Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and amend this rule to allow consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill is critical to women and families, and its time

has come. It's not only about basic fairness for women--getting equal pay for equal work. It's also an economic issue for families. Getting paid less for just being a woman means fewer resources to pay the mortgage or to put food on the table.

Today, women earn 23 percent less than men do for doing the same job. But those women don't get a 23 percent cut in their health care costs. They don't get 23 percent off their rent. They don't get 23 percent off their grocery bill. But they do get 23 percent off their paycheck.

It's outrageous that this Congress is not doing all it can to eliminate pay discrimination, and it's outrageous today that American corporations have as a matter of their business plan to pay women less than they pay men for the identical jobs, identical responsibilities, identical education, and identical experience.

Corporations have made a decision that they will pay those women less, and that's why women earn only 77 cents for every $1 that their male counterparts earn for doing the same job.

Congress ought to let us take up this bill and get rid of this inequity to America's women, women who are working to support their families and to provide for their families.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 17, I was unavoidably detained during several rollcall votes, numbers 259, 260, 261, and 262.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 259 and rollcall 260. The rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4310 denied the House the opportunity to consider a number of key issues of interest to members of the House and our constituents. In particular, the rule denied a vote on my amendment to restore important health and safety protections for workers and residents who live near nuclear weapons facilities that will be undermined by the underlying bill. The rule also did not allow for a vote on the amendment offered by Mr. McGovern to accelerate the redeployment of our troops from Afghanistan that was supported by Armed Services Committee Ranking Democrat Adam Smith, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Republican Representative Walter Jones, and others.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 261. I support H. Res. 568's goal of preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capacity and am on record on numerous occasions supporting legislation to this effect. Yet I do not believe that this resolution is a sensible way to pursue that goal. President Obama has effectively utilized aggressive sanctions and has united the international community diplomatically, which has substantially increased pressure on Iran to agree to a deal to prevent continued uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors to verify that Iran's nuclear program is not being used for military purposes. Congress should encourage that progress to continue but I am concerned that H. Res. 568 could disrupt the progress that is being made through negotiations and could bring the U.S. closer to war unnecessarily.

In addition, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 262.

Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 2012, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 215. I intended to vote ``no,'' and I ask that the Record reflect that I oppose the Huizenga Amendment to H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

I rise in opposition to the bill and to the underlying rule.

To put it simply in the minute that I have, this bill needlessly puts in jeopardy the health and safety of workers and residents who live near nuclear weapons facilities. Congressman Visclosky, Congresswoman Sanchez, and I offered an amendment to fix these dangerous flaws. But today's rule will not allow that amendment onto the floor.

Our amendment recognized that these facilities pose unique challenges when it comes to health and safety. They are ultrahazardous. They make plutonium pits, handle bomb-grade uranium, and manage high explosives. If the worst were to happen, the American taxpayer is on the hook for any nuclear event, even if the contractor that operates the facility engages in gross misconduct. To protect workers, residents, and taxpayers, we need to ask that contractors live up to the highest standards of safety. This legislation does not do that.

I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for trying to get this amendment made in order in the Rules Committee. It's an important amendment. We're hearing from workers in these facilities all

across the country that we're removing a critical margin of safety for them, that we're turning this over to contractors and lessening the safety standards across these plants and removing the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy. This bill should be rejected for what it does to these workers.

These are some groups submitting letters opposing changes to nuclear safety protections in H.R. 4310:

1. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

2. Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups

3. Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

4. Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL CIO

5. Metal Trades Department, AFL CIO

6. United Steelworkers

7. Laborers International Union of North America

8. Communications Workers of America

9. National Treasury Employees Union

10. Project on Government Oversight

Defense Nuclear Facilities

Safety Board,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2012.

Hon. Loretta Sanchez,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Committee

on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Rayburn

House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Sanchez: Thank you for the opportunity

to provide input and comments on HR4310, the FY 2013 National

Defense Authorization bill, particularly with regard to the

sections in Title 32 that affect nuclear safety, and the

Board's oversight mission, operations and budget capacity.

I'm convinced that the legislation, if enacted, will weaken

current independent nuclear safety oversight and enforcement

at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. I have spent my entire

career spanning more than 40 years supporting the national

security programs of the United States. Nothing would sadden

me more than seeing that mission compromised by threats to

public and worker safety resulting from lapses in safety.

As you know, I presently serve as Chairman of the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), having been

appointed by President Bush to the Board in 2006 and later

reappointed as its Chairman by President Obama in 2010. I

have 43 years of experience as a scientist and engineer in

the field of radiation effects science, technology, and

hardness assurance in support of military and space systems.

I was elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and

Electronic Engineers and the American Physical Society, and

was selected as one of the most highly cited researchers in

Engineering by the Institute for Scientific Information,

which lists the 250 most highly cited researchers in the

world in given scientific fields. I have been honored with

the 2000 IEEE Millennium Medal, IEEE Nuclear & Plasma

Sciences Merit and Shea Award, R&D 100 Awards, Industry

Week's Top 25 Technologies of Year, and Discover Award, and

many prize-winning papers. I have authored 140 publications

in the open refereed literature, including more than 30

invited papers, book chapters, and presentations.

The Board provides the only independent safety oversight at

DOE's defense nuclear facilities. As Chairman of the Board I

am proud of the safety record of the DOE and the role that

the Board has played over the last 23 years. There is no

question that the defense nuclear facilities complex is in a

safer posture now than when the Board commenced operations in

the late 1980's. However, we cannot ignore the current and

emerging challenges that will define the future of DOE's

defense nuclear facilities, the need for federal stewardship

of this enterprise, and the federal commitment to protect the

health and safety of the workers and the public. Today's

challenges of aged infrastructure, design and construction of

new and replacement facilities, and the undertaking of a wide

variety of new activities in defense nuclear facilities

coupled with ongoing mission support activities require

continued vigilance in safety oversight to assure public and

worker protection. A nuclear safety incident cannot be

tolerated and would do irreparable harm to the stockpile

stewardship and legacy waste missions of the Department of

Energy.

This legislation contains significant changes to the

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Act and the

Board's Enabling Statute that would put NNSA and DOE's

national security mission in jeopardy. The proposed changes,

if enacted, would amount to Congress concluding that NNSA

does not need independent safety oversight. It would all but

erase the Board's independence and authority with respect to

safety oversight of NNSA defense nuclear facilities and

activities. Changes to the Atomic Energy Act would lower the

standard used to ensure adequate protection of public safety.

The legislation endorses a strong shift toward contractor

self-regulation, which is not justified based on the present

maturity of contractor assurance systems but, even more

importantly, neuters the inherent responsibility of the

government to ensure public and worker safety. This

responsibility cannot be delegated by NNSA to its

contractors. Finally, the President's ability to direct

NNSA's operations through the Secretary of Energy would also

be much reduced. Let me address a few of these concerns in

more detail.

