Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Capital Energy Group Incorporated (CEG) as the 2013 District of Columbia Small Business of the Year, as well as its president and chief executive officer, Norman H. Jones, Sr.

CEG is a District of Columbia small business specializing in energy efficient windows and glass installation. CEG has been awarded contracts on three of the largest projects in the District of Columbia, the U.S. Coast Guard building at the Department of Homeland Security complex at St. Elizabeths, Progression Place--The United Negro College Fund Building, and City Center D.C. In addition to working on large- scale projects, CEG has completed projects for Anacostia Senior High School, Unity Healthcare and Building K167 in Southwest D.C. Because of CEG's high-quality work, it has now become the largest African-American owned glass and window company in the national capital region. CEG has used its growth to further its goals of employing D.C. residents and promoting glass/glazing as a career option.

CEG's president and chief executive officer, Norman H. Jones, Sr., has over 30 years of experience in the glass/glazing and window industry. He continues to share his knowledge with future generations by establishing apprenticeship programs for District residents to learn more about window glazing and installation.

I ask the House to join me in honoring Capital Energy Group Incorporated and its president and chief executive officer, Norman H. Jones, Sr., for their outstanding accomplishments and commitment to the residents of the Distinct of Columbia, and in commending Capital Energy Group Incorporated on becoming the 2013 District of Columbia Small Business of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating The Committee of 100 on the Federal City on its 906th anniversary and for its work in promoting the District of Columbia's distinction, beauty, and grace as a community.

Founded in 1923 by Frederic A. Delano under the auspices of the American Civic Association, the Committee of 100 was formed to sustain and to safeguard the fundamental values for establishing strong standards for parks, monuments, public buildings, and scenic vistas far beyond the monumental core of

Washington, D.C. Today, the Committee of 100 acts as a force of conscience in the evolution of the nation's capital city, engaging in the planning processes for the development of significant large sites in the District, including the Southwest Waterfront, St. Elizabeths, Walter Reed and the McMillan Reservoir.

For 90 years the Committee of 100 has continued to work to ensure that what is built--or not built-in the nation's capital reflects the historical significance of the District and its diverse, growing population. We appreciate the Committee 100 for its long presence in the District and its continued service to the ever-changing landscape of the District, and we wish them many more years of outstanding service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 90th anniversary of Committee of 100 on the Federal City.

I rise in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 16.

I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Miller for her help in bringing this resolution to the floor. I also thank Ranking Member Brady for his longstanding commitment to placing a District of Columbia statue in the United States Capitol. When he chaired the committee, it approved my bill that would have given the District two statues in the Capitol, the usual practice. But, we are pleased to have our first statue and are grateful to the House leadership for permitting this bill on the floor today. We especially thank Senators Schumer and Durbin for their help in getting this resolution, as well as the bill authorizing the placement of the Douglass statue in the Capitol, passed in the Senate. The District of Columbia has no Senators so we're fortunate we have distinguished allies like Senators Schumer and Durbin.

Like the residents of the 50 States, the residents of the District of Columbia have fought and died in all our Nation's wars and have always paid Federal income taxes. Unlike the residents of the 50 States, however, District of Columbia residents are still fighting for their equal rights as American citizens. Since 2002, one component of that fight has been to have statues representing the District of Columbia placed in the Capitol, like the States, which fulfill every obligation of citizenship, as the District does.

D.C. residents chose Douglass to represent them in the Capitol not only because he is one of the great international icons of human and civil rights; but for us, Douglass is especially important because he was not content to rest on his historic national achievements alone. He knew where he lived and was deeply involved in the civic and political affairs of the District of Columbia.

Douglass, a strong Republican, served as Recorder of Deeds of the District of Columbia, as United States Marshal here, as a member of the D.C. Council--its upper chamber then--appointed by the Republican president at the time, Ulysses S. Grant. Douglass was also a member of the Board of Trustees of Howard University for 24 years. Douglass made his home in the Anacostia neighborhood of southeast Washington, which is now the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site, administered by the National Park Service.

In choosing Douglass, it was important to our residents that Douglass also dedicated himself to securing self-government and voting rights for the residents of the District of Columbia. Many Americans may not know that D.C. residents have only rarely had even nonvoting representation in the Congress, or a local government, and even today have no vote on the floor of the House and no Senators, although our residents pay Federal income taxes like everybody else and fight in all the Nation's wars like everybody else. The city had both home rule and a delegate for a brief period during Reconstruction and then was without any home rule government or any representation in the Congress for over 100 years, until the 1970s.

In his autobiography, ``The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass,'' Douglass commented on the unequal political status of his hometown, the District of Columbia, and of its residents. Most of what Douglass wrote in the 19th century holds true today.

I am quoting Douglass from his autobiography:

These people are outside of the United States. They occupy

neutral ground and have no political existence. They have

neither voice nor vote in all the practical politics of the

United States. They are hardly to be called citizens of the

United States. Practically, they are aliens, not citizens but

subjects. The District of Columbia is the one spot where

there is no government for the people, of the people, and by

the people. Its citizens submit to rulers whom they have had

no choice in selecting. They obey laws which they had no

voice in making. They have plenty of taxation but no

representation.

In the great questions of politics in the country they can march with neither army, but are relegated to the position of neuters. I have nothing to say in favor of this anomalous condition of the people of the District of Columbia, and hardly think that it ought to be or will be much longer. Mr. Douglass did not mince his words.

The Douglass statue in our Capitol will recognize the universality of his dedication to human rights and democratic rights. His statue in the Capitol will remind District of Columbia residents that they, too, will partake of these values one day. His statue will offer the same pride that other citizens of our country experience when they come to the Capitol and see memorials that commemorate the efforts of their residents and their significant contributions. And the Douglass statue offers other Americans the opportunity to see the residents of their Nation's Capital honored as well in their Capitol.

