Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 99 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for the consideration of H.R. 933, the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013.

The rule is a closed rule, which provides for the consideration of fully conferenced Department of Defense and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bills and a continuing resolution for other government programs at the FY 2012 levels. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. In addition, the rule incorporates a purely technical amendment to the bill by Chairman Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 933 accomplishes several key objectives.

First, it preserves military readiness and national security capability, while maintaining core commitments to our troops and our veterans.

Second, it ends the current uncertainty of the fiscal year 2013 budget. It seems that over the past year, we have moved from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Rogers and Chairman Sessions, we are able to consider funding the Federal Government through the end of the fiscal year at this point, avoiding the threat of a government shutdown.

Additionally, by considering full-year DOD and MilCon-VA bills, we are able to establish a stable baseline for the Department to act upon, as opposed to having them rely on fiscal year 2012 priorities. This bill realigns the appropriation accounts for Department of Defense and MilCon-VA to better reflect the fiscal year 2013 execution, rather than the fiscal year 2012 levels carried forward in a CR.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation operates under the caps of the Budget Control Act of 2011 as modified by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. There are across-the-board reductions in security and nonsecurity spending to reach the caps of $1.043 trillion. Additionally, there is a provision which ensures that the funding will be reduced to the post- sequester level of $982 billion in total spending, a reduction of $85 billion in overall Federal spending for fiscal year 2013.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a moment discussing the anomalies in this bill. Let me assure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that none of the anomalies in this legislation, on net, do anything that raise the cost of the bill above the statutory Budget Control Act caps.

Some of the anomalies in the bill are things like turning off the $100 million in convention funding for Charlotte and Tampa, and turning off $31 million in funding for the Eisenhower Commission, where funding has been delayed indefinitely and no funds have yet been expended.

These anomalies are limited. There are only approximately 80 in the entire bill. For reference, in the last full-year continuing resolution, there were over 600 anomalies. The Appropriations Committee has been judicious in its use of anomalies, only providing them in cases where mission-critical operations might be impacted.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a few quick comments in reference to my good friend's remarks. You referred to an interesting phrase, ``selective bipartisanship.'' I would suggest to my friend that we've probably practiced that more in 2 months than they did in 2 years when they were in the majority.

These were major pieces of legislation that we did move in a bipartisan fashion. As my good friend knows, I helped on all three of those occasions, was happy to do so, and I'm sure the Speaker will continue to try and work across the aisle whenever he can.

My friend also referred to the nature of the cuts. Let me assure him of this: these are cuts, and they are going to occur; but we've repeatedly told our friends and the President and the Senate that we would be more than happy to redistribute where the cuts are going to occur. We did that twice: in May of last year and in December of last year, after the election, in good faith. In neither case did the Senate pick that up or the White House respond with a serious offer. Now my friend is asking us to do it for a third time in the hopes it will be different.

Perhaps this time you should go first. Perhaps the Senate should actually pass a plan or the President actually lay one out. I don't think we've really seen that. But again, if we see that, we'll be willing to work with our friends and try and redistribute the cuts.

But don't have any illusion that we're going to eliminate them. We're not, any more than our friends eliminated the idea of tax cuts when the Bush tax cuts ran out. This is something we feel is a first step in getting our fiscal house in order.

And let me remind my friend, as I know he knows, this bill, in itself, is an effort to work with the President and the administration. The President has said, and I think quite correctly, that we need to avoid a government shutdown. Mr. Rogers and the Appropriations Committee are acting early and acting, I think, in a very responsible manner to put a vehicle out there and begin to move it through the process.

We are more than willing for the Senate to do the same thing, would expect that they will. They may well add other departments. Frankly, speaking only for myself, I would hope that they do. I would like to recapture a lot of the appropriations work that was done for the fiscal year 2013 and lost during the CR process, and we can have, I think, a good negotiation going back and forth between the two parties.

So this is the beginning of a process. It's the beginning of a return to regular order, and it's an opportunity to work, I think, in a bipartisan fashion.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Just for the purpose of response, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate my good friend's offer on staying in session last week. It would have been nice if we'd have dealt with this 18 months ago. We've known it's been coming. We tried to do that twice.

I'm not sure the President would have been around last week. Frankly, he spent the last 6 weeks crisscrossing the country, campaigning and bludgeoning people, as opposed to having a dialogue. He did not bother to invite the Speaker, the Majority Leader, or the leader of the Senate or the minority leader of this House to a meeting until the very last day--the very last day. Now, that suggests to us there wasn't a great deal of interest in serious negotiations.

So, again, this process is going to allow that to occur. We're going to advance our bill through this Chamber. It's going to have incorporated some of the work in the appropriations process. It's going to help the Defense Department a great deal.

We're waiting for our friends in the Senate to do the same thing. They're going to, undoubtedly, add some things. I think there will be a negotiation. I think we will end up in a good place. But we will preserve the spending reductions of the sequester in the final product of the bill.

With all due respect to my friend, revenue's off the table. You had revenue about 6, 8 weeks ago with no cuts. This time I suspect you're going to get cuts and no revenue.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess), my distinguished colleague, classmate, and a distinguished physician.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Listening to my colleagues, I'm reminded of that old saying that Washington, D.C., is 10 square miles surrounded by reality.

Let's talk a little bit about the definitions we use for cuts. First of all, the Government will spend more money this year than it did last year, just as last year it spent more money than it did the year before. We're not cutting anything. We're slowing down the rate of growth. In parts of the budget there are real cuts. But in terms of overall spending, it's ever and ever higher.

According to the much quoted, much loved Congressional Budget Office, this year we will have the highest level of income for the Federal Government in history. In the history of the United States, we will have more money to spend than we have ever spent before. And yet that same CBO estimates it will run a budget deficit if we keep sequester, if we allow the revenue that occurred in January of over $850 billion.

Now at some point you have to reconcile the highest level of income and an $850 billion deficit. We don't have a revenue problem here; we have a spending problem of historic and massive proportions. This is one small step in the right direction to try and get that under control.

We look forward to what our friends in the Senate do. We look forward to what the administration does. And we look forward to having a conversation over not just this bill but in the next several months we're going to have that opportunity when the Senate finally presents a budget. We'll present a budget. The administration for the fourth time in 5 years will be late but surely will at some point present a budget.

The American people can look at all of those.

We're going to have an opportunity for a great debate, and I suspect we'll continue to try and adjust things as we move forward to get ourselves more in balance. But let's recognize the reality. We've had four trillion-dollar deficits in a row. We have, with these cuts and with additional revenue, an $850 billion deficit, at the minimum, in front of us. Maybe that ought to be the focus.

I can assure my friends--we all talk a lot about polling and what the American people think. I can assure you, I've done a lot of polling in my lifetime. They think the Federal Government is too big; they think it spends too much; and they would like to see

us take less of their money, not more. So if we get into a real debate here, I suspect the American people will say: Figure out a way to live within the highest level of income in American history as opposed to coming to us and asking us for more.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just, again, to get back to the big picture for a moment, as my friends know, we're going to spend about $3.5 trillion this year in the Federal budget. These dreaded cuts, in terms of the total budget, amount to 2.4 percent of all spending--2.4 percent of $3.5 trillion. I suspect the American people think: You could find a better way to distribute those cuts than closing our towers.

I agree, actually, with my friend, Mr. McGovern. One of those towers, by the way, is in my district, so I certainly understand it. I have 20,000 Federal defense employees in my district, so I'm quite aware of the problems with the distribution of the cuts.

Now, I'll leave it to my friends on the other side of the aisle and Mr. Woodward to argue whose idea this was and what purpose and how it was constructed, but it's hardly as if the President of the United States or our friends in the Senate were innocent bystanders in all of this.

