Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained today and missed roll Nos. 175 through 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll No. 176. I would have voted ``nay'' on roll Nos. 175 and 177.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 2575. The majority's obsession with attacking the Affordable Care Act is unprecedented, and they have never let the truth stand in their way. Today's bill is no exception. Let's call this bill for what it really is. It is a big favor to millionaires and billionaires at the expense of working families.

This legislation is perfect for the owners and CEOs of big, low-wage companies like Walmart and McDonald's. It says that you can have your employees work 30, 35, 39 hours a week without providing one iota of health care coverage. That is a great deal for the Walton family, which already has a net worth of nearly $145 billion--one family, $145 billion. And that is a great deal for the CEO of McDonald's, who makes $9,200 an hour.

But it is a terrible deal for America's workers. It means that not a penny of the revenues from these hugely profitable companies will go toward supporting health insurance for the bulk of their workers. All the while those employees continue to make as little is $7.25 an hour, and it means that the American taxpayers will be stuck with picking up the tab.

The Republicans have decided to bring this bill to the floor even though they have no pay-for, which means that this is a very pure form of deficit spending. You are incurring $75 billion worth of expenses for the taxpayers, and you have no way to pay for it. But rather than have these companies provide health insurance to their workers, you are willing to add it to the deficit of the United States for the next 40 or 50 years.

I remember when that party stood for deficit reduction. Now it is deficit creation. It is deficit creation. So let's get it straight so everyone can understand: The American people will be paying $75 billion more so that the likes of Walmart don't have to provide their employees with health care. Walmart made $16 billion in profits last year. Target made $2 billion in profits. McDonald's made more than $5 billion in profits. And they can't afford to provide hourly employees with health care? Give me a break.

And all of this to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Because let's be clear: there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that forces an employer to cut workers' hours. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated:

There is no compelling evidence that part-time employment

has increased as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

So, to benefit the richest of the rich, the Republicans want to pass this bill. The very week that we learned that more than 10 million people have gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans want to strip a million people of their employer-based health coverage, tossing them into government programs and leaving the rest uninsured, and having the taxpayers pick up the bill.

And this is all while the Republicans continue to block a minimum- wage increase for these very same workers--a minimum-wage increase that Goldman Sachs says will give the economy ``a bigger than usual'' boost. But they are not going to vote for the minimum-wage increase, is what they tell us. So what are they going to do instead? They are going to continue to stand on the throat of the American economy because all over this country where we have raised the minimum wage in cities, States, and towns, small businesses are hiring. There are more customers on Main Street.

But they are not going to allow that to happen nationwide. Instead, they are going to provide $75 billion of new deficits for these businesses who pay their taxes, for these workers who pay their taxes.

Then they will continue to block unemployment insurance, another boost to the economy. People with unemployment insurance that has run out--and if we extend it--they will spend that money immediately because they have to take care of their families and they have to pay their rent, these are customers on Main Street; but Republicans are not going to do that.

Economists left and right tell us one of the biggest boosts to the American economy is immigration reform, but they are not going to do that. They are not going to give our economy that boost, but they are going to add $75 billion to the deficit, but they are not going to let somebody have food stamps for the deficit.

They are not going to let somebody have health care for the deficit, but

they are going to reward the big employers for throwing people off their health care rolls.

This is some plan you have for America. This is some plan you have for working families. Clearly, when the newspapers and the editorial boards accuse you of doing nothing in Washington, they misread you.

You are doing great harm to the budget, you are doing great harm to health care, and you are doing great harm to these low-income workers; but you are doing a great favor for the richest of the rich in this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for bringing this bill to the floor and for Congresswoman Brooks' explanation of this legislation, the Cooperative and Small Employer Charity Pension Flexibility Act.

As she has detailed, this is a small piece of legislation, but a very important piece of legislation to the existence of these plans and also to the priorities of the nonprofits that support those plans and the work that they do in our communities. And what has become clear is that we need this congressional action because the temporary exemption is going to expire, and that would cause a hardship that Congresswoman Brooks has laid out.

Without these changes, these plans, known as CSEC plans, will be forced to comply with Pension Protection Act funding rules, and many small, nonprofit employers will be unable to continue to provide those pension benefits.

This legislation ensures that charities and cooperative associations will continue to be able to provide quality

pension benefits to their employees by implementing pension funding rules that reflect the unique design of their plans.

