Floor Statements

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

I begin by thanking the chairman, Chairman Issa and, of course, Ranking Member Cummings for so quickly understanding the importance of bringing this bill to the floor and for marking it up expeditiously. We brought it to the chairman and the ranking member after they had completed the list for the markup, and they immediately recognized how important this bill was.

May I also take this moment to thank Chairman Issa for his continued partnership on legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the District of Columbia, including budget autonomy, which got a boost this week when President Obama included a legislative provision-- that's the first time any President has ever included legislative language--to grant D.C. budget autonomy in his budget.

This legislation is a whole lot more straightforward but is highly technical and could have been overlooked. The District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer Vacancy Act is, however, an important example of Chairman Issa's commitment to assist the District of Columbia in improving and safeguarding its vital operations.

The bill, based on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, is intended to clarify the authority of the Mayor of the District of Columbia to fill a vacancy in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer on an interim basis. Under the bill, if there is a vacancy in the Office of the CFO because the CFO has died or resigned or has otherwise become unable to perform the functions and duties of the office, under this bill, patterned after Federal legislation, the D.C. treasurer becomes the acting CFO unless the Mayor appoints a deputy CFO to serve as the acting CFO. In either case, there may not be an acting CFO for more than 210 days.

The CFO, an independent official created by Congress, oversees all of the financial operations of the District of Columbia. The city may not obligate or expend funds without the CFO's approval. Congress, apparently unintentionally, created uncertainty regarding the Mayor's authority to appoint an interim CFO in the fiscal 2001 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, which added a 30-day congressional review and comment period before the appointment of a CFO takes effect.

Now, when we passed the original bill, there was not that comment period, and here is where we got the technical flaw and Congress retained this congressional review and comment period in its rewrite of the CFO statute in the 2005 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act. In the event of a vacancy, this review and comment period could leave the District without a CFO for at least 30 days.

While it could be argued that the Mayor has the general authority to execute the laws and to administer the affairs of the District of Columbia, which may give the Mayor implicit authority to fill a vacancy in the Office of the CFO on an interim basis, this office, after all, was created by the Congress. It would not be prudent to leave doubt about the Mayor's authority as to the only officer who can authorize spending for the District of Columbia. The bill removes any possible doubt.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

May I thank the chairman for his remarks concerning budget autonomy. Many in the District see budget autonomy as simply a right because it is a local budget; and, of course, the Congress had nothing to do with raising the funds in that budget.

The chairman had a hearing where he listened to the ramifications and effects of bringing a local budget to a body that, even in the best of times, is surrounded by great uncertainty; and he heard the experience of the penalties that the District incurs in its bond rating which otherwise would be perhaps the best in the country because the District has such a large reserve, unusual in these times. And he heard about our budget year, which is timed to begin with the congressional budget year; whereas, every other jurisdiction in the United States begins its fiscal year in July timed to their own children and the opening of school. And he heard about the difficulties of running a large city government and of the shutdown preparations we've had to make because our budget is tied to the federal budget.

The District of Columbia did not lobby the chairman. He is an astute observer, not only of the District of Columbia, but of how money is managed, and he himself came forward with the notion that the local budget ought to be with local residents. It seems to me to be a particularly thoughtful proposal when you consider that Congress, in bills and various provisions that have been offered, still would have the final authority over the budget. Here we have a situation where Congress would lose nothing, but the District would gain what we would in the District would call almost everything.

With that, I'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member who has been so helpful to me on this and other matters.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, but I do want to thank the ranking member for his very vigorous and important remarks on this bill, and for his great assistance to me on this bill and on budget autonomy and many other issues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank Mr. Chaffetz and Mr. Issa for this bill.

Initially, there was a bill involving only Federal employees. And we had a concern that often when bills come forward for Federal employees, they are not bills that recognize the substantial funds that contractors receive. And Chairman Issa and Chairman Chaffetz looked closely at it and now have come forward with a contractor's bill as well.

I do want to say in light of the fact that I'm going to oppose the next bill--

and I do believe there's a difference between employees and contractors, and I don't want to get into that right at this moment--I do want to say that for Federal employees undergoing a pay freeze and furloughs, there's one thing Uncle Sam can do that apparently hasn't been done with many contractors. He can garnish wages. And you can bet your bottom dollar if there's a Federal employee that owes taxes and you can prove that money is owed to the Federal Government, his pay will be garnished.