Section 3113 of the bill gives the NNSA Administrator

complete authority to establish and conduct oversight of NNSA

activities outside of that already established by the

Secretary of Energy. The Administrator develops a system of

governance, management, and oversight, of covered contractors

and ensures that any and all Federal Agencies comply with

this system. Clearly, this vacates the notion of independent

oversight, which should be of grave concern to the Congress.

Other agencies that presently provide oversight include the

Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Environmental

Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, and the

Occupational and Safety Health Agency (OSHA). Some examples

of undesirable consequences of the proposed language include:

The Board will be unable to provide effective safety

oversight.

The NRC will be precluded from conducting license-related

oversight activities associated with operation of the MOX

facility.

NNSA itself will be precluded from conducting Operational

Readiness Reviews, Integrated Safety Management System

Verifications, and Nuclear Explosive Safety Studies.

Section 3113 of the Bill further directs the NNSA

Administrator to ``conduct oversight based on outcomes and

performance-based standards rather than transactional

oversight.'' I am convinced this model is inappropriate for

oversight of complex, high-hazard nuclear operations at

defense nuclear facilities. NNSA defines ``transactional

oversight'' as activities that assess contractor performance

through evaluating contractor activities at the work, task,

or facility level; direct interaction with personnel at any

level within the contractor organization; and direct

independent Federal staff evaluation of activities, physical

conditions, and contractor documentation. [NA 1 SD 226.1A,

NNSA Line Oversight and Contractor Assurance System

Supplemental Directive] Clearly, transactional oversight is

essential at the Pantex Plant where nuclear weapons are

assembled, disassembled, and undergo surveillance. It is

also essential for plutonium operations at the Los Alamos

Plutonium Facility, highly-enriched uranium operations at

the Y 12 National Security Complex, and for complex, high-

hazard nuclear operations at the Nevada National Security

Site, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia

National Laboratories. For these activities, anything

other than transactional oversight is irresponsible and

will jeopardize the NNSA mission. The government cannot

delegate its responsibility to ensure public and worker

safety to its contractors.

I think it is important to understand that a system based

on ``outcomes'' is inappropriate in safety space. The Nuclear

Regulatory Commission uses performance-based regulation to

improve effectiveness and efficiency, but not where failure

to meet a performance criterion can result in an immediate

safety concern. For safety, a system of ``leading

indicators'' to prevent accidents is required. For complex,

high-hazard nuclear operations, a performance-based outcome

approach may appear successful on the surface, but underlying

weaknesses in processes can eventually lead to serious

accidents and unwanted results. A significant body of

information on this subject is available in both the

commercial and academic sectors; it was also explored in the

series of public meetings and hearings that led to issuance

of the Board's Recommendation 2004 1, Oversight of Complex,

High-Hazard Nuclear Operations.

The Board has devoted considerable resources in the past

few years to understand activity-level work planning and

control. We have teamed with the Department and NNSA to

understand the challenges of writing and implementing

procedures that account for hazards in the workplace and the

controls necessary to mitigate those hazards. There are many

challenges to implementing those procedures that must account

for a wide range of human factors. The inescapable conclusion

is that the key to worker safety is the ability to faithfully

and repeatedly execute procedures. A procedure is only the

starting point. A system of transactional oversight is the

only way to ensure the safe execution of work through the

effective implementation of procedures.

I believe one of the contributing factors that lead the

House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee to propose

this legislation was a basic misunderstanding of the

testimony it received at the its February 16, 2012 hearing on

``Governance, Oversight, and Management of the Nuclear

Security Enterprise.'' At that hearing, Dr. Shank, Co-Chair

of the Committee to Review the Quality of the Management and

of the Science and Engineering Research at the Department of

Energy's National Security Laboratories, testified about the

scope of this review and its conclusions. One concern and

associated conclusion is embodied in this legislation, i.e.,

the need to ``conduct oversight based on outcomes and

performance-based standards rather than transactional

oversight.'' However, when the Board subsequently met with

Dr. Shank, it became clear that his review committee did not

look at defense nuclear facilities at any of the

laboratories. Dr. Shank explained that the committee focused

on management of science, not safety, and not production

facilities. The review was focused on the need for the

laboratories to do research more efficiently and effectively,

and improve morale at the laboratories. The

committee did not review complex, high-hazard nuclear

operations or any high-consequence operations. In my opinion,

this testimony should not be used as the basis to argue

against the need for independent oversight or eliminate

transactional oversight at defense nuclear facilities.

For the record, the Board's staff asked about the

significance of Appendix 3 to the Committee's report,

``Review of Relevant Studies and Reports 1995 2010.''

Appendix 3 is the only part of the report that discusses the

Board. Dr. Shank characterized Appendix 3 as an add-on and

not part of the report. The Board's staff followed up with

Mr. Shaw, Project Director, on April 20, 2012, to understand

this distinction. Mr. Shaw explained that he and his staff of

research assistants prepared Appendix 3 as background

material for the committee. The appendices are a compilation

of lines of inquiry or questions that the Committee members

raised as the study progressed, and items for which Mr. Shaw

and his staff thought they needed to provide more background

information to the Committee members to understand what had

been presented. He informed the Board's staff that, to comply

with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that information

along withal! other such material provided to the committee

were included as appendices to the report. However, he

reiterated that they should not be viewed as the work of the

committee or representative of the Committee's conclusions.

The proposed legislation requires the Board and NNSA to use

a new health and safety standard. More specifically, Sections

3115 and 3202 of the legislation establish a new lower

standard for protection of the public in proximity to DOE's

defense nuclear facilities. (As discussed below, Section 3202

of the bill deals with ``Improvements to the Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board.'') The new standard ``ensures that

risks to . . . the health and safety of the general public .

. . are as low as practicable and that adequate protection is

provided.'' (Please note that in Section 3115 the risks are

``as low as practical,'' while in Section 3202 the risks are

as low as reasonably practical.'') This standard lowers the

protections presently provided to the public by the NRC for

commercial nuclear power and by the Board in making

recommendations to the Secretary of Energy, which is to

``ensure adequate protection of the public.'' The legislation

proposes the Secretary or Administrator can perform a cost-

benefit analysis to determine the need to provide adequate

protection of the public. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, has always been clear that the Secretary must

provide adequate protection to the public and that cost is

not an element of adequate protection. However, cost can be

considered in determining the need for safety margin or

defense in depth, i.e., additional protections beyond the

need for adequate protection. The application of the ``as low

as [reasonably] practicable'' standard is unclear. It has

been used in British and European law as a modified cost-

benefit analysis, but has no standing in U.S. law. It is also

unclear why the public safety should be subjected to

considerations by the Secretary or Administrator of whether

risks are as low as [reasonably] practical.