H.R. 4275 is supported by a wide variety of charitable organizations from across the country, including the United Way Worldwide and Girl Scouts of America and many others, and I would urge our colleagues to support this legislation so that we can make sure that these plans can continue to provide the benefits for their employees but also provide the services to their communities.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 10.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to this misguided piece of legislation.

This bill would impose layers of red tape and erect new obstacles to protecting American lives.

Congress already has the power to disapprove any rule through the Congressional Review Act, as well as through appropriations bills and other legislation, if it disagrees with a regulation.

This new imposition of nearly 60 additional analytical and procedural requirements is a deliberate effort to impose a procedural choke hold on protecting American citizens.

One regulation that would be affected by this is a proposal by OSHA to prevent a litany of workplace fires and explosions that are caused by combustible dusts.

It has been abundantly clear for a decade that Federal regulatory action is needed to prevent combustible dust explosions and fires.

My amendment would prevent today's bill from getting in the way of this much-needed OSHA regulation, so that OSHA can continue its efforts to prevent combustible dust explosions and fires. This amendment is necessary to protect workers' lives.

In 2003, the Chemical Safety Board found that the existing protections to stop these explosions was grossly inadequate. A Board study has identified hundreds of combustible dust fires and explosions that have caused at least 119 fatalities and 718 injuries over a 15- year period.

The investigators are not alone in demanding action. Tammy Miser of Kentucky testified before Congress about her brother Shawn, who was killed in a metal dust fire at an aluminum wheel plant in Huntington, Indiana, in 2003. She told us that he was left lying there on a smoldering floor after the explosion, while aluminum dust burned through his flesh and muscle tissue; and each breath caused his internal organs to be burned even more.

Shawn wasn't the first to die at work this way, and he won't be the last. It has been more than 6 years since the Imperial Sugar explosion in Georgia that killed 14 workers. That explosion resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in damages because an unchecked accumulation of sugar dust ignited and caused a chain of explosions, leveling the plant.

These workplace explosions have not stopped. More recently, three workers were killed when a combustible metal dust explosion ripped through the AL Solutions metal recycling factory near Weirton, West Virginia. Flames shot in all directions. Two brothers died from the heat and smoke inside the building. Another man made it out, but he suffered burns over most of his body. He died 4 days later in a Pittsburgh hospital, all because the factory lacked adequate controls to manage metal powders.

In another incident, five workers were killed in three separate events at a factory north of Nashville because an iron powder processing plant failed to abate repeated dust hazards. Each of the five left behind a wife and children. One had four children under 11. These widows have called for their government to protect them.

That is where OSHA comes in. The Chemical Safety Board has recently declared that OSHA's combustible dust rule is one of the most wanted safety protections.

In 2009, OSHA finally started working on a rule to reduce the risk of these explosions. The rulemaking will involve small business panels, risk assessments, public hearings, and an opportunity to comment.

Despite the clear need to move forward, this bill would give special interests new ways to block these vital protections.

The sad truth is that the underlying bill is nothing more than an effort to put the powerful above the lives and limbs of working families and their widows.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would just say that OSHA has already undertaken these standards; but if this legislation passes, all of the processes and procedures that are in this underlying legislation would have to go first.

The fact is people are dying at work. They are dying at work because of the fact that they haven't been able to get this standard in place.

This is a very serious standard that directly relates to the lives of these workers in the workplace. To suggest now that they would have to go through this process, if this becomes the law, is just unacceptable when you consider the urgency of this matter.

When we took up this question of grain dust--grain dust explosions, which are some of the most powerful explosions that can take place-- that look like a place has been hit by tons of TNT--that was killing workers, they have reduced the number of fatalities by 70 percent, and you rarely hear about grain explosions any longer.

But dust explosions from other sources continue to be the kind of problem that threatens workers on a daily basis when they report to work in these various industries where the standards are not adequate to protect the workers.

As I pointed out in my opening statement, across a number of different industries, that dust collection--whether it is iron or sugar or wheat dust--becomes a huge explosive device that continues to take the lives of workers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 11.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would exempt from this bill any regulations that have been recommended by the inspector general.

This amendment will improve protections for taxpayers and students, protect public and workplace safety and health, and otherwise increase the effectiveness or efficiency of agency activities.

Inspector generals are the taxpayers' independent watchdogs. They perform an investigative role that is above politics, seeking to find out what has gone wrong and what should be done to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government.