But as we heard the gentlelady from California say, these contractors continue to receive the largesse--I guess that's how they regard it--of the Federal Government. It certainly can be distinguished in that way. But I do believe that the chairman of the full committee and the subcommittee deserve credit for, in fact, moving at least where they saw that there should be some equity, that contractors would be treated similarly to Federal employees.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friends, the chairman of the full committee and of the subcommittee, that we were doing so well in the last few bills showing how bipartisan our committees could be. And I mean that sincerely, because the committee has been working in a very bipartisan way, particularly this year.

As I indicated in my prior remarks, there is not perfect symmetry between employees and contractors. Here is one of the examples where we do not have that symmetry.

Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer in ``lead by example.'' I think that applies to Members of Congress, and I believe the Federal employees believe that applies to them. Why else would they have a delinquency rate less than half the tax delinquency rate of other Americans? They know they are a unique workforce.

Here is a workforce that has already stepped up front beyond the American people. They are the ones who were the first to sacrifice for the deficit, and they keep sacrificing, now in the 3rd year of a freeze and a sequester on top of it.

Why would we pick them out for any other purpose except a symbolic purpose, which is what I see here? It's not

lost on any of us, Mr. Speaker, that today is April 15. I suppose this is a bill to make sure everybody understands that we understand it's April 15. I understand entirely the importance of symbolic moves. I put out a release myself today on taxation without representation.

But here we have the best workforce in the United States, the most specialized, and the workforce that has given more than any of us.

I have a serious legal problem with this bill. This bill defines a ``seriously delinquent'' Federal worker as one against whom there is ``notice of a lien which has been publicly filed.'' Mr. Speaker, a notice of lien is a claim by the claimant, in this case, the United States. The answer may come, of course, as to any claim in our legal system from the defendant.

Here, on the basis of the claim alone, we are going so far as to allow even the employee to be fired, this at a time when Americans, including Federal employees, have had the worst hardships since the Great Depression, including homes under water and all the rest of it. It's just not necessary. If they have the best tax record in the United States, why then would they be picked out?

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to emphasize that the IRS already has special procedures to recover taxes from its own employees, and I commend the IRS for that, including, by the way, being able to garnish their wages up to 15 percent and even to take disciplinary actions. Why would we need anything further, particularly at this moment in time, against our Federal employees who have endured so much?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rushed to get to the floor before the gavel went down this afternoon because this is the week which marks when women had to work as long as men work in order to get the pay that is equivalent to the pay of men during the 12 months of 2012. Notice what month we are in. This is April. So we're talking about four-plus months beyond the 12 months that a man had to work in order to have the same salary--it takes a woman 16 months plus.

But it was not that alone, Mr. Speaker. There are figures I discovered in doing some research. And, of course, there is the pressure, I think, all of us should feel if Congress has anything to add to this discussion that would move what appears to be a ``no- forward'' position for women's pay in the workforce in at least the last 10 years. There are pending before the Congress at least two bills. There is a petition, a discharge petition, that is already up to compel the House to vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act. That act has not moved forward in the House, although it has been filed for a number of

years. But I believe the most recent data would compel everyone to believe if there is anything this House can do, this is the time to do it.

I looked at what progress women have made since I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) beginning in the late 1970s, with never a thought that I'd be a Member of the House of Representatives. I've looked at the decade of the 1980s. That's about the time I left the EEOC, and what I found then was steady, yes, incremental, but steady progress; moving, for example, from 60.2 percent in 1980 to 69.9 percent, so that means about 10 percentage points movement in 10 years.

But then I looked at the years beginning in 1990 until today, and it appears to be taking women twice as long to move the distance during this latter 20-year period than it took during the 10-year period beginning in 1980. That ought to make all of us stop and wonder what is at work.

If we look at 1990, when we looked like we were solidly into the 70s, that is women making 70 percent, the exact figure was 71.6 percent of what men earned, that figure gradually went up. You get to 2000, from 1990, and women have gone only from essentially about 70 percent, exactly 71.6 percent, to 73.7 percent. The rate is what has slowed, but even more seriously, 77 appears to be the unlucky number for women's pay in our country because women have been at 77 percent, sometimes 77 percent and a little more, but basically 77 percent of what a man earns since 2005.

What that means is no progress whatsoever.

Incremental progress was never enough, particularly when you consider that more women today work than men. But the slow pace of growth, compared to many past years, is unacceptable.

What is the reason for this?

The most recent data shows an actual widening of the gap between men and women in wages. For example, in 2012, women who worked full-time-- now we're talking about full-time workers--earned 80.9 percent, almost 81 percent, of what men earned. That was in terms of weekly pay. But that was a drop of more than two percentage points from the year before, 82.2 percent.