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

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I come to the floor to discuss a bill addressed only to my district, the District of Columbia, which will come to a hearing next Thursday in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, chaired by Chairman Trent Franks.

In point of fact, over the last month, there have been two such bills introduced in this House, bills that can only fairly be characterized as abuse of power. They are both directed against only one jurisdiction--my own district.

H.R. 7 would appear to be a Federal matter. That bill would make permanent the Hyde amendment, which annually passes this House every year, barring the use of Federal funds for abortion. Wherever you stand on abortion, at the very least, that is a Federal matter. In the very same bill however is an outrageous abuse. The bill seeks to do the same for the District of Columbia, barring permanently the use of local funds--funds raised by local taxpayers--for abortions for low-income women. Local funds are similarly used for abortions for low income districts in districts across the United States because, after all, they are local funds. But H.R. 7 redefines the Nation's Capital which was given home rule in 1973, as a free-standing jurisdiction--instead of a Federal agency for purposes of abortion.

Imagine having your district defined as a Federal agency so that the Congress can make ideological points by overturning local legislation at will. Yep, this is still America. That bill is H.R. 946. As to the District of Columbia, it's simply an expanded way to interfere with the business of a local jurisdiction.

I must say that I think that H.R. 7 and H.R. 1797 I will discuss shortly do point to the bankruptcy of the Republican agenda in the 113th Congress essentially does what is done anyway every year with respect to abortion. It hasn't come to the floor yet.

It hasn't come to the floor yet, and indeed very few bills have come to the

floor. Sometimes the House has a rule one day and the bill the next day when there was plenty of time on both days because the Republican House doesn't have any agenda and it has to stretch out what few bills it has to make it look like there's something that the House is doing. That's how the House is doing its business.

Now the House is into my business, however, when it deals with the district I represent, a district of 600,000 American citizens who you can bet your life are going to demand and always demand to be treated as full American citizens because that is exactly who we are. We will never accept overriding our rights--our local rights and our constitutional rights--in order to satisfy the agenda of this Member of Congress or that Member of Congress who is making a point for special interest groups or for others.

The bill that I want to primarily discuss, H.R. 1797, goes beyond the usual way in which the Congress--or at least the Republican Congress-- seeks to interfere with the rights of the people of the District of Columbia. What they do generally is to take advantage of the fact that the district's own local taxpayer-raised funds have to come here essentially to be checked off and signed off, and Congress don't ever look at the budget. How could they? They don't know anything about a local jurisdiction's budget. But they do use the local budget to attach their own ideological stripes, and the usual one has to do with abortion.

H.R. 1797 uses the District of Columbia in yet a new way with a new abuse because it goes beyond the low-income women for whom the district cannot spend its own local funds. Instead, H.R. 1797 goes after every woman in the District of Columbia because that bill essentially would make all abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks illegal.

Don't talk about the obvious constitutional issue. I'll get to that in a minute.

H.R. 1797 seeks to regulate pregnancy and abortion--a local matter-- with respect to only one jurisdiction, and it's a matter that usually involves a matter of principle. People who are ``pro-life,'' as they call themselves, have my respect, but this circumstance is the only example where I have seen them try to apply the principle only to one jurisdiction, leaving everybody else in the United States exempt from the so-called ``principle.'' If abortion should be denied after 20 weeks, as a matter of principle, then surely that principle should apply throughout the United States. There's a reason why it doesn't, and I will get to that.

First, I want to thank Chairman Trent Franks for permitting me the courtesy of testifying next Thursday at the hearing of H.R. 1797 that affects only my district. He had two bills last year. This bill is a redux of the same bill that came to the floor and was defeated last year, and he also had another to permanently disallow local funds to be used to fund abortions for poor women in the District. On both of those bills, I was denied the right and the courtesy of testifying, although traditionally granted to Members, even though bills don't usually involve only one jurisdiction.

This bill is of great concern not only to me, but there's going to be a press conference next week indicating that the bill is viewed by women all over the United States as, of course, a vehicle to eliminate the reproductive rights of women across the country. The bill is fatally flawed in several obvious ways.

First, there is discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia to its residents by banning abortions after 20 weeks only in the District of Columbia, as I've indicated. If barring abortion is a principle, it's a principle that as a matter of principle, would apply nationwide. But it's not applied nationwide in H.R. 1797 because the District is the one jurisdiction over which Congress has a modicum of control. Until the District becomes a State, the Congress can step in. But, of course, the Home Rule Act contemplates that in our democracy Congress would never step in, unless there was an abuse of Federal authority by the District of Columbia. This would be, on the contrary, an abuse of Federal power by the Congress of the United States were this bill to pass.

The bill discriminates against the District by picking out the District among all the districts in the United States for unequal treatment. H.R. 1797 violates unabashedly Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion until viability as determined by a physician. Roe and all of its cases, all of the precedents that follow it, make it clear that viability cannot be determined by statute.

Roe v. Wade, 40 years ago, guaranteed the right of an abortion as a constitutional right. So you can expect that this is a matter that would be ultimately challenged. But the reason that the District is the vehicle used here is that the special interests obviously want a Federal imprimatur and don't have the guts to go get it by bringing a bill to the House floor that would apply to everybody. So they choose the bullying way, the easy way. You have a Federal imprimatur, if you can get the Congress to vote with respect to one jurisdiction because the Congress is Federal. Of course, the bill violates the Home Rule Act itself because while the Home Rule Act acknowledges the ultimate jurisdiction of the Congress, it clearly, in its terms, contemplates that the legislative power will go to the Council of the District of Columbia. There is no principled reason here to violate the local jurisdiction's local authority.