We tried twice last year to sit down and renegotiate. We moved something through. We've said repeatedly this year we're willing to sit down and renegotiate the cuts. To me, that's compromise.

The President talks a lot about a balanced approach. Two months ago, he got a lot of revenue. That's his side of the equation. This time it should be cuts. That's an appropriate balance. We'll sit down and renegotiate where they should come from--we think we've got some great ideas on that--but they are going to occur. They're the first and appropriate step toward getting our fiscal house back in order.

So when my friends want to work with us about the distribution, I know they'll find a willing negotiating partner in the Speaker. Until such time, we will follow the course that the President laid out, advocated for, and signed into law. If he wants to revisit that, we agree with him, let's revisit it and redistribute it, but the cuts are going to occur.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of response.

First, I appreciate my good friend, whom I have worked with on a number of things, most recently the Violence Against Women Act, where she certainly ably represented the bill in the Rules Committee and on the floor, and I appreciate that very much. I'm going to gently correct in return.

When we talk about cuts that were previously agreed to, with all due respect to my friends, most of those cuts still haven't even taken place. If you look at them, they are far in the future, in the 10-year window.

These were not cuts, by the way, that the two sides found contentious. This was the easy stuff that they all agreed

to right up front. It wasn't as if there was some concession.

The real discussion was in the next round of cuts, where the supercommittee wasn't able to come to an agreement. Even there, there were $600 or $700 million in agreed-upon ``cuts'' that both sides acknowledge. There just wasn't agreement about revenue, and so the cuts didn't occur.

Well, we're here today, and just as the tax increases were written into law effectively when the Bush tax cuts sunsetted in January, these cuts are also written into law.

Again, since they're written into law, they're going to occur. Now, we're willing, again, to sit down with our friends and redistribute where they come from. We think that would be the prudent thing to do. We tried to do it twice last year. It didn't work out. Nobody was interested in talking to us last year. The President wasn't interested in putting a proposal on until, if anything, recent days, and I really couldn't still tell you what it truly is.

I will finish my point, and I will be happy to yield to my friend briefly.

I think that the reality is we ought to recognize--just as I urge my friends on my side of the aisle to recognize--as we approach the end of the Bush tax cuts, that they're going to end. We ought to sit down and negotiate with our friends some better and more proper distribution, whether we like it or not. That's just the case. It's going to be that way. That's what's going to happen here.

Now, we would rather renegotiate, minimize the harm and spread that 2.4 percent over the entire $3.5 trillion budget. I suspect our friends would like to do that, too, over time, and hopefully we can arrive at that. So I look forward to continuing the dialogue, but the cuts are going to be secured. This legislation will move through the House, and then I'm sure something will move through the Senate and we'll sit down and negotiate in a bipartisan, bicameral manner.

With that, I yield to my good friend from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, if I may, I think the gentlelady asked a good question, and I look forward to working with my friends on the other side of the aisle. I actually think today is the beginning of a process where that will happen. It's one of the reasons I really commend Chairman Rogers for moving early.

We're not in a last-minute crisis atmosphere here, and we're not trying to jam our friends in the Senate. We want them to move as quickly and expeditiously as they can. We would like to move toward the discussion and talks with them, and I'm sure the administration will be involved in that.

To me, that's a step back toward what I would like and what we all talk about around here, which is regular order. While that's going on, we can engage in the normal appropriations process for fiscal year 2014.

So, as difficult as this is--and we've been through a difficult time, I think, in recent months and over the last year plus, honestly--this may be the first step back in the right direction.

Again, I respect that my friends have a different point of view on this, but I'm talking what I would view as political reality to them, just as I did to my friends on my own side of the aisle a few weeks ago. This is going to occur, so let's just be reasonable and rational about how it is. We're going to have a lower deficit because of that. I think that's one of the reasons that Wall Street is doing well. But who knows? It's always hard to predict what's going on there.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with my good friend from Virginia on his point about discretionary spending. It's probably an area that he and I would find a considerable amount of common ground on. I certainly do think that far too much of this is coming out of the discretionary side of the budget, particularly in defense, but I would say across the board.

I have Indian health facilities in my district that will be hit, and I have the National Severe Storms Laboratory in my district that will be hit. I understand my friend makes those points. He's making a very important point.

Now, we've been willing to go where no man has gone before, the nondiscretionary side of the budget. The Ryan budget, which you may like or not like, or the Ryan plan on Medicare is a real attempt to deal with where we all in the room know the real problem is, and that's on the nondiscretionary side of the budget.

I hope that our friends put their ideas out there. The President has put, and sometimes withdrawn, but has put a number of interesting ideas on the table at various points. We never seem to quite get there, whether it's change CPI or raising age over time gradually on some of our programs.

Now, my friends on the other side, at least our distinguished minority leader, has refused to ever do that. Whether it's Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, it's been: We're going to defend this ground; we're not going to make any changes. At the end of the day, that's the kind of thing that we're going to have to deal with.

As an appropriator, as somebody who, like my friend from Virginia, sees the impacts of these discretionary reductions and this squeezing down, I think that is the solution. I think that's at least a big part of the solution.

I have no illusions we're going to settle all our deficit problems with this bill, but we are taking a step in the right direction. Hopefully our friends, and our side as well, will expand the dialogue to include the nondiscretionary side of the budget in the weeks and months ahead, and we can begin to arrive at common ground. But we can't simply allow Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and farm programs--I'll put some of our sacred cows on the table as well--to expand by a matter of law without any effort to look at them.

We've offered to do that. We've actually written a budget that has done that. We've gone through the political fires. I can assure my friends you can do that and still survive as a majority. And we're anxious to do that going forward. If we can find willing partners in that, both on the other side of the aisle, the other side of the rotunda, and the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I think we'll actually be on the road to doing something.

So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just very quickly I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my friend. I can assure you that we take this very serious, as well. I have lots of Federal employees, and the real job loss won't be theirs. They will certainly be hard-hit, they'll be furloughed, but the real job loss, as my friend suggests, really is in the private sector, and that's why we should sit down and have a serious discussion about entitlement costs.

With all due respect to my friend, Mr. Van Hollen, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I don't think that proposal would pass. I certainly wouldn't vote for it. I want that very much in the Record.

If our friends want to do something, they do have control of the United States Senate. That's a body that can do whatever it wants to do, and we'll see what happens going forward.

Again, what I'm pleased with is, I think this is the beginning of a real discussion and the beginning of a real dialogue. We're going to do some good things in terms of giving flexibility to the Defense Department and our friends that deal with military construction and the VA. We're anxious to hear ideas on the other side. But we are going to reduce spending, and we're going to reduce it not by an extraordinary amount, but by 2.4 percent of the entire $3.5 trillion Federal budget, and we're willing to renegotiate where those cuts come from. I think that's a pretty reasonable position to have.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I'd be happy if the United States Senate decided to operate collectively instead of individually, but I didn't write their rules and neither did my friends. I'm sure if we got to write them--although we've both sent a lot of our friends over there, neither of them seem to be willing to sit down and change the rules to make them a more functional body.

But I'm glad you've moved the discussion to where we both agree away from our adversarial discussion toward the real enemy, the United States Senate, which has a hard time acting.

In this case, honestly I think they are going to act, and I say that with a great deal of respect to Senator Reid and to Senator McConnell. I think that they will produce a product to make sure that something doesn't happen that we all agree shouldn't happen. The President doesn't think the government should shut down. We don't think the government should shut down. I don't believe our friends in the Senate think it should shut down.

This is actually a pretty good day. It may not be the perfect bill from my friends's standpoint. I certainly respect that. It's probably not the perfect bill from all of our Members' standpoint.

I will in a moment. Let me just finish my point.

