in the Senate. Earlier this year, almost 100 Members joined me in sending a letter to the Appropriations Committee requesting funding for transit, at a minimum, at the levels authorized in MAP-21 and in the President's request. In one of the few bright spots in this bill, transit formula grants are funded at the MAP-21 authorized level, in large part because the formula grants are funded out of the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Unfortunately, the New Starts and Small Starts program, which comes out of general revenue and funds the construction of new fixed guideway systems, such as new subway lines, bus rapid transit, and light rail is cut 7 percent below the enacted level and 8 percent below the President's request. This shows how important it is that the provision in last year's Republican bill that would have cut regular mass transit funds out of the highway trust fund and subject it to appropriations was defeated because otherwise we would have a drastic cut there, too. This bill is out of step with the demands of the American people. According to the American Public Transportation Association, a record 10.5 billion trips were taken last year, the second highest annual ridership since 1957. This increase in ridership is occurring all over the country, in places like Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, and Utah, to name just a few. Despite the increase in ridership, Federal transportation funding is not keeping up with demand. Public transportation agencies all across the country are facing possible job cuts, maintenance backlogs, service reductions, and fare hikes. The funding levels in this bill provide barely enough to meet our existing commitments to projects currently under construction, and there is a small amount of money for only a few new Small Starts. The funding level is too low to adequately finance planning and development of additional transit projects. The policy framework in this bill is one of attrition and contraction: to provide just enough money to close out the old projects, with no plans to invest in major new transit systems in any meaningful way in the future. We are not adequately investing in building new capacity and expanding transit service around this country, but I suppose that is the point--to slowly starve these programs to the point that they cease to be effective and then argue that they are not necessary. But I am optimistic that we will ultimately provide greater funding for transit. This is an issue that historically has had bipartisan support. Many of my Republican friends joined me in protecting the transit funding guarantees during consideration of surface transportation legislation last year and in defeating the leadership's attempt to eliminate it. The business community and the real estate industry support funding for public transportation, along with a wide range of labor, civil rights, environmental, and civic organizations. Public transportation has broad support all over the country because people understand that investing in transit is one of the smartest things we can do to create jobs right here in America, reduce congestion and dependence on foreign oil, and spur economic growth. My amendment would increase the New Starts program by $127 million, which is a modest amount considering how much we should be investing in our infrastructure, but at least it would put the House bill on equal footing with the Senate. Unfortunately, there is no account to use as an offset that wouldn't cause significant harm to other important programs, and, therefore, I have offered none. I understand the chairman may insist upon raising a point of order, and this just shows the limitations under which we are working in this impossible bill in which there is grossly inadequate funding all around so that you can't responsibly ask for an offset without destroying mass transit or something else that is of great import in order to support adequate expenditures. I urge my colleagues to support increasing transit funding in whatever final product for FY14 appropriations becomes law. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the draconian cuts to the Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, program in this legislation. The CDBG program has a proven record of success in stabilizing and revitalizing communities across the country by directly providing funds to local communities and giving them the flexibility to decide where the funding will have the greatest impact. In the last 7 years, CDBG has assisted over a million low- and moderate-income homeowners to rehabilitate their homes, keeping neighborhoods and communities safe and stable. More than 30 million people have benefited from CDBG-funded public improvement programs, including senior and child care centers, homes for persons with disabilities, safe streets, and shelters for victims of domestic violence. Funds have also been used to provide public services to millions of low- and moderate-income households, including employment training, meals to seniors, and services for abused children. But the real impact of CDBG is not seen on the national scale. It is seen on the streets and in the neighborhoods of the communities that receive these funds. In my district, CDBG funds have established adult literacy programs, legal support for immigrant victims of domestic violence, and youth summer employment opportunities. It has preserved public housing and addressed vacant housing and lots in at-risk neighborhoods, providing support and guidance for small, locally owned businesses. Because of the flexibility CDBG provides, the city government has been able to identify the most pressing needs and the most at-risk communities and allocate funds as they are needed. When we invest CDBG funds in our cities, we see an immediate impact in the neighborhoods as nonprofit and private entities follow, bringing new development and opportunities for residents. Mr. Chairman, CDBG was a change from the old way in which specific programs were specifically funded. People in this House--mostly Republicans, I must say--said, Give more flexibility to local governments; instead of giving to 20 categorical-specific programs, fund them into one or two Community Development Block Grants so they can be used more efficiently. We have done that. We have combined a lot of categorical programs into CDBG, and now we want to tear it to pieces. Despite the success that CDBG has had, the bill we are debating on the floor today would cut funding to $1.6 billion, which is a 50 percent cut from this year, and the lowest funding