Here we have gone from the usual attack on low-income women by denying the city its authority to spend its own taxpayer-raised funds as it sees fit, to an attack on every woman of childbearing age, every such family in the District of Columbia.

The bill goes further. It criminalizes abortion by making a physician subject to imprisonment for up to 2 years for abiding by Roe v. Wade and engaging in an abortion.

Then the bill has a truly bizarre section which gives new meaning to the word ``extreme.'' It allows any current or former health provider, who has ever treated a woman--and it doesn't say when that provider might have treated a woman, perhaps as a child, because it has no limit--but allows any former health provider to obtain an injunction against the abortion. The right to privacy, among others is absent.

This is a new low in extreme provisions that we have seen in the Congress from my Republican colleagues. The very idea of even introducing a bill that would deny the constitutional rights of only one jurisdiction is an outrage in and of itself. Sure, bills are introduced on this floor all the time that are, on their face, unconstitutional, but it is bullying to pick out one jurisdiction because you don't have the courage to come forward with a national law, a national bill. By no means, however, do we believe a national bill is appropriate.

This bill has also been introduced on the other side by Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Apparently someone asked him if there is a 20-week abortion bill in Utah or if Congress might introduce one for Utah. He was quick to say, no, they don't have such a bill in Utah, and he would oppose it if the Congress tried to enact one that applied to Utah. He would be for only if Utah itself enacted the bill. So here we have a Tea Party Republican in the Senate who applies his Tea Party principles against federal intervention except when it comes to the District of Columbia.

Anybody who thinks that we're going to stand here and let that happen without, in fact, protesting it and rallying Americans who believe in fairness do not know us very well. We refuse to be a vehicle for the extreme views or pet projects of some Republicans. They have their own outlets. They have the right to come to this floor and offer bills. They have the right to speak on this floor in any way they choose. We will not be a prop for those views.

The Republicans are the supposedly small government Tea Party party who are now using the big foot Federal Government against a single jurisdiction that doesn't have a vote on this floor, that could not vote for or against H.R. 1797 if it came to this floor. What kind of courage is that? It's a bully's path to making ideological points. If you have an ideological point, make it; don't use my district to do so.

The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party doesn't even want the Federal Government in what the Federal Government has always done, but now they've got the Federal Government in

something that even they say the Federal Government should never be doing--interfering with the local rights of people to govern themselves locally.

This is a country in which there are wide differences on many subjects, perhaps none more so than the right to reproductive choice, but it is also a country that respects one another in the various States and localities where we live and do not try to reach over and somehow compel people in one jurisdiction to do as people in another jurisdiction do. That's the difference between this country, a Federal republic, and other countries, and it is a principle we mean to hold this Congress to.

There is the claim that, well, the District doesn't do enough restricting of abortion, so that's why we simply have to step in here. On the contrary, there are nine States that do not restrict abortions any more than the District does, and the District abides by Roe v. Wade. Yet this bill is directed against only one jurisdiction. Of course I take exception to the bill itself, but I take particular exception against being bullied by people outside my jurisdiction in order to satisfy their own personal philosophical concerns.

I can tell you this much: the notion that you can use the District and abuse its women on reproductive choice and nobody else will care should have been put to rest last year. The kickoff of the Republican attack on reproductive rights was, in fact, this bill which went to the floor and failed, but Republicans didn't stop there. Going back to abortion was not enough. They went all the way back to contraception and, amazingly, made contraception a campaign issue in the last election. Well, I hope they have learned their lesson, because women put all of this together and showed what they thought about it in the Presidential election.

I am very grateful to women all over the country for how they responded specifically to this very bill, this 20-week abortion bill that applied only to the District of Columbia. They were not fooled for a moment. Women across the United States wrote thousands of emails and letters indicating that they understood this bill, the very same bill that was defeated last year, to be a vehicle for inroads into the reproductive rights of women across the United States. Far from ignoring it because, after all, it was only 600,000 D.C. residents. The women may live in California or Wyoming--we saw them writing from their States in large numbers, making it clear that they saw it for what it was, that special interest groups were going from State to State to pass anti-choice bills. They begin at personhood where there is absolutely no right to abortion or contraception because, in their view, life begins at conception. And then some have 6-week bills and there are other 20-week bills. They are all over the map. And by the way, they are quite divided because they are all over the map.

They have settled on 20-week abortion, however, for H.R. 1797, and we mean to do for this bill what we did last year--to turn it back, to make women all over the country understand it for what it is, just as they did last year, to see that the only way to resist these attacks is to be as persistent as our opponents are in coming back to attack women using the women of the District of Columbia.

The women of my district are the chosen vehicle, but the targets are a national campaign against the reproductive rights of women in the Nation. They can't come to the floor, or they won't, with a broadside attack on the reproductive rights of women. So they do the cowardly thing and come against the District of Columbia because of the technical jurisdiction that, of course I can see the Congress has, but no principled Congress would ever use its federal power against a local jurisdiction.

Therefore I come to the floor this afternoon to put all on notice that you can come as many times as you want and as many ways as you want, but I represent 600,000 taxpaying Americans, and they insist that they are equal to Americans everywhere else.

For 100 years they did not have any rights. They didn't have the right to vote for President. They didn't have the right for a local government. For 100 years they were ruled by three commissioners appointed by the President.

During the civil rights era, the Congress became ashamed of having a local jurisdiction that was its Nation's Capital, that did not have the same rights as other people in the United States, not even a local government, a mayor or a city council who could enact legislation affecting the local population, although this population had been paying Federal income taxes ever since our country has been collecting income taxes. And our residents have fought and died in every war our country has ever fought, including the war that created the United States of America.

American citizens in a jurisdiction as old and historic as the Nation's Capital is, will not have our citizenship rights taken away lightly, and we will not be used and abused by Members of this Congress, whatever their party.