My amendment would ensure that IG recommendations will not be buried in mountains of red tape that this bill creates. For example, the Department of Labor's inspector general found that the Mine Safety and Health Administration had a regulation with gaping loopholes that allowed mine operators who habitually violated mine safety standards to easily evade sanctions and continue to operate unsafe mines.

Massey Energy expertly exploited these loopholes at its Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, Massey consistently putting coal production ahead of safety, with more than 684 mine safety violations in the 18 months prior to the tragic explosion in 2010 that killed 29 miners.

But the most powerful regulatory tool in MSHA's arsenal was not deployed. In fact, the inspector general found that the potentially lifesaving sanctions had never been used over a 32-year period. The price of that 32-year period was the miners' lives.

The inspector general's investigation found that the rule was, by design, set up to be gamed, so it was recommended that MSHA close the loopholes. MSHA then quickly adopted the new regulations that will prevent 1,800 miner injuries each decade.

Had today's bill been the law of the land, that lifesaving rule would be delayed for years; and had this bill's requirement requiring that agencies use the least-costly rule been the law, these dangerous loopholes could be left in place.

Mr. Chairman, after every mine tragedy, elected representatives mourn the dead and declare they will take action to make sure that such tragedies never happen again. Then Congress comes along and works overtime to pass legislation like this, which would delay or block the rules that can save hundreds of lives.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield my remaining 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Chairman, I was assuming that when the gentleman was speaking about the effectiveness of the inspector general reports that he was going to join in support of the amendment. I guess I misunderstood that.

The point is this:

In the case that I cited, the inspector general came in and found out the agency wasn't using the powers that it had and that it needed additional powers for miners who were trying to avert their obligations under the safety laws of this Nation. Again, that is not an action that should be delayed. That is not a finding by one party or the other or by one group of people in the Congress or the other. That is the inspector general. He looked at the situation and said that this was leading to an increased likelihood of accidents and deaths on behalf of miners and that the rules had to be changed and that they had to be changed right away. I don't know why we would interrupt that process.

That is the point of this amendment. This Congress has a lot of trust, I believe, in the inspectors general, and we should not get in and make them run through a lot of hoops when urgency is the matter.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman from Wisconsin yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to join you in your remarks in expressing outrage about the situation in Chattanooga.

In this case, these outside parties included both well-funded interest groups and publicly elected figures dead set on stopping the workers from joining the union. It wasn't enough for these outside parties to say publicly that they did not like unions. It wasn't enough for them to say publicly to the autoworkers, hey, we know what is best for you and your family, vote against the union. It wasn't enough for them to say we don't want unions to get a toehold on the south. No. They were not going to let the workers decide for themselves. They were angry with Volkswagen, who was officially neutral. They were angry that Volkswagen had a long track record of successfully working with labor unions through joint work councils that innovate and reduce company costs. They were angry that a majority of the workers actually signed cards saying they wanted the UAW to represent them.

They were afraid of what would happen if the NLRB election process was actually on the level.

In the end, free and fair union elections became their biggest fear. Imagine that. In the end, a free and fair election became their biggest fear. So they decided they couldn't let that happen. If Volkswagen wouldn't scuttle this election, then these outside officials would. They laid in wait, and on the eve of the election, they then launched their assault: a barrage of untrue and inflammatory statements, the kind that we see from union busters all the time, the kind that are designed to coerce, to scare, to intimidate, to bully, and to bully, and to bully hardworking auto plant workers into rejecting the union.

One of these third parties, an elected official, went to the press on the first day of the voting, the first day the workers had a chance to vote, and he said that he had been ``assured,'' if the workers vote against the union, Volkswagen would manufacture a new line of SUVs in Chattanooga. And lo and behold, what happened? This last-minute bombshell led to a press frenzy, banner headlines, a barrage of TV coverage, all reporting and repeating the threat that jobs in Chattanooga were now on the line with this vote. Never mind that the company denied it. Never mind that that elected official's claim wasn't true. As he said, he had been ``assured,'' the junior Senator from Tennessee said.

On the last point the gentleman made, the reason these worker councils--why Volkswagen was neutral is that they had found these worker councils to help them lead this industry in innovation, to be one of the largest and most successful automobile companies in the world. And, in fact, they have used these worker councils in plants all around the world because that is the mechanism by which they have continued to be a leader and continued to have the growth that they have had and to have the products that they have had. And somehow--somehow--as you point out, in Russia and in China and now in Chattanooga, that motto is being rejected, not because Volkswagen rejected it, but because the election process was not allowed in China, it was not allowed in Russia, and was rigged and jimmied and obstructed by outside forces during that election in the United States.