The Board provides the only independent safety oversight at

DOE's defense nuclear facilities. In addition, the Board has

unique responsibilities under its statute to address ``severe

or imminent'' threats to the public. I would now like to

comment on Section 3202 of the bill: ``Improvements to the

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.'' Let me say

categorically that these are not improvements. I believe

these provisions in the bill arise from a total

misunderstanding of the operation of the Board. I feel

strongly that these ``improvements'' to the Board's Enabling

Statute will degrade nuclear safety at DOE's defense nuclear

facilities. Let me once again detail my concerns.

To begin with, the Board is a collegial body composed of

five members appointed by the President and confirmed by the

Senate who are respected experts in the field of nuclear

safety. Since the Board's inception nearly 23 years ago,

every Board letter or recommendation has been voted on and

approved by each and every Board Member. Those familiar with

the scientific discipline will readily understand that this

involves a great deal of respect and camaraderie among the

Board members to enable them to unravel complex technical

issues and forcefully act on safety concerns. One aspect of

these bill's improvements is to allow Board members ``to

employ at least one technical advisor.'' This is unnecessary

on two counts. The first is that Board members have full

access to all the Board's staff. Board members already have

80 technical advisors. The second is that Board members are

technical experts who are able to independently weigh

technical evidence and make decisions important to safety at

DOE's defense nuclear facilities. A system of advisors will

simply place an unnecessary burden on Board resources and

create dissension.

A provision in Section 3202 requires that all Board members

``have full, simultaneous access to all information relating

to the performance of the Board's functions, powers and

mission.'' This provision is simply unworkable and argues

against the public interest and trust. For example, the

Technical Director must inform the Board Chairman about a

serious accident at a defense nuclear facility, even if other

Board members are not immediately available. The Board always

strives to share all available information with all Board

members. The Board members are always collectively briefed by

DOE and Board staff, but Board members sometimes have

conflicting schedules and aren't available for the

``simultaneous'' exchange of information . The origins of

this provision suggest a serious lack of knowledge about the

operation of the Board.

Under this legislation, the Board ``shall consider and

specifically assess the technical and economic feasibility,

the cost and benefits, and the practicability of implementing

[its Recommendations].'' Under its existing statute, the

Board must consider the technical and economic feasibility of

implementing its recommended measures. The Secretary of

Energy may ``accept'' a Board recommendation but make a

determination that its implementation is impracticable

because of budgetary considerations or because the

implementation would affect the Secretary's ability to meet

the annual nuclear weapons stockpile requirements. The

Secretary must report any such decision to the President and

Congress. The Secretary of Energy has never made a

determination that a Board Recommendation cannot be

implemented due to budget impracticability. I believe this is

strong evidence that we have executed our statute in a

faithful and responsible manner.

Issues of cost and benefit have historically been the

purview of the Secretary of Energy and should remain so. It

is important to note that the Board nominally identifies the

problem, but leaves selection of the solution to the

Secretary. In order to provide a cost-benefit analysis, the

Board would need to define a solution, which is inappropriate

and would hamper the Secretary's flexibilities to respond to

a Board recommendation. Mr. Gene Aloise, Director of Natural

Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability

Office, testified at the Committee's February 16, 2012,

hearing on Governance, Oversight, and Management of the

Nuclear Security Enterprise. He said, ``NNSA currently lacks

the basic financial information on the total costs to operate

and maintain its essential facilities and infrastructure,

leaving it unable to identify return on investment or

opportunities for cost savings.'' If NNSA isn't capable of

performing cost-benefit analyses, it's unreasonable to expect

the Board to produce valid estimates of those costs. Needless

to say, the Board would require a significant increase in

budget and manpower to perform any meaningful cost-benefit

analysis.

The Board is very mindful of the need for efficient and

cost-effective solutions to safety problems at defense

nuclear facilities. In evaluating the proper course of action

for existing facilities that do not meet modern industry

standards and design requirements, both the Board and DOE

consider the entire suite of options for mitigating hazards

as well as factors such as the remaining life of the

facilities, schedules for replacing them, and means to

mitigate disruptions to ongoing operations that may result

from recommended safety improvements. However, the Board has

no authority to specify a particular solution; that authority

is the Secretary's.

The proposed legislation also weakens the arm's length

relationship between the Board and Department of Energy

necessary for the Board to provide independent oversight by

requiring the Board to obtain DOE review and comments on

Board recommendations. This proposed requirement will enable

the Secretary to provide comments to Board recommendations

prior to their issuance. Board recommendations are fully

vetted by intense staff-level discussions that typically take

place over months and sometimes years. The Board shapes its

recommendation already fully taking into account the feedback

it has received from the Department. In the final analysis,

the Secretary has the power to accept or reject a Board

recommendation. This provision to require comments from the

Secretary will delay needed safety improvements to ensure

adequate protection of the public at DOE's defense nuclear

facilities and erode public confidence that the Board is

faithfully executing its mission to provide truly independent

oversight.

Under its existing statute, the Board's jurisdiction is

limited to the Department of Energy's defense nuclear

facilities. ``Defense Nuclear Facilities'' are defined to

include production or utilization facilities, and certain

types of storage facilities under the control or jurisdiction

of the Secretary of Energy. Unless this element is met, the

Board's jurisdiction, authority, powers or duties are not

triggered. It does not allow the Board to write

Recommendations to the NNSA Administrator. Under this

legislation, NNSA may become a separate entity. An NNSA

independent from the Department of Energy, where the

Secretary of Energy would have no authority over NNSA, would

defeat (1) the Board's recommendation jurisdiction, (2) the

Board's jurisdiction and duty to report to the President in

the case of imminent or severe threats issuing from defense

nuclear facilities, and (3) the Board's information gathering

jurisdiction. Essentially, the NNSA would have no independent

safety oversight body.

The Department of Energy has a well-established regulatory

structure, with a significant body of rules, orders, manuals,

and standards. These would have no standing in an independent

NNSA. The set of safety standards to be used in NNSA would

have to be reconstituted. Based on recent experience,

I am concerned that many standards necessary to safely

perform complex, high-hazard nuclear operations would be

automatically deleted as a part of standing up this newly

independent organization. It must be understood that the

Board evaluates safety at defense nuclear facilities based on

DOE's requirements and standards. The Board does not have

separate requirements. Lack of an adequate set of safety

standards would rapidly degrade safety at defense nuclear

facilities.