Our Union is not perfect, but it strives to be. It can become perfect only when it hears about its imperfections. There is no imperfection greater than having Members of Congress focus on one jurisdiction that does not have the same ability to defend itself as every other jurisdiction.

It is hard enough to see Members of Congress come down and vote on the District's local appropriation, which they had nothing to do with collecting, but which is still a part of what is allowed in the Congress. But it is disgraceful to see one issue picked out and one jurisdiction alone targeted.

If you feel strongly about your issue, step up and air your issue in the way this House allows. And I ask that whatever the Congress does, that it ask itself when it deals with the District of Columbia, is the action consistent with the principles that you profess on this floor time and again?

I ask reconsideration of any such attempts in the future. There is no possible way that any self-respecting jurisdiction would accept discriminatory treatment.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I put the Congress on notice, we will never--we do not accept the discriminatory treatment in the Franks bill, H.R. 1797 or in the bill that I discussed previously, H.R. 7, to bar abortions in Federal legislation permanently, which somehow tucks the District into a bill on federal funds.

We do not accept and never will accept second-class treatment by the Congress of the United States. We will always protest it, and we will always find a way to find the solid ground that American citizens must stand on to protect their rights.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are trying to tar anyone in sight with Benghazi. Next they're going for the former Joint Chief of Staff and a former Ambassador who did the investigation. But their investigation mandate was not talking points. It was:

Whether the attacks were security related; whether security

systems and procedures were adequate and implemented

properly.

They have found that they most definitely were not, resulting in four tragic deaths. Talking points say a lot about bureaucratic in-fighting. We have yet to get to the real investigation of the causes and most especially how to prevent another Benghazi. That is our mission. Let's get to it this week.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday low-income workers in Federal buildings held an impressive rally and press conference at Union Station. They serve the public and the Federal Government under contracts in Federal buildings nationwide, like the Ronald Reagan Building, often without benefits and a living wage. Despite their hard work, their employers, who are Federal contractors, off-load the cost of benefits they should provide, such as health care, onto the taxpayers. It is a zero-sum game.

These working poor do not earn enough to live on, and taxpayers often pick up the tab with food stamps and health care that employers who pay a decent wage shoulder themselves.

This is why we need administrative action to ensure that retail and commercial vendors who enjoy the prestige of contracts with the Federal Government at sites like the Smithsonian offer decent pay with benefits, putting everybody ahead--yes, the workers, but also the taxpayers and the economy alike.

Mr. Speaker, by allowing employers to deny overtime pay, by substituting compensatory time off for overtime at the discretion of employers and by denying guaranteed time off for workers when they need it, the Republican attempt to give the nation's mothers a Mother's Day bill gets jeers instead of cheers. This same bill has died in committee or failed three times since 1996 and the President has pledged to veto it this time. We need new ideas for hard-pressed working mothers, not a redux that takes more than it gives. This was a message bill, not a serious attempt to help working mothers. The Senate won't touch it. So, happy Mother's Day. We can and will do better.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Congress Leads by Example Act of 2013, to subject Congress and the rest of the legislative branch to the federal workplace laws and standards that protect employees in the private sector and the executive branch. In a similar vein, a few weeks ago, I introduced the Member of Congress Pay Sequestration and Fairness Act, which would subject the pay of members of the House and Senate to any future sequestration, or automatic, across-the-board spending cuts. While members of Congress may differ on the merits of sequestration, once Congress passes laws, members should abide by the laws we impose on the American people and American businesses. That was the promise Congress made when we passed the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA).

The CAA was an important first step in making the legislative branch accountable to its employees, but it did not finish the job. The CAA did bring the legislative branch under 13 major civil rights, labor and workplace safety and health laws, but it exempted the legislative branch from important notice and training provisions, and altogether omitted important substantive and administrative protections.

The Congress Leads by Example Act of 2013 is a necessary follow up bill to my 2010 investigation of staff complaints at the Capitol Visitor Center

(CVC) and to the recommendations from the Office of Compliance (OOC), which found a gap in OOC's authority to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) provisions against the legislative branch. In the 111th Congress, as chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, I held a hearing examining claims by OOC, which was created by the CAA, of an

estimated 6,300 safety hazards in the U.S. Capitol complex, as well as complaints by CVC tour guides that they were compelled to work in uniforms that were inappropriate for outdoor work in the summer and winter and that there were limits placed on their water consumption. Our hearing demonstrated that many of the serious safety hazards in the Capitol complex had been resolved, and the Architect of the Capitol assured us that it continues to correct the outstanding hazards with due speed. Eventually, the formation of a union local by CVC tour guides led to specific improvements in uniform and water consumption practices and policies.

However, in a 2010 report entitled Recommendations for Improvements to the Congressional Accountability Act, OOC identified additional provisions of federal workplace laws and standards that should be applicable to the legislative branch, including laws that grant the OOC General Counsel subpoena power, provide whistleblowers with protection from retaliation, and require the maintenance of employment records. In OOC's 2011 report entitled State of the Congressional Workplace, it presents the successes and shortcomings of the CAA by tracking the trends in legislative branch employee complaints and workplace safety hazards in fiscal year 2010. My bill takes into account the OOC reports, and seeks to both apply the standard of fairness to employees in the legislative branch that Congress requires for other employees and to provide a safer work environment for Congress and Capitol Hill employees by bringing the legislative branch substantially in line with what is legally required of private sector employers and the executive branch.

As Congress searches for ways to trim the federal budget, it would be timely to provide whistleblower protections to legislative branch employees so that they can report misuse of federal funds and other legal violations without fear of retaliation. My bill provides general whistleblower protections, also championed by Senators Chuck Grassley and Claire McCaskill. My bill also makes applicable additional OSHA provisions to the legislative branch, including providing subpoena authority to OOC to conduct inspections and investigations into OSHA violations, and requiring the posting of notices in workplaces detailing employee rights to a safe workplace under OSHA.