I thank the gentleman for taking this time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed roll Nos. 40 and 41. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll No. 40 and ``nay'' on roll No. 41.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank my colleagues who have spoken out against this legislation.

This legislation is in no way a solution to the problems that we have in California with the continuing drought. This legislation is simply a legislative temper tantrum.

They don't want to nuance what has to be nuanced. They don't want to have each area of origin be taken into consideration. They don't want to balance urban/rural. They don't want to balance agriculture/ technology.

This is what the Governor is having to do. This is what the resource agency is having to do. This is what the entire State legislature is focusing on, trying to figure out how all of California survives the drought.

This one just says what we will do is we will kick over the barn upstate there. We will take their water and we will be okay.

Well, why doesn't San Diego look up north and say, you know what? We will kick over the barn. We will take their water, and we will be okay.

This is the greatest intrusion into State water rights that we have seen in this legislature, and that is why Governors of other Western States understand the principles that are engaged here are an absolute attack on their States also. That is why Representatives from those States opposed this legislation last time it was presented, and they will oppose it again this time.

I thank the gentleman.

So you have a bipartisan coalition in the States trying to work this out, from every economic sector, from every environmental sector, for the benefit of the State of California.

This drought doesn't have to end in this rainy season. It can go on another year and another year.

This legislation is destructive, destructive of our trying to make sure that every facet of the California society and its economy survive, and that is why this bill should be rejected. It is an assault on fundamental states' rights that every other Western Governor recognized the moment this bill was introduced, and that is why they oppose it. They join the Governor of California, the resource agency of California, in opposition to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3964.

Mr. Chair, the bill before us today, H.R. 3964, is a radical bill that is strongly opposed by the State of California as well as other Western states, fishing groups, and many other stakeholders.

H.R. 3964 would seriously undermine our ability to solve California's water problems, and it poses a serious threat to water management all across the Western United States.

And, to be clear, this is not a man-made drought. There is not enough water to meet all demands. In 2009, with the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws in place, more water was exported than in other drought years.

This bill would effectively repeal the last hundred years of policymaking--unraveling legal settlements, defying settled Supreme Court precedent, and up-ending state and local efforts to find solutions.

H.R. 3964 would block or repeal numerous state and federal laws protecting California's Bay-Delta estuary and San Joaquin River, including:

The 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act;

The 2009 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act;

The 2009 bipartisan compromise passed by the California State Legislature;

The state and federal endangered species acts; and

Several other provisions of state law and water rights.

What's worse, this bill explicitly overrides more than 100 years of federal law by exempting the federal Central Valley Project from Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, which requires deference to State authority over water resources.

Republicans have to understand that reverting back to the 1994 Bay- Delta Accord would severely damage the ecosystem. We can't negate 20 years of science and expect our ecosystem to survive.

This bill is opposed by a range of stakeholders from across California and around the country, including Trout Unlimited, the United Farm Workers, and every major national conservation and wildlife group.

Eighty California environmental, environmental justice, recreational and commercial fishing groups, and Indian tribes signed a letter of opposition that was sent to all House members.

Many water agencies, local governments, and business groups across California also oppose the bill.

And serious economic analysis shows that this bill would devastate our economy.

The Delta Protection Commission says that, ``Delta agriculture supports nearly 23,000 jobs statewide, over $1.9 billion in value added to the state, and over $4.6 billion in economic output in the state of California.''

Three different studies from UC Davis, University of the Pacific, and UC Berkeley estimated that the drought cost approximately 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in 2008/09.

Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Administration estimated that the two-year closure of the salmon fishery in 2008 and 2009 resulted in the loss of $534 million and almost 5,000 jobs.

The Delta Protection Commission stated that Delta recreation and tourism generates approximately over 4,900 jobs and $600 million in economic output in the state of California.

As California State Governor Brown wrote to California offices:

``H.R. 3964 is an unwelcome and divisive intrusion into California's efforts to manage this severe crisis. It would override state laws and protections, and mandate that certain water interests come out ahead of others;

It falsely suggests the promise of water relief when that is simply not possible given the scarcity of water supplies. H.R. 3964 would interfere with our ability to respond effectively and flexibly to the current emergency, and would re-open old water wounds undermining years of progress toward reaching a collaborative long-term solution to our water needs.''