In summary, I am deeply concerned that the proposed

legislation will diminish both the effectiveness of the Board

and safety at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. The proposed

changes, if enacted, would all but erase the Board's

oversight independence and authority with respect to NNSA's

facilities and activities. NNSA would become essentially

self-regulating without any significant oversight from the

Secretary of Energy, the Board, or any other Federal entity.

Additional provisions in the legislation encourage the NNSA

in large part to delegate its inherent responsibility to

protect public and worker safety to its contractors.

If I can answer any question or provide additional

insights, please don't hesitate to call. Once again, I

appreciate the opportunity to provide my views on this

legislation.

Sincerely,

Peter S. Winokur, Ph.D.,

Chairman,

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 5326, the FY13 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations and am deeply concerned about provisions included in the bill that will roll back important civil rights protections and undermine key protections for youth in the juvenile justice system.

Section 540: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Rider to Undermine

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Despite passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ADEA, forty-five years ago, older workers continue to face discrimination in the workplace. They are demoted, denied promotions and fired simply because of their age. While the ADEA provides important protections, older workers continue to be hard hit during these difficult economic times. The challenges they face are substantial. As compared to their younger colleagues, older workers have greater difficulty finding new employment and are twice as likely to be out of work for 99 weeks or longer. The EEOC reports that the number of age discrimination charges filed increased by over 70 percent between 2006 and 2011. And according to the AARP, 60 percent of workers interviewed report experiencing or witnessing age discrimination in the workplace.

The protections afforded older workers have been under assault in recent years. In 2009, the Supreme Court rolled back workplace protections for older workers in Gross v. FBL Financial decision. In this case, the Supreme Court held that victims of age discrimination must meet a higher burden than other forms of workplace discrimination when bringing a claim. Rather than having to prove age was a motivating factor for an adverse employment action, older workers are now required to show age was the decisive factor when raising an ADEA claim.

The bill before us today would be another significant setback for older workers in this country. H.R. 5326 would prohibit funds made available by the Act to be used to implement, administer, or enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's, EEOC, final regulations on Disparate Impact and Reasonable Factors Other than Age under the ADEA published in March 2012. According to the EEOC, the rider in H.R. 5326 ``would undermine vigorous enforcement of the nation's age discrimination laws at a time when older workers are particularly vulnerable.''

The EEOC regulation at issue should not be controversial. It gives employers greater clarity on how to avoid unlawful disparate impacts under the ADEA. This clarity should be welcomed not rejected. EEOC's intent behind the regulation is straightforward, ``to bring . . . existing [EEOC] regulation into conformance with . . . Supreme Court precedent and to explain the meaning of RFOA [Reasonable Factor Other than Age] defense to employees, employers, and courts.''

Eliminating this regulation would create new confusion on what standards--even outdated ones--might apply in its stead. As a result, H.R. 5326 would create legal uncertainty and uneven results in these cases and would also eliminate important tools for EEOC to use to help employers comply with their obligations under the law.

Instead of spending time rolling back the rights of older workers and creating more legal uncertainty for those who are victims of age discrimination, Congress should be fighting for the rights of older workers in the workplace and working together on a bipartisan basis to reverse the Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Group.

I am also deeply concerned that H.R. 5326 would fund the EEOC at a level which is $7 million less than the President's request. Last year, the agency received nearly one-million discrimination charge filings-- the fourth straight year of record filings. The EEOC must have the resources necessary to combat workplace discrimination and retaliation. Without it, workers will see longer waits as case backlogs increase and the agency's ability to enforce nondiscrimination protections will be undermined.

Section 218: Department of Justice Rider to Weaken Americans with

Disabilities Act Protections

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA, is intended ``to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.'' The ADA provides nondiscrimination protection to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to and can participate in all aspects of society.

A component of these protections requires that public accommodations construct facilities to be accessible and that existing facilities become accessible when it is ``readily achievable.'' The ``readily achievable'' expectation is defined as ``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.'' There is considerable flexibility to determine what is achievable based on a business' particular circumstances.

The Department of Justice has the authority to carry out the mandate to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities under the ADA. In doing so, the Department of Justice finalized regulations in September 2010 which included regulations regarding accessibility of swimming pools. These regulations are based on accessibility standards established by the Access Board that takes into consideration the needs of individuals with disabilities as well as the needs of business.

To comply with the regulation, businesses would need to make an assessment and take steps to accomplish what is ``readily achievable'' for swimming pool accessibility for that business. For some businesses that may require fixed or portable lifts, while for other business if may not require doing anything until increasing accessibility is ``readily achievable'' for that business. H.R. 5326 rolls back protections within the ADA by prohibiting the Department of Justice to use funds to implement the standards for swimming pool accessibility. This bill would establish an extremely dangerous precedent weakening the Department of Justice's authority to enforce the ADA weakening critical civil rights protections.

Regardless of whether a person has a disability or not, that person should have the right to access swimming pools. To enable individuals with disabilities to participate fully in their communities, their communities must be accessible to them. Congress should focus on increasing access to community life rather than establishing dangerous precedents which prevent individuals from accessing their communities.

Title II

I am strongly opposed to the funding cuts for Title II of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act, JJDPA. The JJDPA was first written in 1974 with the goal of supporting states' actions to prevent youth crime and provide certain core protections for children. The law rightfully recognized that clear biological differences between teenagers and adults meant that youth should not be treated in the same manner as adults. Without question, youth must be held accountable for their actions. But justice should not be driven by fads or politics. The juvenile justice system in this country currently affects thousands of children and youth, and the core protections in JJDPA are critical to efforts that help reduce youth crime, keep our communities safe, and ensure our juvenile justice system preserves basic rights for the children it serves. The juvenile justice system can be a place of redemption and rehabilitation or a place where children are thrown away. The funding cuts to Title II of JJDPA threaten the existence of these protections, and if this appropriation were enacted, our nation's children, families, and communities would undoubtedly suffer.

Mr. Speaker, last year, I reintroduced the Keeping All Students Safe Act, to protect children from abusive seclusion and restraint practices in school.

Two years ago, this legislation passed the House with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it never became law, and the incidents of students who are being abused or inappropriately restrained while in school continue to occur. We cannot sit idly by. Congress must step up to the plate and protect our Nation's children. In recent months, we've been hearing more disturbing stories of students who are being dangerously restrained by teachers and staff while in school. In several of these cases, students have suffered serious injuries or have even died as a result of their injuries.

In December, in Kentucky, 9-year-old Christopher Baker, who has autism, was stuffed into a duffel bag at school as punishment. In Connecticut, children have been afraid to go to school because they've heard other students screaming in small, windowless rooms. The students in these elementary schools refer to these rooms as ``scream rooms.''