level in the 40-year history of the program--lower than when President Ford supported it, even without inflation adjustments. In New York, CDBG funding would fall from $164 million to $82 million. These funding levels will leave hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers and millions of Americans without access to the vital services and support that CDBG provides. How did we get here? Why are we voting to gut this proven, efficient, flexible program? Why are we voting for a 50 percent cut in an already much too small allotment? The answer is simple: the slash-and-burn Republican budget. The same budget that provides tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations and unneeded increases in defense spending while slashing funding for Medicaid, food stamps, and WIC has left appropriators with such small funding allocations that this bill was unworkable and unrealistic from the start. So here we are, slashing programs that serve and protect the most vulnerable among us--programs that are proven to save us money in the long run and programs that support flexibility and accountability in our communities. We may disagree, Mr. Chairman, on how to keep our economy strong, but we should all agree that we must stop piling these cuts on the backs of seniors and the working poor, women, kids, and the middle class. Stop these cuts to our communities. We should reject this bill unless it's grossly increased in the aggregate, which it won't be, as we know. So we should reject this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the FY14 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. This bill is the perfect illustration of the majority's cruel and misguided priorities. We hear a lot from the other side about how we need to cut the budget, reduce the deficit and rein in spending, but, clearly, that's just rhetoric. Last week, the majority put a bill on the floor that increased defense spending substantially, including extra funding for programs the administration and the military didn't want and have no intention of using. The reality is that the majority in this House is perfectly willing to increase spending for things they care about, like military contracts, but not for ensuring adequate housing, investing in economic and community development or even in transportation infrastructure. The bill before us today is so bad that it's hard to imagine how it can be fixed. The House bill is fully $10 billion less than the Senate bill, and it's virtually impossible to find offsets for amendments to improve the bill, but it's important for us to highlight some of the egregious cuts, such as the drastic cuts to the Amtrak capital and operating budget. Just a few years ago, Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, PRIIA, which authorized a total of $9.8 billion for Amtrak for the fiscal years 2009 through 2013, but the actual appropriations for Amtrak over this time period was $2.5 billion below the authorized amount. There is no question we need to invest more in our railroads. A working group for the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission reported that the total capital cost estimate of establishing a national intercity passenger rail network between now and 2050 would be about $357 billion, or a little over $8 billion annually. We are nowhere near that, and the bill before us today takes us in exactly the wrong direction. This bill slashes Amtrak's capital program by 37 percent and Amtrak's operations by 25 percent from last year's enacted level. These funding levels would have a drastic impact on Amtrak's ability to maintain service. Once you take into account Amtrak's financial obligations, such as contract payments and federally mandated safety work, Amtrak would have only $100 million to cover the investment needs of the entire system. The Northeast corridor alone requires about $780 million per year to address longstanding state of good repair needs, and Amtrak will have to defer maintenance, which will cause service delays and interruptions, and increased costs in the long run. This is idiotic. I know some people are Amtrak haters no matter the facts, but here are a few more facts that are noteworthy. Commuter lines on the Northeast corridor carry 235 million passengers every year. These are mostly business travelers who rely on the reliability of Amtrak's rail in order for them to get to work and foster economic growth. If Amtrak cannot maintain the rails adequately, all of these commuter rail systems around all of our major cities will stop being efficient, will stop being able to transport their people. Amtrak employs nearly 20,000 people in 46 States. Amtrak employees paid more than $64 million in State and local taxes last year. Amtrak did business for suppliers equaling about $1.3 billion last year. Cutting funding for Amtrak jeopardizes all of this economic activity and all of the good-paying jobs associated with it. It will ultimately cost taxpayers a lot of money in the long run. Amtrak provides a vital service for communities all around the country. We should be increasing investments in Amtrak and developing intercity and high-speed rail. This bill includes no funds whatsoever for the TIGER grant program. In fact, it rescinds $237 million in previous TIGER funds. The bill also includes no funding for the Projects of National and Regional Significance account, which is authorized under the MAP-21 bill that we passed last year but that is now subject to general fund appropriations. The New Starts program will fund some new transit programs, but that account is cut as well, and there is only enough funding to maintain commitments to projects currently in the pipeline. So there are, essentially, no programs to fund any new construction of major transportation projects. The majority has offered no solutions for how to invest in future economic growth, to facilitate interstate commerce and to maintain our global competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to reject these disastrous cuts to Amtrak, these disastrous cuts to TIGER and to general infrastructure, and to support moving us back toward an intelligent transportation policy. I have to urge a ``no'' vote on the FY14 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. Later in this debate, I will discuss the equally disastrous cuts in Community Development Block Grants. It's just another example of how this bill is dismantling the United States. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I listened carefully to the gentleman from Georgia, who talks about the fiscal crisis--that this country is broke and that we have to cut spending drastically. This country is not broke. This country is the wealthiest country in the world, but we are breaking ourselves, and we are breaking ourselves by cutting too much and by following a silly economic policy. When President Obama took office, this country had a deficit in the first fiscal year of $1.6 trillion. That was the last Bush budget, because, in the first year of any President, he is living under the former budget. The budget passed just before he took office. We had a $1.6 trillion budget deficit, and we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. The President and the Democratic Congress decided that to reduce the deficit and to reduce unemployment, we had to spend some money to stimulate the economy. We had to put money into infrastructure, into jobs; and we did it. Congress passed it. It didn't do enough. But the fact is, within a year, we were gaining 250,000 jobs a month instead of losing 800,000 a month. We turned the economy around by a million jobs a month, and the deficit started falling. The deficit has fallen like a rock. It's been reduced by 60 percent since the 2009 fiscal year. We've had the fastest deficit reduction in the last 3 years since the demobilization after World War II; and, frankly, it's going too fast. Any economist will tell you that the too- rapid reduction in Federal spending is hindering the economy and hurting jobs. The sequester has probably cut about one point off the gross domestic product. We have done what we have to do on the deficit for now. We have to do more in the long term. For now, it's still dropping like a rock. It's been cut by 60 percent. And now we ought to pivot and create jobs, even if that means spending money, but certainly not by cutting so much more. When we create jobs, that creates tax revenues; it reduces expenditures on things like unemployment and food stamps and reduces the deficit. If you want to see exactly what happened--it's rare in life that you get a controlled experiment. The economies in the United States and Europe tracked. They collapsed in 2007 until 2009. In 2009, they started going up slowly, and they kept going up until 2010. In 2010, the U.S. economy kept going up slowly, and the European economies went into a double-dip recession and tanked and unemployment went way up. Why? Because in Europe in 2010, they did what the American voters wisely refused to do, they elected conservative governments which cut spending much more and which endorsed austerity policies. What did they get? Higher unemployment and higher deficits. When I hear this rhetoric, it's just backwards. We've done enough on the deficit for now. We have more to do later, but for now we ought to create jobs. That will reduce the deficit by increasing employment, by increasing tax revenues from people who are employed, and by decreasing expenditures that go up when there's unemployment, mainly food stamps and unemployment insurance. I just had to say that this rhetoric is just wrong. The policies that we keep hearing about from that side of the aisle are driving us more and more into debt and more and more into unemployment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work on this issue in conference and to find a funding level that maintains this highly effective life-saving program, and I am, therefore, looking forward to those efforts. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, since 1992, the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS, or HOPWA, has provided a vital housing safety net for people battling HIV-AIDS. Nearly 1.2 million Americans are living with HIV-AIDS. More than 145,000 currently lack stable housing, and 500,000 will need some form of housing assistance during the course of their illnesses. Research consistently shows that a lack of stable housing is a major barrier to effective treatment for people living with AIDS and puts them at significant risk of premature death from poor nutrition, exposure to other diseases and a lack of medical care. HOPWA fills this gap by providing secure housing through one of the most effective programs in HUD's portfolio, and it is the only one that addresses the intersection of housing and health. Within 1 year, 96 percent of HOPWA participants achieve disease stabilization and reduced viral loads. Because housing stability plays a key role in preventing the spread of the virus, HOPWA contributes to better individual and community health outcomes. Further, for every $1 of HOPWA funding spent, $3.35 is leveraged from other Federal, State and local programs, and every $1 million in HOPWA funding provides housing and support for 171 families. For that reason, HOPWA has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support since its first authorization more than 20 years ago. Despite HOPWA's proven track record in improving health and housing outcomes for communities, this year's Transportation-HUD appropriations bill would cut $29 million in HOPWA funding. The committee's recommendation of $303 million brings the allocation for HOPWA back to FY 2008 funding levels despite the fact that there are 100,000 individuals more who are infected with HIV-AIDS than in 2008. I recognize that $29 million may sound small by Federal budgeting standards, but to the individuals and families who rely on HOPWA for stable housing and access to support services, these cuts are anything but small. If this funding level becomes law, nearly 5,000 families and individuals will lose access to HOPWA housing and all the health benefits that go with it. For those families, this cut is a matter of life and death. For that reason, I am offering this amendment to restore the $29 million cut from HOPWA this year and return it to the same funding level it has received for the last 2 fiscal years. This amendment would ensure that those 5,000 families and individuals who rely on HOPWA for secure, stable housing will not suddenly find themselves back on the street with no access to life-saving medical treatment. To protect those 5,000 households and stay within the House rules, I would have to cut $29 million from another account, but at the funding levels included in this bill, any offset would fundamentally undermine HUD's ability to provide services to hundreds of millions of families every day. HOPWA provides life-saving, efficient services to thousands of families and individuals impacted by HIV-AIDS. Will you work in conference to reach a workable funding level that ensures families and individuals currently served by HOPWA do not lose access to their housing?