This bill also furthers the CAA's mission to prevent discrimination in legislative branch offices by prohibiting the legislative branch from making adverse employment decisions on the basis of an employee's wage garnishment or involvement in bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) and Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. The bill requires legislative branch employers to provide their employees with notice of their rights and remedies under the CAA anti-discrimination provisions through the placement of signage in offices highlighting relevant anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The bill also requires legislative branch offices to provide training to employees about their CAA rights and remedies. Adding the CCPA and bankruptcy provisions will deter economic discrimination, while the notice and training provisions will empower legislative branch employees with the full knowledge of their rights.

Finally, the bill bolsters the CAA's recordkeeping requirements. It extends to the legislative branch the obligation to maintain accurate records of safety information and employee injuries, as otherwise required by OSHA, as well as employee records necessary to administer anti-discrimination laws. The enhanced recordkeeping requirements will facilitate better enforcement of laws.

On the eve of the CAA's passage in 1995, then-Senator Olympia Snowe may have best captured the intent of Congress and the will of the people when she remarked, ``Congress simply cannot continue to live above the law and call itself a body that is representative of the America we live in today. After all, what kind of message does Congress send to Americans when it sets itself above the law? What kind of message does Congress send to America when it believes it is beholden to different standards? And how can Congress claim to pass laws in the best interest of the American people if Congress refuses to abide by those very same laws. . . . Congress should be the very last institution in America to exempt itself from living under the nation's laws.'' By passing this bill and heeding this wise call to action, Congress will help restore the faith of the public in this institution by redoubling our efforts to exercise leadership by example. I urge bipartisan support for this important measure.

I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina, one of our leaders, and my good friend from California for his leadership, his almost weekly leadership on the issue of jobs. Both of my colleagues have discussed long-term declines in the middle class, much of it owing over the last decade to the policies of this Congress and the Federal Government.

The last thing you would expect Congress would do in the face of a recovery that is still in the throes of recovery is anything to hurt it, so I wanted to come to the floor to discuss the early warning signs we are seeing of jobs loss because of the sequester so that we can do something about it now.

First, let me indicate, quite unexpectedly, the best statistics I've seen in a long time, and how we are stepping on these statistics with each day of the sequester.

The April jobs report unexpectedly showed 165,000 workers added to nonfarm payroll. That was terrific news. What it tells us is that the private sector is making jobs, trying its best, because those jobs were not created in the public sector; those jobs were created in spite of the public sector, in spite of the fact that the Congress is furloughing people, cutting programs to the States and, thus, jobs.

So the April jobs report, you might say, means maybe it's going to be all right after all. Early signs are absolutely not. April reported the first 2 months of the sequester. It's 4 months to go, and already we see horrific news, each day, a kind of rolling disaster on jobs and the economy.

Deep cynicism spread the week before last throughout the country as Americans saw Congress vote to relax the sequester on the air traffic controllers, just as Congress was about to take a week-long recess; deep cynicism because nothing had been done for the American people, for their jobs, for their programs, but the skies were cleared.

Actually, there was a good reason for that, and that reason was, of course, that the controllers, who were only doing their jobs, about 10 percent of them had to be furloughed each week; therefore, with less people, there were slowdowns. That was already beginning to have a catastrophic effect on the economy, and that's why I think, yes, Congress, and even the administration, moved to correct that.

Sequester-driven flight delays were already placing over 80,000 American jobs at risk. And if it had gone on, if just this one sector had gone the full sequester, that would have lost $9 billion, one sector alone, in the economy. All right. One sector. One sector and only one sector.

Have we shown we understand what our bottom line responsibility is?

Whether you come here you think to reduce the deficit, or whether you come here as a Member of Congress you think to add revenue to grow an economy, both sides should agree that the best way, and perhaps the only way, to do that is to create jobs. People with jobs pay into the economy rather than requiring us to spend and add to the deficit.

Yet, when the sequester began and the administration warned of its effect on jobs and the economy, howls came from my good colleagues on the Republican side that the claims of the administration were overblown, that they were exaggerated, that the President was crying wolf, not to mention those of us on the Democratic side.

Here are the early signs, and I bring some examples to the floor this evening because there's still time to correct the sequester. I bring them to the floor to ask the appropriators to do what the President has done in his budget and correct the mistake of the sequester, recognizing that neither Democrats or Republicans anticipated that the sequester would ever happen, so neither side has to take credit or blame if we change it since neither side wanted it.

But look at the early effects, and let's look at some of the effects that flow directly from what Congress has done:

250 workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation laid off;

The contractor that repairs our U.S. Naval ships, Continental Maritime, laid off 185 employees;

418 contract workers laid off at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania;

Northrop Grumman Information Systems in Lawton, Oklahoma, lays off, or anticipates laying off, 270 workers.

Those jobs add up. I'm not trying to call the roll. I'm trying to give examples of what the sequester directly does to jobs in the military sector, no less.

U.S. Army Garrison-Rock Island Arsenal, 175 employees laid off.

By the way, these are not furloughs. These employees are gone.

That's how we get, I say to my good friend from California, to the CBO figure of the loss of 750,000 jobs. Imagine this Congress doing anything to cause, to be the direct cause of the loss of jobs when we should be trying with all our might to create jobs after the Great Recession.

The examples abound. You will find them with every small business in your district feeling the effect by laying off people or refusing to fill vacancies. You will find it in every sector of the country.

Military bases are now going on a 4-week schedule for schools. Workers at missile testing fields are being fired.

We're having the functional equivalent of the meat inspectors exception to the sequester. Remember that they were the one sector, because we were afraid that rancid meat would appear all over the country, and you have to have meat inspectors to inspect.