Now, these are full-time women's earnings at a time when women considerably outrank men in the number who graduate from college, for example.

The annual earning look even worse, because that's where the 77 percent figure comes in, where women lagged even further behind if you look annually, and there you get 77 percent of what men earned annually. That becomes a figure that we almost know by heart. That's a figure that we ought to know for only one year.

If you want to see what that means in dollars and cents, a woman who works full-time averaged $691 a week in 2012. That was less than she had earned in 2011.

Now, men's earnings in that same week were $854. That's compared to $691 for a woman. What is most important is not the difference in the men's and women's pay, but that men had a small gain over what they had earned in 2011, whereas women were going in the opposite direction.

As we looked at why this would occur, I looked further into where are the jobs. Why not look at the job growth; perhaps we're not seeing growth in women's occupations.

And one of the great problems, of course, with women's pay is that, although they are graduation from college, women are still employed largely in stereotypic women's jobs. And these jobs have been women's for so long that they are labeled as women's jobs, and they have acquired a wage of their own that reflects discrimination against women.

Job growth, if we look at it during the last year, has been in retail, in catering, and in minimum-wage jobs. That, in and of itself, of course, may tell us why women's wages have not been growing at the rate we would like.

Women are preparing themselves in other fields; but very often, when we talk about women's wages, we are not talking about the average woman. And since that average woman's wage is essential for family earnings today, we've got to look at who we're talking about.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is so modest that it doesn't even pretend to go at this entire problem, but it is the kind of bill that you would think we would have a bipartisan majority for. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which we're trying to get out of the House, simply updates the Equal Pay Act, which it was my honor to enforce as chair of the EEOC.

The so-called EPA, or Equal Pay Act, was the first of the Civil Rights Acts, and it guarantees equal pay for equal work, the kind of guarantee that, if you asked every 100 Americans if they were for equal pay for equal work, you would find 99.9 percent of them would say they were, and any falling off of that, whatever it would be would be because they didn't understand the question.

But we are talking about a bill that was passed more than, well, now, 50 years ago, and you can imagine that it does not fully meet today's economy. The modest changes involved, to allow class actions, for example, are to ensure that a woman could discuss her wages without being fired.

Today, if you discuss your wages openly, there's nothing to protect you against being let go. You can see secrecy in wages is part and parcel of the problem.

Women's wages, of course, have suffered, particularly in this recession, also because a disproportionate number of public jobs have not come back, as we see teachers being laid off, for example. We see social workers being laid off. And you're going to see more of that because of the sequester.

The sequester is going to be handed down in programs to states and cities, and it means that the programs that were available are not going to be readily available, and you will begin to see these women's jobs suffer even more.

I am very concerned that we have been looking at what progress women have been making, without noting that they have been making no progress, and that is the problem I see.

I don't pretend that any one statute will make that progress occur. I do understand that there is a set of related phenomena involved here, but I do not believe we can leave on the table our responsibility for moving to do what we can, as women become not only equal in the workforce, but often the majority.

It is men who are opting out of the workforce, and some of them can opt out because they have pensions. Some of them are opting out because they go on disability from having worked. Women seem not to be opting out, but opting in.

The Paycheck Fairness Act gives some muscle to the old Equal Pay Act. In some ways, it's fallen into a certain amount of disuse because it doesn't meet all that is needed today. It's still, of course, an important statute; but it remains a statute that, like any of our civil rights statutes, needs to be looked at often to see in what ways it can be improved.

In addition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, with Senator Harkin I have sponsored the Fair Pay Act. That act differs from the very important Paycheck Fairness Act because it seeks to get at a rudimentary problem in the workforce, and that is that women are captured in women's occupations that, by their very nature, have built-in discrimination.

For example, two-thirds of white women and three-quarters of African American women work in just three areas of the economy: clerical, service, and factory jobs.

It will take a more aggressive strategy to break through the old, even ancient habits of the workplace that have been there since women began to work. We have steered women into women's jobs. The Fair Pay Act looks at jobs which are comparable but are not paid comparably and would require that they be paid in that way. There may not be a huge number of such jobs, but the States have often found such jobs and sometimes have made them comparable in pay. Often at the urging of trade unions, studies that have made it clear that you can make comparable pay adjustments where you can prove that the reason that jobs which are different but comparable and are not paid the same is because of discrimination--and that's what'd a woman would have

to show--women's wages can, in fact, make up for the disparity over a period of time, as a number of States have done, simply by spreading change in pay over a period of time until the goal of equal pay is reached.