But we will move in the right direction. We will actually move to avoid a government shutdown. We'll leave open an avenue of negotiation with our friends in the Senate. I'm sure the President will be involved in discussion at some point too. So I take some heart from that.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, we'll have an opportunity in the sense of the previous question. We'll see how the majority shakes out on that issue. I'm sure my friends will regard that as effectively a vote on their proposal.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

I'm certainly prepared to close whenever my friend is.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to begin by, frankly, agreeing with my friend. The time to act has long since passed. We tried to act a long time ago. We tried to act in May, but nobody in the Senate chose to pick up our bill. They sent us back something different, which was their right, but it didn't do anything at all. We tried to act in December, but nobody did anything in the Senate then.

We offered to negotiate with the President for weeks. Instead, we saw a 6-week, an 8-week campaign all over the country. There was no time, evidently, in the President's busy schedule in city after city, at photo op after photo op to simply get on the phone, call the Speaker and say--How would you like to come down and talk?--until the very last day before the sequester, when it had become evident that this type of political bullying wouldn't work.

So we believe the time has passed to act. That's why we're acting today. We are actually going to secure the cuts that are in the legislation that the President advocated for. He originated the idea--I accept the Woodward version of that, I suppose--and he signed it into law. He had 18 months to do something about it. We offered two opportunities in that timeframe to do something, and the Speaker has always been available to sit down with the President and do something.

We are going to take a small step in the right direction. Now, let's not overestimate what we're doing. We could probably take more pride in this than is warranted. Our friends, I think, are shouting more alarm than is necessary. This is $85 billion in a $3.5 trillion deficit--2.4 percent. We ought to be able to do that in our sleep. Quite frankly, we are willing to sit down and renegotiate with our friends from where they come. We are not willing to renegotiate the total amount of the money involved. Over time, it does add up to $1.2 trillion. That's a lot of money, but it's not anywhere near what it's going to take to get our budget in balance.

I look forward to the debates we're going to have on that in the budget discussions ahead; but let's right now, while we have that debate and while we go through that process, take the responsible step that the President urges us to take and that we all agree on, which is simply to make sure that the government doesn't shut down while we have our discussion and sort out our differences.

I applaud Chairman Rogers and Chairman Sessions for making that possible, particularly for bringing this bill in a timely fashion, giving us enough time when we're not going to be jammed. I know our friends in the Senate are going to try and do the same thing. They're going to produce, I have no doubt, a different product than we have. That's fine. We'll negotiate it out, and we'll avoid a government shutdown, but we will secure these savings for the taxpayers of the United States, and we will then take the next step in a longer discussion.

I believe we've had a good debate on the rule. I believe the underlying bill provides the American people with the hope that we can do the basic functions that we were sent here to accomplish--funding the government. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, which should be called the More Work, Less Pay bill.

As my colleagues know, last week Majority Leader Cantor outlined his party's agenda for the month of May. The words he used to describe it was as a ``full legislative agenda,'' yet here we are only debating this bill on the floor of the House and I think finishing the business of the House around 1:30 p.m. today with plenty of time for Members of Congress to play golf, to go to the beach, whatever they want to do. This is hardly a full legislative agenda.

Let me add, Madam Speaker, that this bill is about overtime. Under this current legislative agenda, Congress wouldn't even come close to qualifying for overtime at a time when we have increasing national needs, balancing the budget, moving forward with jobs and the economy, comprehensive immigration reform. There are so many issues crying out for our attention, but here we are debating yet another bill that not only won't go anywhere, but also would actually make life harder and more unpredictable for American families.

This bill claims to provide working families flexibility, but in reality it allows employers to avoid paying overtime and get interest- free loans from their own employees.

There are many hourly employees who struggle holding two or three jobs, depending on overtime to pay bills, to keep food on the family table. If this bill were to become law, employers would be able to save a couple of bucks by essentially requiring people, in effect, to take comp time instead of overtime pay if they want extra hours.

Many American workers want to work more, not less. Under this bill, people's paychecks would be reduced and people don't have a real choice. It's no wonder that the vast majority of labor unions and workers oppose this bill and are not asking for this bill or this ``kind of help.''

I also want to correct something that has been claimed by my Republican colleagues, that somehow this bill gives private sector employees the same protections as public sector employees. That is not true. Most public sector workers are already protected against arbitrary and unfair treatment by civil service laws. Private sector workers don't have anything like that kind of protection.

That's why my colleague, Mr. Tim Bishop of New York, offered an amendment in committee specifying that private sector employers could provide comp time instead of overtime if they provided the same job security protections that public employees already receive. But this amendment was voted down in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we're not even allowed here on the floor of the House, where we're going to finish by 1:30 p.m., to have a debate. Somehow, there is not even enough time. Ten minutes is all we asked for on Mr. Bishop of New York's amendment.

Madam Speaker, the presentation of this bill is not consistent with the content of the bill. Of course it sounds good. Why wouldn't employees want the choice of being able to choose how they take their time? It all sounds good.

But like so many things that Congress does, the devil is in the details.

Contrary to what this bill says, employers can already give their employees time off if they so choose. Many do. We had Representative Joe Courtney in our Rules Committee yesterday who talked about when he was in the private sector and he had employees who had to attend school meetings, et cetera, he gave them time off. That's what most responsible employers do. We don't need legislation to tell employers it's okay to give their employees comp time.

Contrary to what the majority party here in the House says, employees wouldn't get paid under this bill until the end of the year for saved comp time--at no interest. No interest. So effectively, an interest- free loan to the company. Let's say an employee does overtime, works 45 hours a week for 3 weeks, accruing 15 hours of overtime. If they want this so-called flexibility that's provided under this bill, they choose to say, ``I may use this as comp time.'' That's their choice. However, they pay dearly for that choice in a number of ways.

Number one, if they don't use that comp time after a year, they get paid the original amount by the company. While it is true that if they got a raise in the intervening period, they get paid at that level of the raise, there is no accounting for interest or the net present value of those dollars. That's less of an impact when inflation is 1 or 2 percent, but still, it's an interest-free loan to the company. There's a much greater impact should interest rates ever return to their historical norms. And it wasn't that long ago that interest rates were in the high single digits, even double digits, effectively taking money from the worker and giving it to the company.

Number two, let's say the employer does want to use this comp time. Effectively, the employer has a unilateral veto over that. All they have to do is show that it creates undue disruption. That's the standard of unilateral employer veto.

Now, this is nothing like what occurs under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the FMLA. We've heard them say it's the same; it's not. Under FMLA it's a factor that leave doesn't create undue disruption. There's a variety of factors. It's not a sole determinant as determined by the employer.

In this case, the language is wide open to effectively provide a complete veto right of when that employee takes their time off. So again, our friend works 45 hours a weeks for 3 weeks, accrues 15 hours of overtime, and they get sold on this program. They say, ``I'll set aside the 15 hours.'' They try to take it off for their kid's birthday, they try to take it off when their kid is home from school. The employer says, ``No, you can't take it off that week.'' So it turns out that at the end of the year they still have their 15 hours.

They finally get paid, but because of net present value and interest, they are out 2 or 3 percent of that. Again, with higher interest, they could be out 10 percent. They could be out 15 percent of that. We can and must do better for American workers.

This bill would have a devastating impact for workers in my home State of Colorado. Me and my staff talked to Debbie Olander from United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 7. Debbie is a leader in our community, and she told me that wage step is already a big problem for workers in Colorado, and this bill would make it easier for employers to avoid overtime obligations and make it harder for employees who need those hours to pay those bills.

What happens if the employer goes out of business in the intervening year? Of course, the person whose wages are due can line up with other creditors, but who has the time or, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, the ability to wait to see if you ever get paid by a bankrupt employer? Instead of improving the lives of working families by giving greater flexibility, this bill allows employers to avoid paying overtime.