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER. I am very much on the point. When the rules require that a majority in the House cannot increase the total funds allocated by the Appropriations Committee to this bill, it is impossible to remedy such a drastic cut without hurting other people in need. I hope, as we go forward, that we can find a way to provide these funds so that hundreds of thousands of very low-income working families and seniors are not put out on the street. I hope we will recognize that the Senate bill is less brutal than the bill now before us.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairwoman, I think we can all agree the amendment is necessary. We are talking about evicting 100,000 to 150,000 families from an efficient, cost-effective program that keeps families together and that lowers our costs over the long term. Without this amendment, you will see a spike in homelessness, a spike in medical costs and a spike in hungry kids. I understand the chairman's point of order, and I understand that the rules demand an offset for any funding increase in the bill. However, when funding levels are as restrictive across the board as they are in this bill and when the rules require that a majority in the House cannot increase the total funds allocated by the Appropriations Committee to this bill, it is impossible to----

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, much of the debate today on this bill has focused on tough choices--accepting cuts to one program to make sure another program stays afloat. But the reality is that these so-called tough choices are nothing compared to the choices this bill would force on hundreds of thousands of low-income families: whether to buy food for their children, to fill their necessary prescriptions, or to pay their rent. Today, the Housing Choice Voucher program, commonly known as section 8, ensures that many fewer families have to make such choices by providing rental assistance to 2.2 million households with incomes well below the poverty line. Half of these households are headed by seniors or people with disabilities, and the rest are typically families with children. Study after study by HUD, GAO, and independent researchers have demonstrated that the section 8 voucher program is a cost- effective means of providing very low-income families secure housing and preventing homelessness. Typically, Congress has provided State and local housing agencies the funds necessary to renew every housing voucher used in the previous fiscal year, thereby ensuring that families have stable housing, kids stay in school, and parents stay in the workforce. This year, however, for only the third time in the program's 40-year history, this bill would fail to provide sufficient, or even close to sufficient, funding to renew all existing housing vouchers. Because of sequestration, nearly 100,000 fewer families, and maybe as many as 150,000 fewer families, will receive housing assistance this year. I have already heard from housing agencies across New York State who are turning away families on waiting lists and pulling back issued vouchers for families who have not yet signed a lease agreement. If the bill becomes law as written, thousands of low-income families will lose their existing vouchers, will be evicted from their homes, and will end up living on the streets. Despite the risks for these families, the bill before us today provides only $17 billion for housing choice voucher renewals, locking in sequestration cuts, and cutting off 100,000 families from housing assistance. To protect these families, I am offering this amendment to increase funding for section 8 voucher renewals by $1 billion. These additional funds will ensure that housing agencies can renew existing eligible vouchers this year and that no additional families will have to face the choice between putting food on the table and paying their rent, between filling their prescriptions and living on the street. I say no additional families will have to face this choice because the current allocation of section 8 is far too meager and there are hundreds of thousands of families on the waiting list. But at least with this amendment, no additional families will be thrown out on the street because we will renew existing vouchers. Under the bill as written, upwards of 100,000 or so families will not have their vouchers renewed and will be forced to be evicted. This amendment will ensure not additional section 8 vouchers but simply that existing vouchers will be maintained for people who are living on section 8 vouchers now. Madam Chairperson, our first objective must be to prevent further hardship to the poorest among us and to prevent the evictions of people currently receiving section 8 vouchers. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the $249 million in the budget is for expansion and making permanent detention facilities. I have no objection to construction of other military facilities at Guantanamo Bay. I don't know whether that makes sense or not. But the $249 million we're talking about here is for more detention facilities. That's a pure waste of money. And I'll be happy to clarify, if this amendment passes, that it should apply only to detention facilities. So if you're opposed to wasting $249 million more on detention facilities so we can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year per prisoner instead of $34,000 per year per prisoner in the United States, if you think that's a good idea to waste all this money, then vote against this amendment. I hope rational people who don't want to waste a quarter of a billion dollars for permanent detention facilities will vote for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.