It is one thing to mark this week as a week where women are still at 77 percent; it's quite another to make clear that that 77 percent is a figure we've been stuck on now, with absolutely no movement, for more than 10 years. The Paycheck Fairness Act, moving it with a discharge petition, as we're trying to do, to at least force a vote on it, would make people think about the figures I have just discussed; because if they think about them, I think most Members would want to do something about them.

We are not preparing women for the inevitable retirement that will come without pensions and with too little pay. The more their pay begins to reflect the pay of what is often their mate's, who graduated from high school or college at about the same time, with comparable skills, the greater will be women's security as they age and will reduce the call on taxpayers to take care of them.

It was with great pride that I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the late 1970s and saw some progress that began to be made in the seventies and eighties. There's no reason for the slowdown that women have been stuck on at 77 percent even before the recession. It is not the Great Recession that has set women back; it is the failure in legislation and it is the failure in the workplace, itself, to treat women's pay as the equivalent of the pay of men.

I hope women will not be discouraged as they now are finishing high school and college in greater numbers and at a greater rate than their male counterparts. We can only hope they will not be discouraged when they see that their pay does not, in fact, equal what their education forecasts.

During this week when we noted that it took women 16-plus months to earn what a man earned in 12 months, I ask that we look behind these numbers and put a face on them. Because the face is the woman who lives next door; the face is your wife; the face is your daughter who is going to come out of college now loaded, as most of them are today, with their education having been secured through loans. They want to maximize the time, effort, energy, and ambition that goes into pursuing education, regardless of gender, so that they can begin to move at least incrementally again.

Women have been more than aware that their own progress has come slowly. They are not content to make no progress. But, if we look at the last 12 years, essentially, what we see is no progress. I'm not sure what kind of a goal to put on progress that should be made. I can only look at the decade when some considerable progress was made and when 10 percentage points of progress was made over 10 years, to say if we could do that once, we surely should be able to do it again. A place to begin would be to sign the discharge petition so that the Paycheck Fairness Act could be brought to the floor. It needs 218 signatures. It currently has 192 cosponsors. There may be more by this point.

We have to focus on taking action. Individual women, perhaps, will be taking such action in their own workplaces. The whole notion of lean in--that is, to go in and ask for the pay that you're entitled to--is a step that I would, of course, advise. But I recognize that an endemic problem in women's progress across the board calls for more than individual action.

As we mark, as we usually do in April, the time in months it has taken for women to achieve what men have achieved in far less time--and this time 4 months more to earn what a man earned in 12 months--I hope that that figure, at a time when women's pay is stuck at 77 percent or so as it has been for 10 or 12 years now, that we will be inclined to use this week not to commemorate, not even to just recognize, but to be activated to move women whose incomes are vital not only to their own families, but to our country. If we do that, then by the time we reach this point perhaps next April, we will have a different story to tell.

I am pleased to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 38 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, April 15, 2013, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce 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 the cuts are a matter of law, Members should abide by the laws we impose on the American people. The most serious effects of these arbitrary, across-the-board cuts are being felt by the American people. For example, during the remainder of this fiscal year, as a result of sequestration cuts to Medicare, many cancer clinic patients will have to go to hospitals for outpatient chemotherapy at sharply higher costs, or face reduced access to treatment. More than a million federal employees may be furloughed, which will result in reduced pay. It is simply unfair for well-paid Members of Congress to subject federal employees, who not only usually earn considerably less but are now also in their third year of frozen wages, to pay cuts that Members are unwilling to take themselves.

Under the 1985 law that established the sequestration process, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (also known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), Congress expressly exempted certain federal programs, activities, and projects, including the President's pay, from sequestration. The pay of Members of Congress is not expressly exempt. Nevertheless, the Office of Management and Budget has interpreted the law to exempt the pay of Members. I would hope that today's Congress would revise the law. My bill would subject Member pay to any future sequestration implemented under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, including the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the Statutory Pay-As-You- Go Act of 2010. In order to comply with the 27th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits changes to Member pay until an intervening election, this bill would take effect next Congress.

I ask my colleagues to follow the example we set for ourselves when, in passing the Congressional Accountability Act, we pledged that the laws that apply to the American people would also apply to Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the third anniversary of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, March 23, 2013, which, among other things, expands eligibility for Medicaid to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance, I introduce the District of Columbia Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2013 today to increase the federal government's reimbursement for the District of Columbia's Medicaid costs from 70 to 75 percent. Medicaid is financed mostly by the federal government and the states. However, the District, a city that has no state to support it, must alone absorb the state portion of Medicaid. For example, the District pays for 30 percent of Medicaid. New York City pays less than 25 percent, since a

2005 state law reduced its contribution from 25 percent. The District certainly should pay no more than New York City's pre-2005 contribution and therefore my bill would raise the federal contribution to the District's Medicaid program to 75 percent. Considering the expansion of Medicaid eligibility under the new health care reform law, effective 2014, now is the time to make the District's Medicaid burden more equitable.

Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act), Congress recognized that state costs are too high for any city to shoulder. To address this unfairness to the District, the Revitalization Act transferred certain state responsibilities from the District to the federal government, including prisons and courts, and increased the federal Medicaid reimbursement to the District from 50 to 70 percent, partially relieving this burden. The city continues to carry many state costs, however.

In 1997, a formula error in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital allotment reduced the 70 percent Federal Medical Assistance Percentage share, and, as a result, the District received only $23 million instead of the $49 million it was due. I was able to secure a technical correction in the Balanced Budget Act of 1999, partially increasing the annual allotment to $32 million from fiscal year 2000 forward. I appreciate that in 2005, Congress responded to my effort to get an additional annual increase of $20 million in the budget reconciliation bill, bringing DC's Medicaid reimbursements to $57 million as intended by the Revitalization Act. However, this amount did not reimburse the District for the years the federal error denied the city part of its federal contribution, and, in any case, of course, was not intended to eliminate the District's structural deficit, which this bill partially addresses.

The bill is part of my series of bills for equal treatment of DC. The series of bills addresses inappropriate and often unequal restrictions placed only on the District, and no other U.S. jurisdiction.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the District of Columbia Local Funds Continuation Act, to permanently protect both the more than 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia and the federal government from an unintended catastrophe in any future federal government shutdown. The bill would allow the District government to spend its local funds at the start of a fiscal year if Congress has not approved the District's local budget by such time, thereby avoiding a District government shutdown if the federal government shuts down. Although the District government raises and manages an $8 billion local budget, Congress technically appropriates these local funds back to the District government, a holdover and throwback to the pre-home-rule period. Several years ago, Republican appropriators and I reached a bipartisan agreement to approve the District government's local budget in continuing resolutions (CRs), allowing the District government to spend at next year's level, if the District government's regular appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the start of a fiscal year. We are grateful that this agreement has held through Democratic and Republican congresses and administrations. This agreement has enabled District officials to operate complex, big-city functions more effectively than during the many years when the city's local budget was only approved by Congress months after the start of a fiscal year.

However, last Congress, we saw the limits of even this helpful agreement when the federal government almost shut down on multiple occasions. While Congress appears poised to pass legislation to keep the federal government open for the remainder of fiscal year 2013 by acting before the expiration on March 27 of the CR that is keeping the federal government (and therefore the District government) open, the D.C. government should never have to wonder whether it will be shut down. If the District government shuts down, it could default under certain financing agreements and leases. When Congress cannot reach agreement on regular appropriations bills, it often operates under successive CRs to avoid a federal government shutdown. However, successive CRs greatly hinder the operations of the District government. Not only do they make it difficult for the city to plan its activities for the year, successive CRs greatly increase the city's costs of doing business. The city's partners, from Wall Street to small vendors, may charge it a risk premium due to the uncertainty created by successive CRs.

Disputes over the federal budget have nothing to do with the District government's local funds. I do not believe that any member of Congress wants to shut down the D.C. government and bring a large, complicated city to its knees due to a purely federal matter. Moreover, D.C. residents are not alone in relying on vital District government services. Federal officials, including the President, federal buildings, foreign embassies and dignitaries, and businesses rely daily on the city's services, as well.

A bipartisan consensus on preventing D.C. government shutdowns emerged last Congress. President Obama included a provision in his fiscal year 2013 budget that would permanently authorize D.C. to spend its local funds if the federal government shut down. The Senate Appropriations Committee-approved fiscal year 2013 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill included the shutdown- avoidance provision. Although the House bill did not include the provision, the Republican-led committee's report accompanying the bill acknowledged that the District government would face considerable hardships if it had to shut down due to a federal government shutdown, and encouraged the passage of legislation to avoid D.C. government shutdowns.