My Democratic colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee and I agree that we must give working families flexibility to meet workplace and family needs. That's why we support bills like the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help ensure that women are paid as much as men in the workplace, and the Healthy Families Act, which would establish a national paid sick day standard.

I've also heard from hundreds of workers from my district and across the country who support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In more than half of the States, it's still perfectly legal in this day and age for an employer to fire an employee just because they're gay and what they do in their off work time. It's none of the employer's business who an employee is dating. To think that in this day and age it's legal in half the States for an employer to fire an employee because of who they're dating is absolutely absurd. We need to solve that by passing the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.

American workers are asking for these kinds of protections, unlike this sort of program that's being discussed today, which workers oppose or don't see as necessary. Well, you know, based on again the schedule for Congress, me and my colleagues aren't about to accrue any overtime anytime soon unless things change around here. Here we are, examining bills that are catchy, have good titles, might sound good on the surface, but don't address any of the real issues faced by American workers, the American economy, or our country as a whole. We need an agenda that's consistent with the needs of working families.

Madam Speaker, despite this fixation on changing the image and appealing to voters, many on the other side of the aisle seem to be recycling old ideas. In fact, an identical version of this bill was introduced in 1996, 1997, and 2003. It failed to pass the House each time. Madam Speaker, what this body needs is not just new branding, it needs new ideas, ideas that will actually help working families and make our country stronger.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before further yielding, I yield myself a moment to respond.

I thank the gentlelady for the correction. What I was referring to is the vote in the Rules Committee yesterday on an open rule which we voted on in committee. Had we considered this bill under an open rule, I or Mr. Bishop, or any other Member of this body, could have brought forth his amendment.

You're correct, it was not submitted to the Rules Committee. It was offered in the committee of jurisdiction, on which I also serve. And I argued, you might recall, to the chair yesterday that this bill is a fine candidate for an open rule. Given that there's nothing else this body's doing today and we're getting done at 1:30, we might as well allow amendments like Mr. Bishop's and others to be able to be debated by the House and considered by the full House.

I also want to discuss something that the gentlelady said, something about how a mischaracterization of the opponents of this bill is somehow saying the private sector is bad or the government's good. I haven't heard anybody argue that. The private sector is great. The private sector is a chief engine of economic growth. This discussion is about the private sector.

In fact, it's the other side that's somehow trying to model policies that they say already exist in the public sector and force the private sector to comply with them. We're not here seeking to try to copy what exists in the public sector and apply it to the private sector. The private sector is the primary engine of economic growth.

I think where perhaps we disagree is that I hear from many on the other side that somehow government is bad. I believe, and many on my side believe, that the minimum amount of government is necessary to ensure the success of the private sector, to ensure the rules are followed and there's an open and competitive environment that allows the private sector to thrive and succeed and create jobs for American families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 377, Representative DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act. To discuss her bill, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Before further yielding, I want to address this fallacious concept that the gentlelady from North Carolina has brought up in previous debate as well as this one that somehow the White House discriminates against women. Again, that's been proven as untrue. We actually have a young lady on our Rules Committee staff who worked for the White House and tells us she earned the same amount as men.

Of course, for the same job, women get paid the same amount. That's what paycheck fairness is about. It doesn't say if you do a different job you get paid the same amount, and it doesn't mean that every man and every woman is compensated the same. It's just for the same job, same pay. As for the Obama administration, every one of their actions and the White House's actions have been consistent with that. We believe it should apply to the private sector because, of course, not every woman in the country has the privilege of working for the White House.

We're talking about American families with real private sector jobs out there, not these government jobs that the other side keeps alluding to.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps.)

Before further yielding, I want to again address this great and sudden desire that the gentlelady from North Carolina has expressed to make sure that government policies apply to the private sector, to try to say somehow the way that government employees are treated needs to be the way that every private sector employee is treated. Usually it's the private sector that leads the way, not Big Government like the gentlelady from North Carolina is arguing. In fact, it's even a misinterpretation of what the public sector does.

The public sector has civil service protections for its employees. That's something that doesn't exist in the private sector. That's why, if we had been able to, under an open rule--which we don't have because, of course, somehow this body has to finish up by 2 p.m. so everybody can go home. But if we were allowed to have an open rule and actually bring forth amendments on this, we would be able to introduce Mr. Bishop's amendment, which would have facilitated this discussion of, well, if it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander. If the Republicans are so keen to apply public sector personnel policy to the private sector, then why not apply civil service protections to the private sector?

Again, the truth of the matter is there's a night-and-day difference between the types of protections and policies that public sector and private sector employees have. One of the goals of the Civil Service Act was to add a degree of professionalism to public sector jobs, to take away the patronage components that had a corrupting influence on the system. By and large it succeeded in that goal, to its great credit. It's a very different set of rules that we have with regard to the private sector.

So, again, I think that that is, to a certain degree, a false analogy, and I hope that the information I provided helps correct that in the eyes of those who are listening.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a colleague of mine.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I would just like to indicate I have one remaining speaker.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

I would like to inquire if the gentlelady has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

First of all, conflating somehow paycheck fairness with compensation of women at the White House is comparing apples and oranges.

Nothing that we are supporting or that the Paycheck Fairness Act includes says that women and men should all be paid the same regardless of what their job is. It simply says ``equal work, equal pay.'' There's no evidence in the Daily Caller or anywhere else that for the same job, in the White House or anywhere in the administration, that women are paid less. They are not.

Even if you had paycheck fairness--again, we passed our law; it becomes the law of the land in the private sector--it doesn't mean every woman gets the same pay as every man. It simply means that for the same job men and women get the same pay. It is quite possible there could still be a differential either way. There's not a problem with that. It depends on what jobs people have. But for the same job, it should be the law of the land, just as it has been President Obama's policy that men and women receive the same pay.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the ``more work, less pay bill,'' is yet another attempt to roll back workers' rights under the guise of doing just the opposite.

I wish we were here talking about things that would benefit American families like the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure women receive equal pay for equal work; making sure that people can't be fired from their job just because of who they date. It is none of the boss's darn business.

But instead of collaborating with Democrats to produce a compromise bill we can be proud of, instead, this House is considering a bill that would

weaken over time and is nearly identical to bills that have failed in three prior Congresses.

There are many measures that we could be taking up to help grow the economy, reduce the deficit, create jobs, invest in the middle class, replace our broken immigration system with one that works; but this bill is none of those.

I wanted to point out and highlight the work of the Democrats on the Educational and the Workforce Committee. The Web site is Democrats.edworkforce.house.gov. They produced a video that shows exactly what this ``more work, less pay'' legislation is.

Mr. Speaker, I support giving American workers and families more flexibility. There could be a way to work together; but, again, this body has not done so. It does just the opposite. Instead of having an open rule under which many of us could bring forth amendments to discuss, Democratic Members offered several sensible amendments, which were rejected by the House majority, both in the committee of jurisdiction and the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 377, Representative DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act, of which I am an original cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can bring up the Paycheck Fairness Act. I urge a ``no'' vote on this restrictive rule and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 198 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.

Madam Speaker, it's hard to raise a family and earn a living at the same time. The reality is that every hour you spend working to provide for your family is an hour you can't spend with your family, seeing your children off the first day of school, taking them to a doctor's appointment, or attending parent-teacher conferences. As a mother who worked while my daughter was growing up, I understand the firsthand

struggles of working parents. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act.

This commonsense legislation will allow private sector workers to choose paid time off instead of cash wages as compensation for working overtime, which is the same privilege that Federal, State, and local government employees have been able to choose for over 30 years.

The Working Families Flexibility Act is pro-family, pro-worker legislation that gives workers the flexibility to spend time with family, attend parent-teacher conferences, care for aging parents, or attend to other family needs that may arise.