This bill is a radical attempt to put one special interest ahead of everyone else in California, and it would end all productive efforts to solve problems in California.

I strongly oppose H.R. 3964 and urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed roll Nos. 24 and 25. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll Nos. 24 and 25.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 40 years, my work in this House has been guided by my firm belief that every child, regardless of his or her ZIP code, deserves access to a quality education that will prepare them for future success; and every parent deserves to know that their child's school is helping their son or daughter achieve his or her full potential.

That is why, under No Child Left Behind, we demanded the accountability include transparency on school performance. We share the collective responsibility, at all levels of government, to make good on the promise of high-quality education for all students. Unfortunately, we all know that not every school is living up to that promise.

When any school fails its students, it is our responsibility, not only to give those students a high-quality public school option, but to also improve the low-performing schools. It is simple: no child should be stuck in a failing school.

This week is National School Choice Week. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and their strategists have embraced the so- called ``school choice'' as a part of their rebranding effort to appear more caring.

Politico reported just last week that the Republican strategists have been counseling the Republicans that talking about helping poor minority children softens the Republican image. Talking about it, not doing something about it.

Conservative advocacy groups have declared in planning documents that it is an excellent media opportunity to focus on kids and the future. It is a media opportunity to focus on children, not to do something about it.

This new effort even has a warm and fuzzy name, the Growth and Opportunity Project. This is political posturing at its worst, and it does nothing to provide actual choice for our Nation's students.

The cornerstone of true school choice is the principle that every child has the right to attend a great school. Not only should the students have high-quality options, but we need to demand that low- performing schools improve, and support that improvement.

Without quality schools to pick from, families face an empty choice. Yet that is all the Republican majority has offered Americans so far.

Neither school choice nor quality of schools was on their agenda when they voted for the Republican rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That bill abandoned our responsibility to ensure that every child has access to a high-quality education. It undercut Federal support for schools.

The majority leader pledged that Republicans remain vigilant in protecting and promoting school choice; yet their bill removed the school choice mechanisms that were already in current law. And their bill failed to require that schools in districts improve when they are failing to effectively educate students.

With the Republicans' Elementary and Secondary Education bill, along with sequestration, the majority turned its back on the Nation's most vulnerable students. They took money away from America's poorest schools, and they took money away from America's poorest students.

The very people that the majority's school choice media opportunity pretends to support are the same ones that are hurt by the majority's actual votes in this Chamber. Not a media conversation, not the posturing to appear to soften the image, but the actual votes taken in this Chamber harm the very children that they now say they want to support with this media opportunity to soften their image.

It was the Democratic Elementary and Secondary Education bill that held schools accountable for improvement and demanded that children be afforded new education opportunities when stuck in a failing school.

School choice should not be an empty promise. It should not be a political tag line that frees my colleagues from taking responsibility for our Nation's education system.

Mr. Speaker, if you want meaningful school choice, you must demand schools be held accountable for equitably serving all students, and you must provide the support that the schools need to provide that quality education.

Without that accountability for school quality, what choices would parents really have when their schools are failing?

An option between two low-performing schools? Not a good option.

An option between low-performing neighborhood schools and figuring out how to get your child across town to a different school, providing the transportation, and still hold down the job, that is not a fair option.

What we know, Mr. Speaker, is that if you ask parents all across America, they will tell you that their first choice in school choice is to have a neighborhood school that is high-performing; have a neighborhood school that meets the demands of that family and those children to get a first-class education; not to drive across town; not to spend time putting their kids in transit or putting their kids in harm's way trying to walk to that better school.

Fix the neighborhood schools; and if you don't, then provide that child the alternative to go to another school, as we did in current law, not as we do in the media release.

I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go beyond the rhetoric and posturing and sit down with me and others to make real, sustainable improvements in public education for all students.

Poor and minority kids are not a media opportunity. These are real children who deserve an equal shot at a bright future.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed roll Nos. 12 and 13. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll Nos. 12 and 13.

Mr. Speaker, study after study has shown us that investment in quality early education leads to better educational outcomes, stronger job earnings, and lower crime rates. Decades of research confirm that quality preschool helps prevent achievement gaps for low-income children, with long-term benefits for our Nation.