We continue to work to pass a budget autonomy bill, which would free the District government's local budget from congressional approval, and is, of course, the best long-term solution. There is also increasing bipartisan support for budget autonomy. President Obama has indicated his support for budget autonomy, as have House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Representative Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over D.C., Senator Susan Collins and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

It is time we remove the District government and the multiple, unintended consequences of a District government shutdown from federal government shutdown fights. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I want to thank my good colleague from California for keeping before the Congress the notion of making jobs in America. You were just talking about infrastructure. Infrastructure is all made in America, if we make sure that we don't build bridges, for example, from materials from China. But when it comes to the roads, when it comes to the cement, we don't get those from abroad. We make those here. And that's why infrastructure has always been the foremost way to stimulate an economy. It's interesting that it stimulates not only the construction trades, but it's best because it stimulates other parts of the economy below it. It's the way to get everything going.

I couldn't agree with you more in pointing out--and you and I are on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee--the importance of infrastructure. That used to be the great bipartisan issue of the Congress of the United States. And I think there is some chance it will be again. We note that the bill that we just passed in the last Congress, the Surface Transportation bill, will have to be renewed next year; and I certainly hope that becomes an opportunity to do a Surface Transportation bill for more than 2 years. That's where we have to get to work right now.

But I wanted to come to the floor today, in particular because the Ryan budget has come forward. And I note the very good news of the 246,000 jobs that the private sector, on its own, with no help from the public sector and no help from the Congress, has produced, cheering all of us up.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that we are about to countermand all that the private sector is doing alone. The reason is that the Federal and the State sectors are doing just the opposite. They are reducing spending, the States and the cities are causing layoffs, and the result is that for every job that the private sector makes, we are moving in exactly the opposite direction because all oars are not in the water. Thank goodness we have a private sector that is beginning to say, we won't wait for the other oars--the Federal and the State oars. We're going in now. The rest of you should join us.

The very least we should do, however, is to cease making it worse for the private sector to keep doing what it's doing. The sequester, of course, will do that. The markets have not reacted yet, but there is no way in which people in the private sector, particularly small business, is going to continue to add jobs if they see that the Federal and State governments are doing just the opposite. The reason the State governments are doing that is because when we make cuts, they pass through directly to them. So they're trying to protect themselves because they must produce annual balanced budgets. Since they must have a balanced budget, they are making cuts every single day, or at least reducing spending.

The Ryan budget comes forward and in a real sense it looks a lot like it's always looked. But look what it does: it makes half of its so- called savings from health care--Medicare, Medicaid, and, of all things, the Affordable Health Care Act. I guess we ought to say a budget is what, indeed, it always has been: it's a hope-for document. I hope that we don't get the Ryan budget. But I cannot believe that Mr. Ryan believes that at this late date, with an election having already taken place, with the benefits of the Affordable Health Care Act, flowing every day, that we're about to repeal that. Half of his savings are from Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Health Care Act, and he caps food stamps.

I want to say to my good friend from California, I think we ought to stop slapping the private sector in the face every time it makes jobs, making sure that we do cuts that take away the effects of those jobs. That's what we're doing.

I note that you have one of the posters that show how we hurt people. We ought to also understand we are hurting people and we are hurting the economy at the same time, and that's why CBO said 750,000 jobs are at risk because of the sequester alone, leave aside what the Ryan budget would do.

I think that point you just made about Medicaid needs to be said again. People think of Medicaid as somehow poor people, we'll let them fend for themselves. It turns out that almost all of the funds--two-thirds--go to seniors and disabled people. We're targeting the wrong people.

Isn't that, by the way, exactly why we got Medicare--that seniors were left to the private market, and finally the Congress understood that the private market cannot accommodate people with $22,000 annual income.

And of course there are some agencies that do negotiate the price of drugs.

I do want to point out, when you talk about the transfer of the expense, the cost of Medicare to seniors themselves--the costs we know they can't possibly bear--notice that hopes went up when Mitt Romney said, during the campaign, that we should reduce the loopholes. Well, note what Mr. Ryan does: he reduces the loopholes in order to give rich folks a further tax reduction.

So, where does the money go? The top rate now is 39.6 percent. Well, he wants to bring that top rate down to 25 percent. So he wants to close the loopholes all right--I'm not sure which ones he has in mind-- but that savings would go back into the same 1 percent sector that already has gotten all the benefit from tax cuts until what we finally did in January, when others got some relief as well.

I'm very glad my good friend from California does have a way to illustrate all of these points.

Not only does Ryan reduce the top rate from 39.6--that's how much the very richest would pay--to 25 percent, but you may say, well, but he's got a 10 percent rate essentially for everybody else. Well, if everybody else paid 10 percent and the very richest paid 25 percent, there would be little revenue for the Federal Government. So what we're saying about Medicare and Medicaid is this would mean that there would not be the revenue to fund them. And that seems to be his point: get so little revenue coming into the Federal Government that in and of itself that will mean you do not have to worry about cuts. You'll get rid of these programs that we have been building for 50 years.