If an employer and an employee agree on comp time, then the paid time off must be granted at time-and-a-half for each hour of overtime worked. Labor unions support flexible overtime compensation for their own members, and this benefit is already included in many public sector union collective bargaining agreements.

The flexible approach offered by this bill has worked for public sector employees since 1985. If the policy works for our public service employees, it will work for our private sector employees, as well. Fair is fair, Madam Speaker.

The bill maintains protections for workers to ensure that this new flexibility is not abused by making the decision to receive comp time completely voluntary and allows an employee to change his or her mind if he or she initially chooses comp time but later decides to receive cash wages for overtime. All existing protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act remain in effect under this legislation, and it is up to the employee when he or she decides to use accrued comp time. Additionally, an employee cannot be intimidated, coerced, or otherwise forced to accept comp time in lieu of cash wages for overtime.

The legislation also maintains all existing enforcement remedies for employees if an employer fails to uphold the agreement, and employers must provide 30 days' notice to employees if comp time will no longer be offered.

H.R. 1406 provides proper protection and flexibility for employees and will help American workers better balance the needs of family and the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from Colorado.

Madam Speaker, this bill sounds good because it is good. This is the theme from our colleagues across the aisle: everything about the private sector is bad; everything about government is good. That is their constant theme. This bill allows voluntary participation by employees. It does not require things.

I would also like to point out to my colleague from across the aisle, who is very quick to point out any mistake that I might make, is we did not have an amendment from Representative Bishop in the Rules Committee yesterday. Representative Bishop's amendment was offered in the Education Committee, but was not offered in the Rules Committee yesterday.

I would also like to say that government employees do not get interest paid on the time that they eventually get paid for instead of comp time, so we are not setting up a double standard here. What we're trying to do is eliminate a double standard, again, that our colleagues across the aisle love to have--bash the private sector.

Madam Speaker, we live in the greatest country in the world, and what made us a great country? Look at the rest of the world. What's made us a great country is the rule of law, which means we believe everybody should be treated the same way. It's our capitalistic system which has worked wonderfully well for this country, and every other system has failed all across the world. We don't need to do much but to look at what is happening in the rest of the world and how sorry their economies are, and it's our Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Those are the things that I think have made us great, Madam Speaker, and this bill will allow us to give people who work in the private sector, which is part of what's made us such a great country, the same privileges that people get who work in the public sector.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Speaker, I would believe that the comments of my colleague from Connecticut would be a little more sincere if she would direct the issue of pay disparity to the White House. The White House needs to do something about pay disparity. If we had leaders who led by example, then the White House would straighten out the pay disparity that exists there.

Also, my colleagues don't seem to want to talk about the bill before us today because it is such commonsense legislation. They have no real arguments to offer about defeating it, so they want to distract the American people onto other issues.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my colleague from California knows, I am very fond of her and respect her a great deal; but I want to say that this bill is not a bad bill. This bill does not roll back the rights of workers at all.

And if the bill is so bad and what it does is give fairness to people in the private sector and it gives to the people in the private sector the same rights and privileges that people in the public sector have, then why are my colleagues not trying to roll back those rights for the public sector? It would make sense that all the horrible things they've said about this bill which apply to the public sector you would want to protect the public sector.

But that's not what my colleagues are doing. They're simply saying it isn't right to let the private sector employees have the same rights and privileges that public sector employees have. It doesn't make any sense for them to make that argument. It just doesn't make any sense to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act makes it easier for American workers to juggle the needs of family and the workplace. That's what it accomplishes.

I want to urge the people watching this debate to read the bill. Unlike the thousand-page bill that came out that people have to ``wait until it passes'' before they understand what's in it, before we understand what's in it, this bill is basically 8 pages long. Any American can read this bill and understand it. So I would say to you, if you doubt what we are saying on our side of the aisle, read the bill. That is the best way for the American public to be informed.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider it, there are some things to keep in mind.

First, it in no way undermines longstanding essential worker safeguards or forces workers to give up overtime pay if that's how they choose to be compensated. It simply provides an additional level of flexibility that government workers already enjoy. I don't know how many more ways we can make that point, Mr. Speaker, but we will continue to do that.

Further, the bill does not allow employers to bully employees into picking comp time over cash payment. It provides new important safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time over cash wages is truly voluntary. Employees can change their minds and request overtime cash payment in lieu of unused comp time.

For employees represented by a labor organization, the labor organization and the employer must first reach an agreement to provide this benefit before the employee can choose to exercise it. For an employee who is not a member of a labor organization, the agreement is between the employer and the individual employee and must be entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the employee and may not be a condition of employment.

The bill does not change the 40-hour workweek or how overtime is currently calculated and accrued, and it does not affect comp time provisions regarding employees of Federal, State, or local governments.

Mr. Speaker, in fiscal year 2012, IRS employees accrued 246,450 hours of comp time in lieu of overtime pay. That amounts to 30,806 full 8- hour days. Employees at the Department of Labor accrued 51,097 hours of comp time, or 6,387 full 8-hour days. Employees at the Department of Education accrued 12,408 hours of comp time, or 1,551 full 8-hour days.

It's clear that Federal employees appreciate this flexibility. What is unclear is why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so hell-bent on denying private sector employees this same flexibility. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

We hear the word ``fairness'' from the other side of the aisle constantly. This bill is fair, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 1406 simply affords private sector employees the same flexibility that Federal, State, and local government employees have enjoyed for over 30 years. It is unconscionable to me that our colleagues would vote against this and say you should be a second-class citizen if you work in the private sector.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman from Colorado has additional speakers, but at this time I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

A little while ago we had a debate about the pay in the White House. I have an article from the Daily Caller that I would like to enter into the Record, and I will quote briefly from the article. The article is dated January 15, 2013, posted by Caroline May:

While President Obama handily won the women's vote by 11

percentage points in November over Republican nominee Mitt

Romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll less

than his male employees last year.

A Daily Caller analysis of the administration's ``2012

Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff'' shows that

while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers--as the

President touted during his press conference Monday--they

also earned about 13 percent less, on average, than their

male counterparts.

The median 2012 salary for female employees of the White

House was $62,000; for men that number was $71,000.

The article ends with a quote from New York Democratic Representative Charlie Rangel. He, however, called Obama's failure to appoint more women and minorities to high-profile positions ``embarrassing as hell.''

``The questions I've heard are fair,'' Rangel said January 10 on MSNBC. ``The record does speak for itself.''

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[From the Daily Caller, Jan. 15, 2013]

Obama White House Paid Women Staffers Less Than Men in 2012

By Caroline May

While President Barack Obama handily won the women's vote

by 11 percentage points in November over Republican nominee

Mitt Romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll

less than his male employees last year.

A Daily Caller analysis of the administration's ``2012

Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff'' shows that

while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers--as the

president touted during his press conference Monday--they

also earned about 13 percent less, on average, than their

male counterparts.

The median 2012 salary for female employees of the White

House was $62,000; for men that number was $71,000.

The DC calculated the median male and female salaries by

determining employee genders based on their names. In cases

where the gender was not clear, The DC either identified the

specific employee in other ways or--in a few cases--assigned

gender based on the most common use of a given name according

to databases of baby names.

The 2012 pay disparity represented an improvement from the

disparity in 2011 figures the Washington Free Beacon reported

last year. According to that analysis, the median female

compensation in the White House was $60,000--$2,000 less than

in 2012--and the male employees' median was unchanged at

$71,000. That amounted to an 18 percent difference.

In his statement last year declaring April 17 Equal Pay

Day, Obama lamented the pay disparity between men and women

in America, echoing the well-worn yet often-questioned

statistic that ``women who worked full-time earned only 77

percent of what their male counterparts did.''