Well, now the dairy farmers are saying that they can't get access to production information about milk and are anticipating higher prices on milk. So look at how that affects the farmer, whom he employs, and the milk, that's us, the consumer. That's how it's passed through. That's how it's passed on.

You know, you'd expect some of these examples from a depression, or even the recession that we are just coming out of, but who would have expected that hospitals are now reporting that medical schools anticipate not taking on as many residents, not with the sequester and the amount of money that comes to hospitals from the Federal Government. And they say that means fewer residency spots and fewer doctors in various communities, since residents tend to stay in the communities where they do their residency.

I've come to the floor when we're discussing, jobs precisely because the sequester cuts to jobs in the public sector and the private sector and speaks to whether we're going to make it in America, keeping what we have, much less making in America and growing what we need to have.

The sequester itself is even affecting what was always exempted from cuts in the Congress, public safety cuts, even at the Federal level. U.S. attorneys throughout the country are cutting. We never would have allowed that to happen before.

After Boston, I asked the Federal police forces to come and have a conversation with me. The Capitol Police, the Federal Protective Service, the Park Police, none of them are exempt. And to the extent that they are not doing furloughs, it's because they are requiring people to work tours of duty that no public safety officer should have to work if he really means to keep us safe.

So I say to my good friend, Mr. Garamendi, whom I'm so grateful to for keeping us focused on jobs when every other day we're talking about something else, I'm grateful because these dumb cuts are, above all, cruel cuts.

I haven't begun to mention their effect on the domestic programs for the very needy, the 70,000 children who will be off of Head Start, the 600,000 off of the WIC program, Women, Infants, and Children. That is the program for the most vulnerable children, who will lose basic nutrition assistance.

I was concerned that we weren't paying any attention to this, that it was only crisis by crisis. After the controllers matter came to the floor, the very day we left I, myself, came to the floor and said, with the controllers, you're only moving money around. That's what we did with some appropriations. If we had a budget meeting or even a meeting of any kind of both sides, we'd probably come to a compromise where some of what it would take to get off the sequester might mean doing what we did with the controllers, just moving from one program area to another.

But other ways to relieve the effects of the sequester would surely mean doing the kind of budget we meant to do in the first place. You'd want to do something with respect to matters that can only be fixed by some addition of funds, as, by the way, I think will be done in the next appropriations.

To be sure, sequester cuts go over to the following years, but they'll go a full year, and you will see some funds added just because it will be too heartless, too impossible to otherwise begin to justify.

So I come to have this conversation with my good friend, who focuses us, I think correctly, on the long term. We are forgetting to think about the long term when we see the sequester cuts that have a gnawing effect on the middle class so that, by the time we get to the point when we must do something about it, we will have a very steep hill to climb. That's what Mr. Clyburn was talking about when he talked about what is now an impossibly large income gap of the kind we have not seen in my lifetime, of the kind we are making as we speak.

If the gentleman would yield, this has been a very important, it seems to me, a very clear explanation the gentleman has given as to how we got where we are, and particularly his description of the difference between the European model and the American model. With the European model you would think that would be all the object lesson we would need because Britain is one of our closest allies. And what austerity has done to Europe it will almost certainly do to us.

What I don't understand, Mr. Garamendi, is why my good friends--our good friends--on the other side would believe that you can get something for nothing. Many of them believe in the economy of the private sector. Well, the first thing the private sector does is to invest. Once it invests, it hopes to yield from that investment. The kind of approach you're speaking about says that if you do nothing, if you--you, the Federal Government--step back and contribute nothing to a recovery, then recovery will happen.

Well, let me tell you why I think that's impossible. The economy is of a piece. You can't pull an important piece out and expect the whole to remain whole, particularly when ours is a demand, a consumer-driven economy. What that means is what the Federal Government does is really meant to get people out there spending so that other people can make jobs. Well, the last thing you want to happen, if you want to make sure people have jobs, so that they're spending so that other people have jobs, is to cut back yourself on the jobs that you're responsible for.

The sequester does that with the furloughs. Imagine what will happen in their counties across the United States--3 million Federal workers-- when those workers who feed their economy go on furloughs. That's the equivalent of a job cut. They have got to cut back spending. That cuts back demand. That works its way through the entire economy.

What we're doing is dampening demand because we're sending the signal to the private sector that we are cutting the programs that made jobs. You can look at Head Start as a program for kids if you want to, but I bet the thousands of teachers and other Head Start workers look at it as a jobs program. So if 70,000 kids are gone, imagine how many workers are also gone.

It's almost as if our colleagues don't understand the way the economy works, that you could take one sector of it that's very important--the Federal sector--damp it down, and expect the rest to keep growing. And the operative word, my friend, is ``growth.'' We were doing almost nothing for growth because we had no balanced approach that allowed some revenue to fuel growth. What we're doing now is keeping growth from happening because we are deliberately cutting jobs that we need, which, in turn, feed the economy.

People with jobs buy goods and services. People who make goods and provide services will look to see if anybody is cutting jobs. If I run a department store in my county and the auto plant there lays off people, I cut back on inventory.

Because that's how the economy works. The sequester is working that way, I say to my friend, and we can do something about it. There are 4 months left in this sequester. Before it becomes more of a rolling disaster with some of the examples I have given as emblematic of the disaster, we could, all of us, decide, let's just do a budget, a budget that I'm sure I would disagree with in many ways--in other words, it's not a budget I would want, because my good friends on the other side would want the things they would want. They would want some cuts. I would want to add some revenue, to WIC--Women, Infant and Children, for example. But together, at least we could stop the sequester and stop the catastrophic sequester cuts that drive down jobs as if we were creating a new recession of our own.