So he does get balance within 10 years, and look at how he gets it. You still do not have anything like a contribution, a real contribution from those who have benefited the most from the tax cuts. You're saying it continues to come from the lowest part of the income stream, income groups in the United States. I don't know when people will let the Congress know they're not going to take it anymore, but it seems to me the time has come.

Frankly, I was encouraged by the fact--I hope this works out--that the President reached out to at least some Senators to see whether or not there's somebody somewhere, and since Democrats controlled the House, perhaps we could get to a greater balance by bringing more people into the equation.

The Republicans are fond of saying that you can't spend yourself into prosperity. Well, you can't cut yourself into prosperity, either. That's why the notion of balance makes the most sense. That's why the President was elected because that apparently made the most sense to the American people.

That's the first time we've seen that in decades.

It's working. And because it's working, we know good and well the last thing the American people would approve is snatching it back, particularly since, by 2014, it's going to reach everybody.

I agree with you. There are ways to cut. And unlike my friends on the other side, this side has never said no cuts. Their view is only spending cuts, but we have never had that view, only this or that. We really are open to the kinds of negotiation, tough negotiation it's going to take to come out with something.

Now, I'll say for the Ryan budget, he says he was questioned, ``Well, do you really think any of this is going to happen?'' and he said words to the effect, ``Well, you have to put down what you really want,'' I don't have any problem with that if they come to the table this time so that there can be a real negotiation and we can get to the kind of budget that I think really is doable.

First, I want to thank my friend for keeping jobs before us. That's the bottom line. That's really what we've been talking about even as we talk about the Ryan budget.

I simply wanted to come forward because, when I heard you on the floor, it seemed to me almost everything you were saying fed into the news today from the Ryan budget. I ask people to try to follow the explanation of what that budget does when you hear that he can close the budget in 10 years rather than 25 years, understand that that is impossible if you want to grow this economy.

I thank you, once again, my good friend from California, for making all the important points this evening.

Mr. Speaker, snow is keeping Federal workers at home today, and Congress will keep up to a million at home with the sequester cuts in today's CR.

No emergency like snow or even the deficit will be responsible. The responsibility lies with the House majority, which has abdicated its responsibility to govern. The CR on the floor today embeds cuts that might be tolerated if spread intelligently and selectively over time.

But even if the deficit demanded cutting, for example, the Women, Infants, and Children program, there could be no justification for doing it in only 6 months, guaranteeing that over 600,000 low-income women and our most vulnerable children will lose basic nutrition assistance.

Dumb cuts are bad; cruel cuts are much worse.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans cry that the President and Democrats are crying wolf about sequester cuts and furloughs. But, the wolf is already biting. In my hand is a furlough notice from the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In D.C., the U.S. Attorney still handles major local crimes for this big city as well as some of the most important Federal matters, including terrorism suspects.

The U.S. Attorney's notice says there will be up to 14 days--that's 2 weeks--of furlough days for Assistant U.S. Attorneys and other personnel. On furlough days, the notice says, Assistant U.S. Attorneys and other staff are not permitted to even come to the office to volunteer.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with making sequester a budget rather than a prod, as intended, is not the 2 percent sequester cut. It's the compression upfront in a short period of time. The American people who depend on U.S. Attorneys deserve better than a deliberate and avoidable public safety furlough.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing a bill similar to a bill I have introduced since the 109th Congress, the Universal Prekindergarten and Early Childhood Education Act of 2013 (Universal Pre-K), to begin the process of providing universal public prekindergarten education in public and public charter schools. Although I have consistently introduced a bill in the past, this year it is particularly ripe in light of President Obama's call for early education for all children in his recent State of the Union speech. My bill is meant to fill a hole in the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' which addresses elementary and secondary education but ignores the prekindergarten years, perhaps the most critical years for children's brain development. The President's proposal has not been committed to legislation yet, but his cost-sharing model is similar to my bill. My bill seeks a breakthrough in public elementary school education by providing the initial funding for states to encourage local school districts to add prekindergarten for children four years of age, as kindergarten programs were for five-year-olds that are now routinely available in public schools. The bill would eliminate some of the major shortcomings of unevenly available commercial daycare and, importantly, would ensure access to qualified teachers and the safe facilities of public schools. Unless early education becomes a necessary part of a child's education, I believe that it will continue to be unavailable to the majority of families with children.