In Texas, 10-year-old Lukas Hines, who suffers from seizures, dyslexia, and ADHD, was put in a choke hold while riding home on a Texas school bus. For 4 minutes, the school supervisor refused to release him into the care of his mother, and instead kept him in the dangerous choke hold.

Then, on April 18, at the Leake and Watts School in New York, 16- year-old Corey Foster was restrained by the school staff, who were trying to remove him from a basketball court. Witnesses reported that several staff members piled on top of him. Corey told the staff he could not breathe. Tragically, while he was being restrained, he went into cardiac arrest and died.

Corey's story is far too similar to a story I learned of several years ago. That was the story of Cedric, a 14-year-old in Texas. Cedric was restrained, facedown, with his teacher sitting on top of him. He yelled out that he couldn't breathe. Minutes later, Cedric died on the floor of his classroom.

Tragedies like Cory's and Cedric's need to stop. In March, the Department of Education released nationwide data showing that tens of thousands of children are subject to restraint and seclusion in school each year.

This map shows that 31 States have had reports of abusive incidents since the last time that we tried to enact the Keeping All Students Safe Act. No corner of the country is immune from abuse. It is widespread, and it has gone on far too long. This map shows that we need a nationally driven reform, because where States have enacted, students are still subject to the worst practices in these educational settings.

According to the report released last month, only 30 States have any meaningful protection for the use of seclusion and restraint in school. Only 18 States prohibit restraint that restricts breathing. Only 16 States limit the use of restraining to emergencies involving immediate risk or harm. Only 16 States ban the use of mechanical restraints. And only 24 States have any requirement that their parents be notified that their child was restrained or secluded in school. In fact, children can go to school day after day, be restrained, be secluded, be locked in dark rooms, kept in those rooms where they urinate on themselves, and their parents are never notified.

When parents are excluded from the information about their students,

where is that a matter of good public policy? The child and their safety should not depend upon what State they live in. The Federal Government, this Congress, needs to set minimum standards and model standards.

We have the Federal laws in place to prevent seclusion and restraint abuses that happen in hospitals and other health facilities, but children do not have any Federal protection against these potentially dangerous and torturous practices when they're in school.

Schools are supposed to be a safe place, a place for children to learn, a place for children to socialize, and parents should never have to worry about the safety of their children when they're at school. No child should be forced to suffer abuse, neglect, injury, or even death while they're trying to learn.

The Keeping All Students Safe Act would set minimum safety standards for the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and provide training and support for school personnel to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint. It makes it illegal to strap children to chairs, put children in duffle bags, or restrict their breathing. Seclusion restraint practices should only be used in emergency situations by trained staff and should end as soon as the emergency has passed. This legislation makes it clear that there's no room for torture and abuse in America's schools.

News reports showing children being tied up with duct tape, sat on by staff, locked in rooms for hours at a time is unacceptable. Our children deserve better. This legislation won't bring back Corey or Cedric, but it can prevent future abuses from occurring.

I've called upon the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce to mark up this important legislation so we can move forward on passing this critical legislation into law. Our children deserve nothing less.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. This rule provides for the consideration of the Commerce-Justice appropriations, but it adds some extraneous matters, things like martial law for reconciliation. If we are going to consider other matters in this rule, we ought to be allowed, as the gentleman from Florida said, to be able to consider the question of the doubling of the interest rates of student loans.

The House Democrats, months ago, asked for this action to be taken so that interest rates would not double on students this July 1, doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Calls for bipartisanship were met with silence, silence, silence, and silence for months. All of a sudden, the Republicans in Congress started to understand this issue when President Obama took it to the parents and to the students of this country and explained to them what was at stake. Then, 2 weeks ago, the Republicans surprised us with a bill on the floor when they said they all now agree with it. Even though they had voted against it 2 weeks earlier, they agreed that there shouldn't be a doubling of the student loan rates.

But what did they decide to do?

In deciding on not doubling the student loan rates, they gave the House a choice in which they would take it out on women's health, denying women early screenings for breast cancer, for cervical cancer, denying newborn infants early screenings for birth defects. That's how they decided they would pay for it.

We tried to offer a Democratic alternative, the legislation of Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts, which would have taken away the unjustified, unfair tax breaks to the largest oil companies in the country at a time of record profits and use some of that money to pay for making sure that the interest rates don't double, but the Republicans wouldn't allow us to offer that.

Today, what we're trying to do is to defeat the previous question so that we will be able to offer the Democratic substitute, which would keep the interest rates from doubling. We would pay for it by taking away the unfair tax cuts to the largest oil companies and not do what the Republicans did, which is to say you can have your student loan subsidy, but you're going to have to take it out of the hides of newborn infants, of children's immunizations, and of the preventative care and early screenings for women with cervical and breast cancer.

We know that that decision, that early screening, is a matter of life and death

for those women, but that was of no matter to the Republicans. Now we see today a recent poll out that suggested over half of the country supports the student loans not doubling, paying for it in the manner in which the Democrats did, as opposed to 30 percent of the country that think the Republicans are on the right track in going after women's health, children's health and children's immunizations.

So I would hope that we will defeat the previous question, that Mr. Hastings will be allowed to move to consider the legislation by Mr. Tierney, and that we can put this issue to rest so that families and students now sitting around trying to figure out how they're going to pay for the college educations of their children who have just been accepted to college or who are continuing in college can do that with the peace of mind of knowing that the interest rates won't double on July 1.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I yield to the gentleman from Washington, the chairman of the committee.

Further reserving my right to object, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, as amended this morning, gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to reopen the wilderness areas in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks to pack and saddle animals for the 2012 and 2013 seasons.

Earlier this week, I joined with my colleagues, Jim Costa, Mike Thompson, John Garamendi, and Sam Farr, in a letter to Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey of the Natural Resources Committee. We asked the committee, on behalf of our California constituents, to resolve a situation that's already affecting families and businesses and harming the regional economy.

In response to a court order, the National Park Service has not been allowing pack animals into the parks' wilderness areas this year. This situation has caused economic harm to outfitters, packers, guides, and other permit holders who rely on the income that the park visitors bring to the area, and it's causing visitors to reconsider their trips to the park and the wilderness areas.

Today, this House is taking this action, and I want to thank Mr. Markey and Chairman Hastings. I spoke to Chairman Hastings less than 24 hours ago on the content of our letter, and both he and Mr. Nunes came forward and asked whether or not we could do this by unanimous consent, and that's why we're here this morning.

I want to thank the staffs of both of the majority and the minority side of this committee for all of their work. They worked overnight because very early this morning we all signed off on this legislation.

I think that this legislation is a very good deal for families and visitors to the park. It's a good deal for the businesses who depend upon spring and summer wilderness trips for their livelihood.