But we don't need research to confirm the importance of quality early childhood education. Ask any parent in America if it matters to them. The problem is that not enough children have access to it. That is why I have introduced the bipartisan bill, Strong Start for America's Children Act.

When Congressman Hanna, Senator Harkin, and I introduced the bill in November, we were joined by the sheriff of Minneapolis, a top private- sector CEO, a retired Air Force General, a parent, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. These leaders from so many segments of our country understand the need for greater Federal investment in high- quality preschool.

My legislation proposes an innovative Federal-State partnership to increase resources for local school districts and community-based programs that provide quality pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds. It also allows funding for educating 3-year-olds. It also allows States to spend some of the money on good quality infant and toddler care. The bill improves child care quality for infants and toddlers by supporting partnerships between child care and Early Head Start.

Millions of young children from low-income families lack access to high-quality preschool programs and child care services. They are on waiting lists because of limited public funding. This deepens achievement gaps and impedes the Nation's economic workforce success.

For example, Early Head Start has shown to be an effective, high- quality program; yet the sad truth is that only 3 percent of the eligible children have access to it. Additionally, one in six low- income families eligible for Federal child care services has access.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a Democratic issue nor a Republican issue. Babies, toddlers, and preschoolers don't know that political parties exist. In fact, we are seeing that Republican and Democratic Governors from all regions of the country are pushing for more funding for early learning in their States. They want to be partners with the Federal Government.

State legislators from both parties in a wide range of States have led efforts to support quality preschool. Just recently, we received a letter signed by more than 500 State legislators from both parties in support of this issue.

I am also very proud of our partnership with the fellow Republican Members of the House, such as Mr. Hanna and Mr. Grimm. We all know that the policy makes sense for America's future. We all know what is possible in our communities and in our Nation if kids are given a fair shot at success.

The public understands and believes in early childhood education. A bipartisan poll released in July found an overwhelming majority of Americans supports quality early childhood education and rate it a national priority, second to only increasing jobs and economic growth. Seven in 10 support the Federal plan to help States and local communities provide better early childhood education.

Members of Congress and other policymakers are also getting on board. The bipartisan budget agreement reached last month includes a reserve fund for early childhood education, child care, and voluntary home visitation. That is yet another acknowledgment by another bipartisan group of Members--in this case, budget leaders--that early childhood education should be a top priority for the Federal Government. That acknowledgment is clearly a step forward, but it isn't enough. Our next step must be the enactment of the Strong Start Act.

With the fiscal year 2014 spending deadline less than a week away, I understand that appropriators from both Houses are considering increased funding for preschool, as outlined in our bipartisan bill. I heartily encourage this course.

Despite the language used whenever we in Congress talk about budgets, funding early childhood education isn't spending. It is an investment, and it is an investment that is critical for our Nation's long-term economic strength.

From a better-educated workforce to a reduced need for social services, study after study has documented the enormous return on investment of early childhood education. We can save between $7 and $12 for every dollar invested. These are real savings resulting from less grade repetition, lower dropout rates, less spending on welfare and social services, more tax revenue, and lower incarceration rates.

As Sheriff Rich Stanek said when we launched the Strong Start for America's Children Act:

I'm the guy you pay later.

Let's stop spending on the back end what we should be investing in the beginning in a child's life.

For all of these reasons, our bill has the support of more than 60 national organizations representing pediatricians, law enforcement, religious

groups, labor unions, business and military leaders, people with disabilities, school principals, civil rights leaders, and literacy advocates. Now is the time to empower the next generation and guarantee a better future for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed Roll No. 1. If I had been there, I would have voted ``present.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding career of Ms. Catherine ``Kate'' Ertz-Berger, Executive Director of the Contra Costa Child Care Council, and congratulate her as she retires after twenty-eight years of dedicated service to the children and families of Contra Costa County.

Kate's deep passion for helping others was evident early in her career, during her tenure with the Massachusetts Department of Social Work and the United Way of the Bay Area. She brought that same passion to the Contra Costa Child Care Council in 1985 and has been the heartbeat of that agency for nearly three decades. Under Kate's dynamic leadership the Council has grown to be one of the largest and most effective nonprofit organizations in the San Francisco East Bay serving families throughout our community.

Kate has shown remarkable command of the issues most critical to early education and the needs of families with small children. Under her guidance, the Council has greatly increased public awareness of the need for quality child care and early childhood education through the development of a wide variety of innovative initiatives, programs and services. Most importantly, she has forged lasting partnerships with the community, parents and child care providers.