My bill provides federal funds to states, which must be matched by at least 20 percent of state funds, to create universal, voluntary prekindergarten in public and public charter schools for four-year- olds, regardless of income. The classes, which would be full-day and run throughout the entire school year, must be taught by teachers who possess equivalent or similar qualifications to those in other grades in the school. The funds would supplement, not supplant, other federal funds for early childhood education. The unique aspect of my bill is that it uses the existing public school infrastructure and trained teachers to make early childhood education available to all.

The success of Head Start and other prekindergarten programs, combined with new scientific evidence concerning the importance of brain development in early childhood, virtually mandate the expansion of early childhood education to all children today. However, early learning programs have been available only to the affluent, who can afford them, and to low-income families in programs such as Head Start, which would be unaffected by my bill. My bill provides a practical way to gradually move to universal public preschool education. The goal of the bill is to afford the great majority of the American working poor, lower-middle-class, and middle-class families, most of whom have been left out, the benefits of early childhood education.

We cannot afford to continue to allow the most fertile years for childhood development to pass, only to later wonder why we cannot teach Johnny to read. The bill responds both to the great needs of parents who seek early childhood education, as well as today's brain science, which shows that a child's brain development begins much earlier than previously understood. However, many parents are unable to afford the stimulating education necessary to ensure optimal brain development.

Considering the staggering cost of daycare, the inaccessibility of early childhood education, and the opportunity that early education offers to improve a child's chances of success, schooling for four- year-olds is overdue. The absence of viable options for working families demands our immediate attention.

My bill reflects what jurisdictions increasingly are trying to accomplish. The District of Columbia, for example, has achieved an extensive integration of early childhood education as part of a larger effort to improve the D.C. public schools. A recent report highlighted the economic benefits of early childhood education, emphasizing its role in expanding job opportunities and in decreasing the amount of money spent on programs to address teen pregnancy, crime, and the like.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill, the Racial Profile Prevention Act, to reestablish a federal grant program for states that desire to develop racial profiling laws, collect and maintain data on traffic

stops, design programs to reduce racial profiling, and train law enforcement officers, which we were successful in getting included in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005. Although that grant program was just a small piece of the large SAFETEA-LU bill, nearly half of the states participated in the program for multiple years. This experience speaks to the usefulness of the program to states. Racial profiling is a form of racial discrimination that was thrust back into the forefront of national concern by the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin, who died one year ago today.

Racial profiling on roads built with federal funds is a violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it amounts to a government subsidy of discrimination. However, while racial profiling remains more widespread in our country than most other forms of discrimination, there is little experience in developing legislation in this sensitive area to address racial profiling while allowing for appropriate law enforcement. My bill would help states to better develop their racial profiling laws and help train law enforcement to avoid these problems.

My bill imposes no mandates on states. Instead, it simply authorizes a grant program, but does not require states to participate. However, it provides resources that many states and localities clearly need if they are to curb racial profiling.

Mr. Speaker, Cardiss Collins, who died earlier this month, was not the first African American woman elected to the House, but when I was elected in 1990, along with three other Black women, the small number had dwindled to one. Cardiss was alone. Today there are 15, one-third of the Congressional Black Caucus. But Cardiss Collins was more than able to hold the fort by herself.

Although she got the seat when her husband died in a tragic plane crash, Cardiss managed to transform herself from a grieving widow to a highly effective Illinois Congresswoman, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Democratic whip, and champion of women and minorities.

Cardiss retired in 1997 as the longest-serving Black female in Congress, having gotten 79 percent of the vote in her last election. Cardiss Collins left Congress at the top of her game with a record that will long survive her.

I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding.

In furtherance of a point he was making, you can cite different studies on this question, so let me cite the authoritative study, the Federal Salary Council, 2012, a finding that Federal employees were paid nearly 35 percent less than employees in similar occupations in the private sector. This study was compiled by experts in labor relations and pay policies, and it used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Federal employees have not asked for a pass, but there is no way to justify singling them out as a solitary target alone, repeatedly picked out and picked on for cuts, apart from the rest of the Federal budget.

Three years of frozen pay is a punishing cut in pay. Yet our Federal workforce--although much smaller than it was 25 years ago--is so efficient that they are serving millions more here and abroad. Each of these hardworking civil servants, the best educated and most specialized public employees in the country, either themselves perform essential services the country cannot do without, or render vital support for these services.

The majority has graduated from demonizing Federal employees; they now want their pay. They don't have the support from the country to cut Federal pay, so for 3 years they have found a backdoor way to do exactly that with never-ending pay freezes.

Mr. Speaker, if enough was ever enough, enough freezes is enough this year.