The high country wilderness in the Sierras is one of the premier experiences the National Park System has to offer, and for many, the only way to have this experience is through use of pack animals for whatever personal reasons, either frailty, age--age would be my reason. I think it's important. I've had the honor and the pleasure to hike the high country in Kings Canyon and in Sequoia and Yosemite, and it's a unique experience, unique to the American Sierra Mountains system.

I hope that the Senate will be able to take this up by unanimous consent quickly so, again, the people planning to take the trips will have certainty, the packers will have certainty, and the surrounding businesses around Sequoia-Kings Canyon Park will have certainty that the summer trade will be there.

Again, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for his immediate response to our letter of concern. I want to thank my colleagues who joined me on that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I understand the fix that the Republicans are in after just over a week ago almost unanimously voting not to extend the 3.4 percent interest rate to students, and in adopting the Ryan Republican budget, agreeing to let it go out to 6.8 percent. In fact, they use that to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy they anticipate in their budget. So they took students' money, and the families and the savings that they were made out of--almost $16 billion over the last 4 years--and they said we're going to use this to provide tax cuts for the wealthy, and we assume that the rates will go to 6.8 percent. President Obama went on the road for 3 days, and all of a sudden Republicans have decided that they're for keeping the interest rates at 3.4 percent.

You can say all of this is cynical, and I believe it is on their part, because what they really see now is an opportunity to attack women's health. They see their position of being for student loans gives them cover to attack women's health, to attack the screening for women's health in the areas of breast cancer and cervical cancer, to attack the ability of public health agencies to screen newborn infants for birth defects, to take away the ability to make sure that young people have the immunizations they need when they start school. So now, under the cover of being for student loans, they now are attacking women's health in the most cynical fashion.

But you know, every now and then in this place--where it's terribly partisan; it can be very cynical, as we see with this action today with this bill--a little ray of light comes in of idealism and hopefulness and understanding. We see today that we have statements by almost all of the major student organizations saying we want that interest rate kept at 3.4 percent, but we do not want it kept at that rate at the risk of jeopardizing women's health, jeopardizing our parents' health, our mothers' health, our sisters' health, our friends' health.

So we should understand that these students see this cynical match that is being played here, and they ask for a timeout and they say find another way to pay for this.

But don't do it at the risk of birth defects for newborn infants. Don't do it at the risk of a child not being immunized against disease.

Don't do it at the risk of young women and older women being screened for breast cancer and cervical cancer, where the difference can mean life or death for those women. Don't attack and abolish and repeal women's health on the backs of our students. Don't do it in our name. In our name, don't do this legislation.

Vote ``no'' against this. We'll find another way to do this, but don't do this in the name of students. That's what they've asked with their opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition to H.R. 4628.

American Diabetes Association,

April 26, 2012.

Tomorrow, Friday, April 27, your Representative will cast a

vote that will impact the future of programs that improve

public health and prevent diabetes.

Take action now to protect vital public health and

prevention programs!

The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in

2010 as a national investment in prevention and public health

programs over ten years. It is from this fund that the

National Diabetes Prevention Program received its initial

funding. But Members of Congress will be voting tomorrow on

whether to fully repeal this vital fund, gutting efforts to

prevent diabetes and improve our nation's overall health!

We need to make sure diabetes programs and prevention

efforts don't get slashed. Tell your legislators RIGHT NOW to

oppose HR 4628!

Nearly 26 million Americans have diabetes and another 79

million are on the brink of developing the disease.

Prediabetes, diabetes and its complications already cost the

nation an estimated $218 billion annually and this cost is

expected to grow. If current trends continue, by the year

2050 one in three American adults will have diabetes.

Diabetes prevention is an example of an effort that can save

both lives and money. If brought to scale, it is estimated

that the NDPP will save $191 billion in health care costs

over ten years! The Prevention and Public Health Fund is a

critical source of potential funding for the NDPP.

Take this chance to make your voice heard and tell your

Representative to oppose any efforts to eliminate the

Prevention and Public Health Fund!

Sincerely,

L. Hunter Limbaugh,

Chair of the Board,

American Diabetes Association.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of the Tierney motion, the legislation that he and Mr. Courtney of Connecticut introduced yesterday in the Congress.

For years now, the Democrats have stood on the side of lower interest rates for families and for students. We have paid for 4 years of that starting in 2007. We took the money and the subsidies away from the big banks, and we recycled that on behalf of students and their families in order to lower the cost of college and to make it more affordable for those families seeking college educations for their young children.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans fought that effort. They're fighting that effort today. Actually, they were fighting it yesterday, and they changed their minds. After almost a unanimous vote on their budget--the Ryan budget, the Republican budget--to allow student interest rates to double, they have now changed their minds. That's important. That's good. We need to make sure that the rates don't double on July 1.

How are you going to pay for that?

We want it paid for. We don't want to do what they did last week and provide $46 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and add it to the deficit--$46 billion in new deficit spending in 1 year. So the Speaker says, well, he's just going to take it out of the slush fund. Really? The Speaker of the House thinks that the prevention fund is a slush fund? The Speaker of the House thinks that birth defects and the funding to mitigate birth defects is a slush fund? Does the Speaker of the House really believe that a screening program for women with cervical and breast cancer is a slush fund?

No. This is a matter of life and death for young children who get immunized out of the prevention fund. For women who get this screening, we know what the early detection of breast cancer means for women and their survivability rates. This isn't a slush fund; but what they're asking you to do is to repeal this fund that goes to communities all over this country in order that people will have access to this kind of preventative care.

Yes, they'll say, but you took some money out of this fund to do the payroll tax reduction for the middle class. Yes, but we didn't repeal the fund. They're taking $10 billion out of the fund and repealing it and putting women and children at risk. That's not a slush fund, Mr. Speaker. That's immoral.

Thank you very much, John. Thank you for taking this floor time for this debate, and thank you for the effort and the fight that you have led on making it in America, so that, once again, America makes things, once again America has a robust manufacturing economy, whether it's this iteration of manufacturing or the next iteration of manufacturing, that America remains competitive around the world in making it in America for sale around the rest of the world.

Nothing could be more important to sustaining our manufacturing base in this country, to sustaining our ability at innovation and economic growth that takes place as a result of that innovation, than the education of our young men and women throughout this country. And nothing is more important to their well-being and their families--and this is proven out every year as we do studies, that years of college and college completion are very important to the economic security of that individual and that individual and the family that he or she may form later in life. It pays huge benefits for them to go to college, and that's why we've tried to make college affordable.

Many of us are very upset with the costs of college, how the costs have

gone up, have doubled in many ways across the States. But the fact of the matter is, while we're struggling with the issues of cost of college and trying to get the States to do more on behalf of the their public institutions, the fact of the matter is we have to make sure that college remains affordable for young people.