He pointed to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which made

it easier for women to sue for lost wages due to pay

discrimination, and to the creation of the National Equal Pay

Task Force in 2010, as examples of the administration's

commitment to equal pay.

``At a time when families across our country are struggling

to make ends meet, ensuring a fair wage for all parents is

more important than ever,'' the president said. ``Women are

breadwinners in a growing number of families, and women's

earnings play an increasingly important role in families'

incomes. For them, fair pay is even more than a basic right--

it is an economic necessity.''

Obama's White House female employees achieved a slightly

better 87 percent of what their male counterparts earned,

compared to Obama's national 77 percent figure.

In recent weeks Obama has come under fire for the

composition of his inner circle--initially sparked by an

official White House photo of the president published by The

New York Times in which he was surrounded by all men. His

nomination of white men to all four second-term cabinet

positions so far has also drawn criticism.

Establishment media outlets and women's groups have been

troubled by the apparent lack of female leadership and

diversity the administration has exhibited so far--with the

National Organization for Women demanding to know ``President

Obama, Where are the Women?'' Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and

Gloria Steinem, all co-founders of the Women's Media Center,

have pressed Obama to adopt an inner circle that looks more

like American.

``[Obama] wouldn't have been re-elected without 55 percent

of the women's vote, something he earned by representing

women's majority views on issues, yet now he seems to be

ignoring women's ability to be not only voters, but

leaders,'' the trio wrote Friday in a CNN website essay.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell noted Sunday on ``Meet the Press'' that

women inside the White House ``are not happy'' with the male-

dominated face of Obama's administration.

Monday, Obama addressed some of the criticisms about the

composition of his cabinet, saying that it is too soon to

``rush to judgment'' and that women were influential

throughout his first term.

``So if you think about my first four years, the person who

probably had the most influence on my foreign policy was a

woman,'' Obama said. ``The people who were in charge of

moving forward my most important domestic initiative, health

care, were women. The person in charge of our homeland

security was a woman. My two appointments to the Supreme

Court were women. And 50 percent of my White House staff were

women. So I think people should expect that that record will

be built upon during the next four years.''

We have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I am willing to close after the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of this bill. I can't understand why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so opposed to fairness when fairness applies to the private sector.

I would like to point out to my colleague that we would have entertained amendments in the Rules Committee had they been germane or if they had not been withdrawn. As he well knows, being a member of the Rules Committee, the amendments that were introduced by his colleagues were withdrawn before the committee had an opportunity to consider the amendments or were ruled nongermane.

I also assume that, based on the comments our colleagues have made across the aisle, that because the rights and privileges that are given to public employees are so horrible that they cannot be extended to the private sector, that they will probably be introducing a bill to withdraw those rights and privileges because they're only hurting public employees, and our colleagues don't want to be hurting private sector employees.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to providing more opportunities for more Americans and helping make life work for more families. This legislation is a great step in that direction.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of a bill that gives employees across the country the flexibility that they deserve so they can better manage the many daily challenges of family life. Whether the employee is a new parent who wishes to stay at home with a newborn, a proud aunt who wishes to attend her nephew's baseball game, or a son or daughter who wants to care for an elderly parent, America's private sector employees should be able to determine for themselves what to do with the overtime compensation that they have earned.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, my friend, Mr. Cole, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider the rule for H.R. 933, the continuing resolution for the rest of fiscal year 2013. This is a disappointing bill, Mr. Speaker, and this is a disappointing process.

This continuing resolution, quite frankly, is inadequate. It does not meet the needs of our people. And because it does not address sequestration, it actually will hurt many millions of our people. The Department of Defense and the VA are given some flexibility to deal with the devastating sequestration cuts, but no other agency is given that tool.

This is clearly, in my opinion, a tacit statement by the majority that they are going to keep this harmful sequester, one of the stupidest things ever to come out of Congress.

And that, Mr. Speaker, is the disappointing part of this entire process. The majority has had plenty of opportunity to address the sequester. Time after time after time after time, Democrats, through the efforts of the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, have offered a sequester alternative. And time after time after time after time, the Republican majority has blocked this amendment from being debated and voted on the House floor.

Yet the Republicans in Congress have yet to put forth a sequester alternative. Of course they will say that they have passed two different proposals, but that was last Congress. As many of my friends on the other side of the aisle know so well, legislation dies at the end of each Congress. Every 2 years, Congress repopulates and every bill must start over. There is no carryover from one Congress to the next. We all learned that in the most basic political science class, Politics 101. So this claim that we did something last Congress is irrelevant to addressing the sequester that the Republicans let take effect last week.

And let's remember the context of those two bills the House Republicans are so proud of. They were the result of, once again, the Republican leadership walking away from difficult bipartisan negotiations just at the moment when a deal seemed to be within reach. They both are completely partisan bills, and they both were dead on arrival in the Senate. So they were not genuine efforts to solve problems. They were all for show. They were simply political theater.

On the other hand, at the end of the last Congress, the House Republican leadership had a bipartisan, bicameral negotiated omnibus appropriations bill that would have taken us through fiscal year 2013, the result of hundreds of hours of careful bipartisan negotiation. But the House Republicans would not let that bill come to the floor for approval, a bill that would have passed the Senate and gone straight to the President's desk for signature.

Instead, they chose to waste the House's time on its two highly touted, highly partisan budget bills that went nowhere. But as I said, Mr. Speaker, that was the last Congress, and we must now start all over to address the sequester and provide funding for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Frankly, I don't know what the Republicans in the House are scared of. Speaker Boehner seems to have moved past the Hastert rule, which is a silly notion that the bill must only pass if it has the majority of the majority, and he has replaced it with selective bipartisanship. That's right, Speaker Boehner clearly believes that the House should operate under a process of selective bipartisanship.

This means he turns to Democrats when he needs the votes to pass important bills, like he did for VAWA, the fiscal cliff, and Hurricane Sandy relief, when only 49 Republicans, only 49 Republicans out of 232 voted to help our fellow citizens on the east coast who were devastated by that storm. The Speaker should do the same thing with the sequester and allow the House to debate and to vote on the Van Hollen amendment.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is part of a broader Republican economic plan that is, to put it mildly, extremely disappointing.

First, Republicans brought us to the brink of economic mayhem with the fiscal cliff. At the last minute, the Senate swooped in to save the day with leadership and help from the administration. Then House Republicans allowed the sequester to take effect, once again playing Russian roulette with our economy. Now we are going to consider this hybrid CR that just doesn't pass muster, despite the best efforts of the appropriators.

No one--no one--wants a government shutdown, and we all know that some kind of bill funding the Federal Government through the end of the fiscal year will pass before March 27. The real fights are going to come in the next few weeks and months when the Republicans outline their budget priorities with the new Ryan budget and when the debt limit, once again, needs to be raised.

What is clear is that the Republicans are hell-bent on cutting spending just for its own sake, no matter how mindless or senseless. We know that the economy is slowly rebounding, and we also know that these cuts in government spending--Federal, State, and local--are taking their toll on the economy. Fourth-quarter growth last year was reduced only because of reduced government spending--the cuts to cops, the cuts to firefighters, the cuts to teachers, and other workers--when that showed up in that economic report.

Now we are going to see a Republican budget that supposedly eliminates the deficit in 10 years. Call it the Ryan budget on steroids. It is going to cut Medicare, food stamps, and nearly every nondefense discretionary program funded by the Federal Government; and during the debt ceiling debate, we will see another attempt to arbitrarily cut these programs.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a responsible way to govern. The continuing resolution before us today is just one more example of how the House Republicans are leading with their heads in the sand. Instead of working to jump-start our economy, instead of engaging in true bipartisan negotiations, House Republicans continue to push on with misguided and ill-conceived budget cuts that do harm, but no good.