I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Executive Director Kate Ertz-Berger, for her committed and diligent service to the children and families of Contra Costa County. I am pleased to call her my friend and wish her the very best as she begins a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, a year has passed since the 112 garment workers--mostly women--were killed in a factory in Bangladesh that produced clothing for brands like Walmart, Sears, and Kmart.

Earlier this year, I went to Bangladesh and met with women who leapt from the third and fourth floor windows of the factory to escape the fire. There is no good way to jump from that height. The women who survived the fall were broken, crippled, and unable to support their children.

Since the Tazreen fire, several brands have stepped up with payments for survivors, and yet some of the companies that were presumably profiting quite nicely from production at the Tazreen factory have opted not to compensate a single victim.

Walmart is one of those. They have chosen not to compensate a single woman who died in the factory, was crippled in the factory, had lost their job in the factory all because of the fire in the unsafe factory.

The Tazreen factory was known as a deathtrap. Windows were barred, and the management locked the doors in the stairwells, leaving workers with no way to escape.

Walmart knew this factory was a deathtrap. The company had commissioned a series of audits in 2011. Their audits uncovered that Tazreen was an overcrowded factory without proper fire alarms or smoke detectors, that it lacked sufficient fire fighting equipment, with partially blocked exits and stairwells, and did not post adequate evacuation plans.

Because factory management failed to improve conditions, Walmart terminated the contracts with the factory. However, Tazreen factory workers continued to produce for Walmart, even though they terminated their contract.

According to documents found in the ashes, more than half of the factory's total production was dedicated to Walmart just 2 months before the collapse. So while Walmart left the factory because it was unsafe, over half of the production, according to the documents, was still for Walmart, knowing they were producing in an unsafe factory that claimed the lives of 112 women.

Walmart now claims that the Tazreen factory was an unauthorized subcontractor. Half of the work in the factory was there because supposedly Walmart, whose hallmark of efficiency is their supply chain, didn't know their subcontractor was placing these very significant orders in a factory that they abandoned and was also owned, overall, by another company that they were doing business with.

I think Walmart is trying to construct a process so that they can deny the responsibility for the deaths of the women, the responsibility to pay maybe a benefit to those families who were crushed by the loss of their breadwinner, their mother, their sister, their wife. It is time to accept that responsibility.

When Walmart terminated direct contracts at the factory, it never told the workers that it was leaving or why it was leaving.

At a recent public forum, Walmart said that its only responsibility was to notify the factory owner, but that is like notifying a criminal that you are aware of his crime while you keep his next potential victim in the dark.

Workers had no reason to suspect that Walmart walked away due to safety concerns because Walmart garments still dominated the production there. By quietly walking away and failing to tell anybody who could remedy the danger--workers, trade associations, and the government-- Walmart left the Tazreen factory vulnerable to a fire that would engulf them. The Walmart actions were calibrated to evade responsibility, and they put those women at risk.

The pattern of evasion was repeated at Rana Plaza, where 1,132 workers--again, mostly women--were killed when the factory collapsed earlier this year. Walmart claims it did not permit production there, but evidence found in the rubble of that collapsed factory shows that Rana Plaza was producing jeans for Walmart less than a year before the collapse.

There is a theme here: when tragedies occur, Walmart claims production was not authorized as a way to disown responsibility. But every brand sourcing garments from Bangladesh knows that extensive subcontracting is part of the business model. That is how fast-fashion is produced.

You can cut your direct dealings with a specific factory, but there is a chance someone in your supply chain is going to subcontract right back to that factory. The ethics are not complicated.

The United Nations Principles on Business and Human Rights call upon multinationals to conduct due diligence through the many layers of their supply chains where the risks are the greatest to identify, mitigate, and prevent the problems.

Had Walmart done that, maybe 1,000 women would be alive today and not have had a factory collapse on them. Maybe 112 women would be alive today. Maybe those women who had to jump out of the third and fourth floor windows to survive the fire would not be crippled today, would be able to support their families, and live somewhat of a normal life.

Audits don't absolve companies of responsibility. If terminating a contract could lead to even greater harm, there is a special obligation, according to these recognized principles of the United Nations, to stay and remedy the problem. Brands have an obligation to both audit working conditions and to help remedy the risk of the most vulnerable in their supply chain.

Walmart, accept responsibility, and start doing business in a humane way.