And that's why, in 2007, we made a decision to lower the interest rates on student loans so that it would be more affordable for the students, not only to go to college, but also then in paying back the debt that they incurred because of the subsidized student loans. And we made that effort, and we did it on bipartisan basis at that time. And President Bush signed that legislation into law, and we put some of that money into deficit reduction and into reducing the interest rates.

In 2010, we followed on with legislation proposed by President Obama and our committee and others to make sure that we could increase the Pell Grant so those students most in need, those families most in need would have the Pell Grant as an underpinning of making college more affordable. We continued with the subsidized student loans to make college more affordable.

We went to an income-based repayment system so that a student that may be starting out in a good career but a bad entry-level pay scale as they begin that career will be able to pay back their student loan and also continue on with their life, and as they make more money, they pay more money. And it's very important so that they can choose a profession of their passion, not just the profession that yields the most money, because many of our students, the minute they heard about this program said, I can now be a nurse, I can be a public health assistant, I can be a prosecutor, I can be a public defender, what their passion was in life. They could be a teacher and now know that they could afford to pay back their student loans.

And the interest rate is very important at this time as families and young people try to figure out what their indebtedness is going to be and how they are going to pay for college, especially at this time of the year when young people are getting their acceptance notice from universities and colleges all across the country, and now they sit around the kitchen table with their families and say, How are we going to afford this? What's the debt we are going to end up with? And it's an important procedure for families to go through as they think about this.

But all of a sudden, now, we see that when the President submitted his budget looking forward to July of this year, he asked that we continue to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent.

That's very important. That's the choice that President Obama made.

The choice that the Republicans made in the Ryan budget was to let it go to 6.8 percent. In fact, there was a unanimous vote on the Republican side for the Ryan budget to let it go to 6.8 percent.

We think that's wrong. We think that's unfortunate for families in the middle of this economic turmoil that we're coming out of in this country. They need these assurances. We think that interest rate should stay at 3.4 percent.

Of course, we want to pay for it. Just as we paid for it for the first 4 years, we want to pay for it again. We believe that that should come out of the unfair tax breaks that are extended to oil companies that cannot be justified when the price of oil is $104 a barrel. They get the tax break when it's $134 a barrel. They get it when it's $150 a barrel. We think that time has come and gone, that the oil companies can continue to pursue the quest for oil and the recovery, and we appreciate that. The fact of the matter is price alone provides them the basis on which to go out and seek out the hydrocarbons necessary for our economy and for the world economy at this time.

So, this is about choices. Do you believe the interest rate should be 3.4 percent or do you believe it should be 6.8 percent? By a unanimous vote, the Republicans said it should be 6.8 percent.

But I have to tell you today, I'm quite excited, this dramatic turn of events where the Republicans today have said that they want to keep the interest rates at 3.4 percent, and we welcome that. We welcome the fact that when they saw the President out in the country talking to young people, talking to parents, knowing that these parents and young people are going through this process of figuring out how to finance their education, that he made a compelling argument that this interest rate should remain for the next year at 3.4 percent, that the Republicans have come and decided that they embrace that provision.

I was excited when I saw their Presidential candidate said he was for this. I was excited this morning when I read in the paper that the Republican leader in the Senate said nobody is against this. Oh, yes, my friends on the other side of the aisle were unanimously against this a week ago. But I think the President sold this idea to the Nation and apparently sold the Republican Party, and we should welcome that because that's in the interest and benefit and we should work together to make sure that this happens on behalf of families and on behalf of young people.

But, of course, there's always a kicker when the Republicans do this:

Our choice is an unjustified tax cut to the largest oil companies in this country and, in some cases, the world, that we should stop providing these tax subsidies to those oil companies. Their choice, unfortunately, is this: to wipe out and to repeal the preventative medicine account in the Affordable Care Act, in the health care reform act, to wipe that out.

So where do we find the Republicans paying for their desire now to join the President and lower the interest rates to 3.4 percent? They wipe out immunization programs for young children. So children now, we're going to send either less healthy children and children with fewer immunizations to school and in our community, or those parents are going to have to pay for it and they can't afford that. That's why we're doing that.

They also chose to knock out screening programs for breast cancer. Once again, just as the Affordable Care Act extends health care to women, stops making women a preexisting condition, that their gender denies them health care automatically under the current insurance systems or makes it so expensive that it's very difficult for them or their families, just as that's within the reach of women, the Republicans take away the preventative care that extends that screening to millions of women across the country.

Then, of course, the screening for birth defects for couples that are concerned or that have been told by their doctor that their child may have birth defects or that the pregnancy may be with birth defects and the choices and the difficulties that they have to make. But that screening is important in terms of early interventions, in terms of turning around the outcomes for these children.

So that's where the Republicans chose to get the pay-for, to go to those most in need, to go to those who have been denied health care for generations because of their gender, because they're women, and we all know in our family, in our friends, in our neighborhood, in the communities we represent, what women encounter with breast cancer and the importance of screening. Somehow they've decided that that's how they will pay for reducing the interest rate from 6.8 percent on July 1 to 3.4 percent.

I urge them to join us and to pay for this in essentially a painless way with respect to these unjustified subsidies for the largest oil companies in the country.

It's very important to the agenda, Mr. Garamendi, that you have put forth, that you worked on before you ever came to the Congress, and that is building up the jobs base, the manufacturing base, recognizing the contribution that this economy can make to future energy choices, to future transportation choices all across the board, and do it here in America.

But we're told even in a time of this tragic recession that we do not have enough skilled people to carry that mission out. We've got to build that. We've got to educate these young people, and that's what student loans allow to happen for people who can't simply write a check for the education of their children, who simply can't say, well, I've got a deduction, that's enough, that will take care of it for this year.

Families struggle to try and accomplish what every generation has, that their children will live better, will contribute more to America than we did in our generation. My grandparents wished it for me. My parents wished it for me, and they worked hard to provide it.

But when you say now, oh, but, by the way, we're not going to allow for screening for poor women who might have breast cancer, we're not going to test for birth defects for young children, we're not going to provide immunization for young children, what are they going to do, turn America into a Third World?

We struggle to get the same immunizations into the hands of poor people all around the world because we recognize the public health benefits, but they've chosen this.

So, I'm excited that they've seen the wrong direction that they were headed with the Ryan budget, the Republican budget, to double the interest rates on student loans. But I'm very, very concerned that they decided that they would extract the price from women and children once again, as they have in the past in their budgets.

So I urge that we can get this student loan taken care of before the 66 days that you've put up there, before this time bomb goes off in the very middle-income and low-income families in America.