Like I said, this is a disappointing bill and a disappointing effort. We should be considering an omnibus appropriations bill. We should work to replace the sequester. We should be thinking long-term about economic recovery. We should be putting country ahead of political party. Instead, once again, we are playing games with our economy. This is no way to run a government.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

And I have great respect for my colleague from Oklahoma, and I appreciate the efforts that he has made toward bipartisanship on a number of bills; but, quite frankly, the leadership of this House has not adhered to regular order. We haven't seen regular in order a long time.

And when he talks about trying to find an alternative to sequestration, I would remind my colleague that Mr. Van Hollen, who is about to speak, has tried on four occasions--on four occasions--to be able to come to the floor and offer his alternative to sequestration that the Democrats support--I think some Republicans would support it as well--to have a debate and to have an up-or-down vote to avoid these mindless, senseless, across-the-board, indiscriminate cuts that have now gone into place. He's been denied all four times.

Now, by contrast, the Republicans have had zero alternatives. That's right, zero. They have brought nothing to the floor in this Congress to avoid sequestration. We're in March--January, February, March. We're in March, so we've had time to come up with alternatives. We've had an alternative that we have not allowed to be brought to the floor.

And let me just say, the United States Senate did actually pass an alternative with 51 votes. That's a majority. Unfortunately, I think, partly due to the influence of some of the House leadership here, the Republicans said, no, you need 60 votes to get that thing through.

So we have been trying. The White House has been trying. So the fact that we are here and that my Republican friends have allowed sequestration to go into effect, I think, is, quite frankly, unconscionable. We should not be in this mess.

And sequestration took effect last week. We should have stayed in session all week and tried to figure this out. And my friends adjourned the House, recessed the House on Thursday--no urgency, no nothing. And research to education funding to funding for roads and bridges. It will impact, in a negative way, jobs. People will lose their jobs.

This is not a good deal. This is not a good deal. And, quite frankly, we should be here today trying to find an alternative.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just so there is no confusion, I think it's important that I point out to my colleagues that we have had three rounds of cuts to one round of revenue increases. The cuts have overwhelmed the revenue increases. So the notion that somehow we've engaged in a balanced process I don't think is the case. And the notion that somehow closing these tax loopholes and corporate tax loopholes that even Mitt Romney and George Bush at one time supported in order that we don't cut medical research, research aimed at trying to find cures to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and diabetes--if we found cures for those diseases, not only would we prevent a lot of human suffering, we'd save a lot of money.

But we're cutting medical research and we're pushing farther off the date that we're going to find breakthroughs in order to protect taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that are making zillions of dollars? They really need a handout from the United States taxpayer? And you're cutting medical research, you're cutting Head Start, you're cutting programs that help people get an education, that protect our communities, our law enforcement officials, environmental protection. We're cutting all those things mindlessly in order to protect these corporate tax loopholes.

This is crazy. I really believe that outside of this little bubble here in Washington there is a bipartisan consensus that what we're doing here is crazy. This doesn't make any sense. This does not make any sense. Mindless, senseless, across-the-board cuts.

No urgency. We're going to go home today. There's a little snow on the ground. National Airport is closed. We can't really go anywhere until it reopens. We ought to stay here and figure out an alternative to sequestration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, last night, the FAA announced that 173 air traffic control towers will be closed by April 7. So I would say to my colleague, tell the communities whose economies will be devastated by the fact that they will no longer have air service that this is not a cut. I mean, they will be losing an essential service that is vital for businesses to thrive all across this country. That is a cut.

At this point, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional requests for speakers?

We are prepared to close as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, that the time to act has long since passed. We are now in sequester.

Budgets across the board and in a mindless and senseless way are being slashed. Air traffic control towers are being shut down. That will result in an adverse impact on local economies. We will lose jobs. You've heard over and over that we're told that we should expect a job loss of 750,000 people.

What do they do? They lose their job, and they go on unemployment. Where is the future? Where is the savings that my friends are talking about when you throw people out of work?

My friends talk about tough choices. Well, we ought to assume tough choices. You're going to have health clinics that are going to be reduced in their funding. You're going to have transportation projects reduced in their funding. You're going to have cuts in WIC; you're going to have cuts in Head Start; you're going to have cuts in programs that benefit the most vulnerable people in our communities.

None of us in this Chamber has to absorb a tough choice. It's the people we represent. It's the people in this country who are getting shafted as a result of this sequestration.

The time to act has long since passed. Mr. Van Hollen has time and time and time again--not once, not twice, not three times, but four times tried to bring an alternative to the House floor. All he's asked for is that we have an up-or-down vote on his proposal, and four times he has been rejected. By contrast, this year, my friends have brought up not a single alternative to avoid sequestration.

All we're asking for is a little democracy here on the floor of the House of Representatives, a chance for us to debate and have an up-or- down vote not on a procedural motion, but on the actual legislation, up or down. We've been denied that.

My friends, if they have an alternative they want to bring, fine. Bring that up there too. We'll have two votes, and we can debate our priorities so the American people know where we stand.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on Mr. Van Hollen's bill to replace the sequester and on Mr. Connolly's bill to freeze pay for Members of Congress for the next 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I just want to again say to my friends that it is important for them to appreciate the devastation of these cuts.

Head Start: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $400 million, resulting in a potential loss of 70,000 Head Start slots for comprehensive early learning and development services.

Job training programs: the CR will allow sequester to cut $282 million, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unemployed adults, dislocated workers, veterans, young adults and students losing access to employment services.

Title I grants, education of the disadvantaged: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $730 million, which is the equivalent of cutting the extra instructional services for more than 2,500 schools serving more than 1 million disadvantaged children who are struggling academically.

Special education grants: the CR will allow sequestration to cut more than $580 million, which is the rough equivalent of shifting the cost of educating nearly 300,000 students with special needs to State and local education agencies. This also may result in more than 700,000 layoffs of teachers, aides and other staff serving students with disabilities.

Child care: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $115 million, which would cause, roughly, 30,000 children to lose access to child care, further exacerbating the fact that only one in six children eligible for Federal child care assistance receives it.

Cancer screenings: the CR will allow sequestration to cut funding for cancer screenings, resulting in 25,000 fewer breast and cervical cancer screenings for low-income women.

I can go on and on and on, but here is the choice: the choice is either this process, which my Republican colleagues have embraced, or the one that Mr. Van Hollen has outlined--one that would say we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable, on the backs of the needy, on the backs of the middle class but that--do you know what?--we're going to get rid of some of these corporate loopholes that my friends on the other side used to be in favor of closing. We're not going to continue to have taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies. We're going to have some balance in our approach to dealing with our deficit. The problem with the approach my friends have outlined--the problem with the sequestration--is that it is

not balanced. It is wrong-headed; it is mindless; it is senseless; and it is cruel.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank Congressman Polis for yielding time and rise against the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1406, the More Work for Less Pay Act.

Congress should protect workers' wages and overtime rights, not undermine them. USA Today reported yesterday that stock markets and corporate profits are breaking records, but workers who rely on paychecks for their income have been running in place--financially speaking--and falling behind, despite their productivity increasing consistently for the last several years. That means they're working harder for less. Adjusting for inflation, an average worker who was paid $49,650 at the end of 2009 is now making about $545 less, and that's before taxes and deductions.

Living standards aren't rising for the middle class; they're falling. Yet the profits of Standard and Poor's 500 companies hit a record in the first quarter. The roaring market is making the richest Americans even richer, giving them even more money to spend.