You remember how our colleagues said, for 3 or 4 years now, that the Senate refused to do a budget; and if they would just do a budget, then maybe the kind of meetings we've all been calling for would happen and we could work together? They did a budget, and still we get no action so that we can sit down and try to work the sequester out.

If the gentleman will yield on that point?

The point you are making about disparities in income needs to be understood as you are portraying it--as a new phenomenon in American life. That, yes, there were recessions and there were very hard times, and there were times before the New Deal when government did not do much about it.

The kind of policy-made disparity that we are experiencing today, not disparity that comes because a few wealthy people created wealth in the last part of the 19th century, and even then there was a need for so many workers the disparity was not as great as today, but disparities that come straight from policies like failure to raise the minimum wage, come straight from policies like 20-25 years of failing to raise the user fee so that we could build roads.

Now, construction jobs are classic middle class jobs. If we want to build the middle class, we've got to go in the modern era to the post- World War II economy. Americans who didn't have a college education could raise four and five children because they had good manufacturing jobs made in America.

My good friend talks about how if we take the materials for bridges, however, and you buy them in China, we are not making it in America, and we're having a downward effect on our own manufacturing sector. But at the same time, as he points up, infrastructure--he points to the classic way to come out of a recession by building what you would have to build anyway.

Here is the government investing in something that's never controversial, because building roads and bridges and water infrastructure are always the function of government. If you would have to do it anyway, the theory goes, you do it when in the process of doing it you can create jobs and fuel the economy.

We are about to have to do another infrastructure bill. We did one 2 years ago that will last only 2 years because we did not raise the user fee, so it goes for only 2 years at a time. And even though we had some of the materials from abroad--something we've got to keep from doing next time--every bridge had to be built by an American worker, all that cement had to be the work of the American middle class.

If we have to do it anyway, construction is probably the best way to revive the economy in the first place, because it has an effect on all the rest of the economy. It wakes up the rest of the economy.

Because we should be working right now--and I know Mr. Shuster, who's chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, does want to do something--we ought to be thinking about precisely the sector that you have mentioned, the sector that creates jobs, does what we have to do for the crumbling parts of our country, which turn out to be the parts underground where our water and sewers are and the parts above ground where we drive to and from work every day.

When the gentleman speaks about manufacturing, both of you have spoken about manufacturing in its different aspects.

Look at what is happening today. The private sector is bringing manufacturing home because of the low cost of energy, and we are producing more of our own natural gas because of the low cost of energy. The government just needs to do its part. Don't countermand what the private sector is doing. Do what the gentleman says. Don't take jobs from Youngstown. Help Youngstown to rebuild Youngstown. It's going to be built anyway. Now is the time to rebuild it.

So I thank the gentleman for yielding to us in this very important discussion every week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the National Day of Reason. The American Humanist Association has issued a statement, which I submit on their behalf.

``The National Day of Reason celebrates the application of reason and the positive impact it has had on humanity. It is also an opportunity to reaffirm the constitutional separation of church and state in an age where the line between religion and government is increasingly blurred.

``The National Day of Reason is also an opportunity for nonreligious and secular Americans to get out and help local communities. Community service events, such as food and blood drives, are some of the ways that people have worked to help those in need on the Day of Reason and during the rest of the year.

``Therefore, I encourage all citizens to join in observing this day, focusing on the employment of reason, critical thought, the scientific method, and free inquiry to the resolution of problems for the welfare of humanity.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the National Day of Reason.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the Latin American Youth Center (LAYC) on its 45th anniversary and for its exceptional work with underserved youth in the District of Columbia and the national capital region.

Founded in 1974, LAYC began as a youth and family development center serving Latino youth in the District. Today, LAYC serves all youth at its five sites in the District of Columbia and in Maryland. LAYC continues to be committed to transforming the lives of underserved youth and their families through multicultural, comprehensive, and innovative programs that address the social, academic, and career needs of youths.

We appreciate the LAYC's long presence in the District and its continued service to our city's young people. We also wish LAYC continued success for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 45th anniversary of the Latin American Youth Center.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Congress did not foresee the controllers' crisis. They will not foresee the next one. We have not solved the controllers' crisis with money. It was not about money. It was not about cuts. It was solved the old-fashioned way. They simply moved money around. This is exactly what was done with appropriations that are not having this crisis.

We can solve this if we have a meeting of both sides of the aisle on the budget. What would happen at that meeting would probably be not to cut a thing, but simply to allow agencies the flexibility to move money around, precisely as has been done with the controllers' crisis. Not 1 cent was changed, just the flexibility, the common sense that we now need to put to every single appropriation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2013, a version of which I have introduced since 1994, after working with the District of Columbia residents who were responsible for the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion ballot initiative passed by DC voters in 1993. This version of the bill now requires the United States to negotiate an international agreement to disable and dismantle its nuclear weapons by 2020 and provides for strict control of fissile material and radioactive waste and for use of nuclear-free energy. The bill continues to provide that the funds used for nuclear weapons programs be redirected to human and infrastructure needs, such as housing, health care, Social Security and the environment, and it would take effect when the President certifies to Congress that all countries possessing nuclear weapons have eliminated such weapons. The bill is particularly timely as Congress continues to make cuts to important human and infrastructure programs and as the world confronts concerns about nuclear proliferation to Iran and North Korea.

Following years of dangerous increases in U.S. nuclear capacity during the George W. Bush administration, President Barack Obama has begun to rebuild U.S. credibility with his goal of taking the necessary steps to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. The president's strong push for the New START treaty in 2010, when Republicans seemed adamant on delaying it, resulted in ratification by the Senate. The treaty requires the two major nuclear powers, Russia and the United States, to continue to reduce nuclear weapons by mutually reducing their nuclear warheads by half and their number of intercontinental ballistic missiles and missile launchers, and, within 60 days of the treaty taking affect, on February 5, 2011, submit to on-site inspections of strategic nuclear weapons facilities by the weapons experts of the other country.