Thank you again for making this time available for us to discuss this. We hope we'll have good action on behalf of all Americans--women, children, students, and their families. It's quite possible to do. All we have to do is reach across the aisle and work together and make sure that we don't make victims out of part of our society so that others can go to school.

Going to school is important, women's health is important, childhood immunization is important, and so is dealing with birth defects in the best way we possibly can. We owe that to those families and those children.

Thank you very much.

Education, obviously, is one of the most important ingredients. It's the best investment we make in terms of a return to the Treasury because of the increased productivity and success of the people who complete their education. The important factor here is that, when we think about this, we really have to develop a system where our students are engaged in a modern learning environment, where they have access to the technology, where they have access to resources outside of the traditional classroom, where their instructors, their teachers, have that kind of access so they can integrate their education into what's happening and into what these young people see as happening in the rest of the economy in the world around them.

So we create that learning environment, and we can create that teaching environment by changing the way we've traditionally done things in this country. We've looked at those that are high-performing. We look around the world and say, Where are those nations that are high performing? Where are those students who are doing the best? We look at what's taking place in those countries, and we see this partnership between communities and parents and students and teachers, working out recognizing that that school is a huge economic asset of that community. It may be the most important

thing where parents and the community have that say. So that's what we're trying to develop.

Unfortunately, we haven't been able to get the reform in the rewrite of No Child Left Behind yet in this Congress. It has been a number of years. We weren't able to do it in the last Congress. But I want to thank the Obama administration and the Secretary of Education because, in recognizing the role that the ingredient of education plays in the economic recovery, they've gone with the Race to the Top program and with the waivers program for those States.

What they're really saying is, if you want to take your State and go to the future, if you want to take your district and go to the future, we want to partner with you. What does that mean? That means that those Governors and those local superintendents of schools and those State superintendents of instruction are making a decision that they want to join in an effort to have internationally benchmarked standards and internationally benchmarked curriculum and assessments. It's no longer just filling in a bubble on a multiple choice. But because of the sophistication that we've learned in assessment, that we learned from the workplace, what we learned from employers, these students will be able to demonstrate the depth of their knowledge, their understanding. They will be richer. They will be better able to adapt to the needs of employers. They can go on and get a master's degree, or they can go on and get a college degree, or they can go on and get a doctorate degree.

The fact of the matter is that the world of learning is changing dramatically, and I think that, while we're bogged down here in partisan fights, unfortunately, the administration has struck out on a bold path. I think there are now 40 States that either have applied or are hoping to apply for waivers. There are 47 Governors who have said we should have internationally benchmarked standards in this country so that we know that, when our students are learning, they're learning at the same level the students in Shanghai are learning--or in Germany or in Finland or in Singapore or in Japan--and that's the change that's possible.

But the fact of the matter is that Congress has got to want to go along with that. The Governors are taking the lead. They're taking the lead. The big city mayors are taking the lead. They understand this in terms of your agenda, Congressman Garamendi, in making it in America-- jobs in their communities. That educated workforce is the most important investment they can make, and for parents, it's that good school. People always talk about remodeling their bathrooms or adding on a bedroom or landscaping the yard to add value to their homes. If you turn that into a high-performing school, you'll add more value than anything else you could possibly do.

The National Real Estate Association will tell you that the first question people ask is, What school will my children go to? What district is this in?

We now have the ability and the capability, and in partnering up with the entire school staff, to dramatically improve the learning environment, the teaching environment, and the outcomes for all of our students. That's the excitement, because this comes along at a time when America now realizes, yes, we thought after 1980, 1990 that we couldn't make anything in America. We now recognize that, and we now see foreign investment coming back to America, and we've got to have the talent ready to absorb that.

So thank you again for this opportunity to integrate education into the Make It in America agenda. Obviously, I think it is the most important point. But as I talk to venture capitalists and to people in the high-tech fields and in the biotech fields in our State and around the country, they'll just tell you over and over again that the workforce they're looking for is a well-educated, adaptable, understanding workforce that can work with people all around the world now because you can sit in one room and work with people everywhere else in the world.

Thank you very much for the opportunity and thank you for your leadership on this.

Mr. Speaker, later today, the House will consider legislation to make it easier to pass the Republican budget and to make it easier to pass a budget that is very unfair in its makeup. It's unfair because it continues to lavish tax breaks on the wealthiest people in this country while asking that the elderly in the Medicare program and that our poorest children in our elementary schools and young people struggling to pay for their college education all pay more to make room for a tax cut for millionaires that averages $187,000 a year in a tax cut to the wealthiest people in this country.

It's not about wanting to tax more; it's about wanting tax fairness. It's about recognizing the economic disparity that exists in this country and how the Tax Code continues to lavish the benefits of the taxes that people do pay back to the richest people in this country. And yet later this week, the Republicans are bringing yet another tax bill that will benefit the top 3 percent of the taxpayers in this country and add $48 billion to the deficit this year and a half a trillion dollars to the deficit over 10 years.

That's not fair, it's not right, it's not equitable, and it needs to be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall No. 139 on March 28, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on ordering the previous question, so that the House could consider the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. Speaker, Americans all over the country know that our economy is improving, that the unemployment number is coming down, that people are finding jobs, that small businesses are doing better; but it's a very fragile recovery. That infrastructure bill that is waiting in the Senate, which was passed 74 22, is key to continuing the economic growth in this country for businesses, for families, and for people seeking jobs who have been laid off for a very long time.

But now what we see here today is a conscious decision. Rather than give the Obama administration and President Obama any help with the continuing growth in the economy, which these jobs would mean if we had a long-term extension of the highway bill for all across America, they've decided that they'll do a short-term extension. This is a party that has complained about uncertainty in the economy, about uncertainty in the business community--with a 90-day extension. Cities, counties, and State governments are going to have to rethink what they contract for--with a 90-day extension. There are those in the leadership who have already said, And then we'll need another 90 days. This construction season will be gone for equipment manufacturers, for engineers, for construction workers, all across the country in our local communities, who are in desperate need of infrastructure improvement.

But they've made a decision that they're going to fight President Obama with the jobs that belong to middle class Americans all across the country--jobs that people need today to feed their families. They've made a decision: inject uncertainty. Those contracts and those jobs won't be met, and that will somehow be a victory for the Republicans in the House, but it will be a disaster for American families, for American workers, and for American businesses.

This kind of cold-blooded, political calculation to use the jobs of the American working people as political cannon fodder for your agenda in order to defeat the Obama administration is outrageous.

It should be rejected by your party, and it should be rejected by my party because, when you put American people's lives and their well-being and their family incomes and the economic growth in our communities on the line for this kind of partisanship, you should stop it. You should stop it.

Mr. Speaker, you should stop banging the gavel, because this is a critical issue for the American people, for their families, for their livelihoods.