How about this? Brian Moynihan, Bank of America, he earns about $12.1 million that is reported in the papers--I'm sure it's even more than that--and Goldman Sachs, their CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, $21 million that he's willing to admit; and John Stumpf at Wells Fargo, $22.9 million. Frankly, how much more do they need?

Now, meanwhile, during the first 2 years of the recovery, while average net worth rose for the top 7 percent of households, it fell for the other 93 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. The reason is clear: corporate America isn't sharing its record earnings with those who are earning them. In fact, higher corporate profits owe partially to the employers' success at paying workers less even while those workers are working harder, and holding down their raises and forcing overtime rather than hiring from the ranks

of the 12 million who remain unemployed.

Productivity has been rising at an average of 1.5 percent a year since the recovery began, while companies are squeezing more out of each worker even as inflation-adjusted wages have stagnated and hiring remains sluggish.

I thank the gentleman.

Still, so many Americans are out of work that employers can get away with giving no raises at all.

America is supposed to be about opportunity for all, not just the few. We're supposed to be about fair pay for hard work.

I ask my colleagues to oppose the Republican More Work for Less Pay Act, and I would urge us to pay fair wages for a fair day's work. All you have to do is go to parts of the country where people's faces are worn. You'll see what's really happening out in the real America. Let's oppose this Republican bill and the rule.

The bill gives employers the flexibility not to pay overtime to their workers; instead employees would be provided comp time.

However, employers, not the employee, are provided the flexibility to decide when and even if comp time can be used.

There is nothing in the legislation that guarantees that workers will be able to use the comp time they have earned when they need it.

In fact, the bill permits the employer to deny a comp time request if the employee's use of comp time would unduly disrupt operations.

Employers can even veto an employee's request to use comp time even in cases of urgent need under the legislation.

If an employee does not accept comp time, they could be penalized with fewer hours, bad shifts, and loss of overtime hours.

Given that it is cheaper to provide comp time than to pay overtime wages, this bill provides a significant incentive for employers to hire fewer people and rely on overtime to be paid for future comp time.

The Fair Labor Standards Act currently allow employers to provide workers with flexibility and time off without compromising their right to be paid fairly for the hours they work.

Consequently, this legislation is unnecessary based on current law.

Workers should not have to put in extra time beyond a 40-hour week and be forced to forgo pay to earn time to care for themselves or their loved ones.

The same bill proposed and died in committee in 2003 and failed in 1996 and 1997 to get through Congress.

[From USA Today, May 6, 2013]

Economy Leaves Wages Behind

(By Paul Davidson and John Waggoner)

Stock markets and corporate profits are breaking records.

The economy suddenly looks brighter after the government's

surprising report Friday that employers added 635,000 jobs

the past three months.

But instead of celebrating, many working Americans are

borrowing a line from the 1996 movie Jerry Maguire: ``Show me

the money.''

Hourly wages ticked up 4 cents in April to an average

$23.87, rising at about the same tepid 2 percent annual pace

since the recovery began in mid-2009.

But taking inflation into account, they're virtually flat.

Workers who rely on paychecks for their income have been

running in place, financially speaking. Adjusting for

inflation, an average worker who was paid $49,650 at the end

of 2009 is making about $545 less now--and that's before

taxes and deductions.

Stagnant wages aren't only tough on workers--the American

economy is paying a price too. Living standards aren't

rising. Consumer spending, which is 70 percent of the

economy, is more restrained. And the recovery advances at a

slower pace.

Ultimately, for the economy to thrive we need everyone

participating,'' says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's

Analytics.

The profits of Standard & Poor's 500 companies hit a record

in the first quarter. Their healthy earnings have boosted

stocks, and April's encouraging jobs report sent the stock

market even higher Friday. The Dow Jones industrial average

crossed 15,000 for the first time and closed at a record

14,973.96, up 142.38 points.

The roaring market is making the richest Americans richer

and giving them more money to spend. But in 2010, only 31

percent of U.S. households had stock holdings of $10,000 or

more, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

During the first two years of the recovery, average net worth

rose for the top 7 percent of households but fell for the

other 93 percent, the Pew Research Center says.

Meanwhile, Corporate America isn't sharing its record

earnings with employees.

``Don't hold your breath,'' for employers to become more

generous, says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's

Investors Service. One reason, he says, is that revenue

growth has been meager, up between 0.5 percent and 1 percent

in the last year.

In fact, higher profits owe partially to employers' success

in controlling labor expenses by getting workers to be more

productive, holding down raises and hiring conservatively.

Productivity, or output per labor hour, has risen an

average 1.5 percent a year since the recovery began.

Companies are squeezing more out of each worker even as

inflation-adjusted wages have stagnated.

Another reason for stagnant wages is the law of supply and

demand. Sure, the job market has picked up: Employers added

165,000 jobs last month and an average 196,000 a month this

year, up from 183,000 in 2012. And the jobless rate has

fallen from a peak of 10 percent in 2009.

Few incentives to boost pay

Yet today's 7.5 percent unemployment rate is still high.

Nearly 12 million Americans are unemployed, and millions more

want to work but are so discouraged they've stopped looking.

With an abundant supply of potential workers, employers have

little reason to shell out big raises.

``High unemployment hurts workers' bargaining power,'' EPI

economist Heidi Shierholz says. ``Employers know they can go

get someone else.''

So many Americans are out of work that employers could get

away with giving no raises at all, Zandi says, leaving

household income falling behind inflation. But employers

realize that would hurt morale and, in turn, productivity, he

says.

Still, wage increases that just barely keep up with

inflation don't make for a prosperous economy.

``We're not seeing the living standard growth of American

workers that we should be seeing,'' Shierholz says.

Stagnant wages also hurt consumer spending. Low- and

moderate-income workers typically spend nearly all their

paychecks, juicing the economy, while high-income workers

tend to save a portion, says Dean Baker, co-director of the

Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Larry Breech, of Milville, Pa., a retired farmer who makes

about $10,000 a year, says his per diem pay for substitute

teaching hasn't changed in several years.

``We will be frugal,'' he says. ``Fiscal restraint is

imperative.''

Consumer spending, which has been growing at an average

annual rate of about 2 percent during the recovery, would be

rising by 2.5 percent if employers simply passed their

productivity gains onto their workers, Zandi says.

Some workers are getting bigger raises. While the lowest 10

percent of income earners got average raises of 0.3 percent

last year, those in the top 25 percent saw their pay jump 3.1

percent, say the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Moody's

Analytics. Workers with higher skills and more education in

booming industries, such as energy and technology, can

command higher salaries.

Stephen Allen, an oil industry contractor in St. Louis,

says his wages have increased by more than 60 percent the

past three years. He makes about $85,000 a year.

For now, it's up to Americans like Allen and those with

large stock holdings to generate a bigger share of spending

and economic activity. The top 20 percent of households based

on income account for nearly half of consumer spending,

according to Barclays Capital.

good news for households

A bright spot is that despite puny wage increases, other

barometers of household finances show improvement. The

housing market is continuing a solid recovery. Climbing home

and stock prices have helped households overall recover the

wealth they lost in the recession and housing crash.

And the share of income Americans are using to pay off debt

has fallen to 10.4 percent, the lowest level since the

government began tracking the data in 1980, reports the

Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, falling gas prices are putting

more cash in consumers' pockets. Such developments can partly

offset sluggish wage growth and pave the way for higher

spending.

After working off debt the past three years, Allen says he

expects to be debt-free this summer ``and then save for a

down payment on a house.''

Still, economists say consumer spending won't take off in

earnest until inflation-adjusted wages return to a normal

growth rate of about 1.5 percent a year. Baker says that

likely won't happen until unemployment falls below 6 percent,

probably in 2016.

Then, employers will begin to worry about not finding

enough workers.

``They'll start to hire more aggressively,'' pushing up

wages faster, Zandi says.