Today, our country has a long list of urgent domestic needs that have been put on the back burner even though millions of Americans have lost their homes and jobs and sequestration has started. As the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war, and that still possesses the largest nuclear weapons arsenal, I urge support for my bill to help the United States lead the world in redirecting funds that would otherwise go to nuclear weapons to be available for urgent domestic needs.

Mr. Speaker, as the Supreme Court considers two historic marriage equality cases, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 23rd annual DC Black Pride celebration, to be held in Washington, DC on May 24-26, 2013.

The DC Black Pride celebration is a multi-day festival featuring a reception, films, a poetry slam, a church service, educational workshops, community town hall meetings, a basketball tournament, and a health and wellness expo, among other events. We in the District of Columbia are pleased and proud that the DC Black Pride celebration is widely considered to be one of the world's preeminent Black Pride celebrations, drawing more than 30,000 people to the nation's capital from across the United States as well as from Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

We are particularly proud that the DC Black Pride was the very first Black Pride celebration and fostered the beginning of the Center for Black Equity (formerly known as the International Federation of Black Prides, Inc. (IFBP)) and the ``Black Pride Movement,'' which now consists of 40 Black Prides on four continents.

Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc., the celebration's organizing body, has chosen ``Step Up and Be Heard'' as the theme for this year's celebration. This theme reflects the connectedness of the Black Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community and its commitment to fulfilling the mission of DC Black Pride, which is to increase awareness of and pride in the diversity of the Black LGBT community. Moreover, the theme expresses the resolve of the African- American LGBT community and its allies to come together to: fight for LGBT equality; celebrate its heritage and culture as members of both the Black and LGBT communities; and promote health and wellness for the community.

We congratulate the DC Black Pride board of directors, coordinator of the annual event and smaller events throughout the year: Andrea Woody- Macko; Derrick Dunning; Earl Fowlkes, Jr; June Spence; Kenneth Hopson; Kenya Hutton; Lauren Morris; Leandrea Gilliam; Marc Morgan; and Robert ``Harold'' Dinkins.

I ask the House of Representatives to join me in welcoming all attending the 23rd annual DC Black Pride celebration in Washington, D.C., and I take this opportunity to remind the celebrants that the American citizens who reside in Washington, D.C. are taxed without full voting representation in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, every spring since 1991, when I became a member of Congress, I remind the House of Representatives I have the honor and pleasure of representing the oldest continually functioning lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) organization in the United States, the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC (GLAA). I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating GLAA's 42nd anniversary and wishing it well as it continues in the struggle for equal rights for the LGBT community.

Since its founding in April 1971, GLAA has been a respected and tireless advocate for full and equal rights for the LGBT community in the District of Columbia, and has been at the forefront of efforts to strengthen enforcement of the landmark D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977. One of GLAA's most significant achievements, on which it worked with coalition partners, D.C. elected officials, and District residents, was enactment of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, which permits same-sex couples to marry in the District.

In addition to its leadership on LGBT rights in the District, GLAA has always provided leadership on a wide range of civil rights issues, such as family rights, police accountability, and access to condoms in prisons and D.C. public schools. GLAA also emphasizes effective public health strategies and accountability in the fight against HIV/AIDS in the District.

At GLAA's 42nd anniversary reception on April 25, 2013, the recipients of its 2013 Distinguished Service Awards will be recognized, including:

Diana Bruce is Director of Health and Wellness for the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), and leads DCPS's school health office, developing policies, programs, systems and partnerships that enable local schools to provide school health services and supports for students. In this capacity, Diana initiated the development of DCPS's efforts to make its schools welcoming and inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning students, staff and families. She also leads the community engagement process to develop DCPS's framework and approach to preventing, identifying and responding to bullying.

Clarence J. Fluker is the editor of Substanceandstyledc.com, an art, culture, entertainment and lifestyle blog. Clarence's articles have been featured in SWERV and The Life magazines, and he has served as the Next Generation editor for Arise. He served as Program Manager of the D.C. Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Affairs from 2008 to 2012, and previously served on its Advisory Committee. In 2002, he was elected the youngest member of the Board of Directors of Black Lesbian & Gay Pride Day, Inc., and served as its board president in 2006.

Brent Minor is executive director of Team DC, established in 2003 to educate the LGBT community on the benefits of individual and team sports. Brent chaired the Metropolitan Washington Gaymes bid committee for the 2014 Gay Games. He is a member of the Alexandria Commission on HIV/AIDS. He served on the President's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He also served as Director of Public Policy at the Whitman-Walker Clinic of Northern Virginia and as Director of Community Relations at Food & Friends.

Peter Rosenstein has been a tireless activist in politics, government affairs, and the arts for more than 30 years. He is president of the Campaign for All DC Families. He is founder and president of Arts in Action, and was Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia. He served on Whitman-Walker Clinic's Health Development Committee, and chaired the host committee for the Food & Friends annual dinner for 9 years. He writes regularly for many publications, including the Washington Blade.

Jason A. Terry is a conflict resolution and human rights advocate dedicated to educating others about how to build a more peaceful world, locally and globally. He is training manager at the National Council for International Visitors, with responsibilities for regional and national meetings, webinars, and curriculum design. He is also an anti- violence organizer with the DC Trans Coalition, coordinating advocacy and educational campaigns to reduce anti-transgender violence, and serves as treasurer on the board of the Association for Gender Research, Education, Academia and Action.

I ask the House to join me in honoring the recipients of GLAA's 2013 Distinguished Service Award and in celebrating GLAA's 42nd anniversary of contributions to the LGBT community in the District of Columbia.