Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, more than a thousand workers have died from working in Bangladesh's garment industry.

In the latest tragedy, an eight-story building called Rana Plaza collapsed. It housed five garment factories. It has killed more than 650 workers so far, injured more than a thousand, with still more buried in the rubble. This staggering body count occurred just 5 months after the Tazreen factory fire that killed at least 112 workers. Forty more incidents, including explosions and fires, causing death and injury, have taken place since the Tazreen factory fire.

I met with one of the Tazreen survivors when she visited Washington last month. She described the outrageous working conditions leading up to the fire. She toiled in a factory with bars on the windows and no place to run if a fire broke out. She told me how she jumped from the third floor of the burning factory to save her body from the fire so her family could recognize her in case of her death, and many of her coworkers jumped with her, but did not survive the fall. During our meeting, it became clear that it was only a matter of time before the next Tazreen would take place.

Two weeks later, Rana Plaza collapsed.

Unfortunately, these tragedies in Bangladesh are not isolated, and more of these tragedies, undoubtedly, will occur unless the major international corporations that keep these dangerous factories open decide to change their business practices. Clearly, there is a greater role for the U.S. and other governments to play, including the Bangladesh Government. However, the primary burden for action now lies with the major brands and retailers.

Let's remember what is at stake here: the lives of thousands of young women and mothers trying to scrape together an existence by working 12- hour shifts for pennies a garment.

They produce clothing under contract with corporations we all know well: Walmart, J. C. Penney, Mango, Benetton, H&M, The Children's Place, GAP, and Dress Barn, among others. The clothes these women sew in Bangladesh we buy here in America. Unfortunately, these young women are caught working in a garment industry that pits supplier against supplier and country against country in a calculated race to the bottom.

Often, the margin for these corporations is subsistence wages and the needless disregard for the safety of these young women. That is the subsidy they receive--low wages and unsafe working conditions for the workers who produce these garments. Four million Bangladeshi workers in 5,000 factories provide clothing to Americans and to European brands while earning one of the lowest minimum wages in the world--about $37 a month.

But they shouldn't have to risk their lives for the fashion industry's profits.

These young women are forced to work in factories with overtaxed electrical circuits, unenforced building codes, and premises without firefighting equipment and adequate exits, and in most cases, the exits are chained closed. Americans who are the consumers of these products are increasingly worried that the label ``Made in Bangladesh'' actually means ``made in a death trap.''

Why are the managers of these factories forcing these employees to work in these deplorable conditions? Because of fear--fear that the international brands and the retailers, which we know so well, will take their orders elsewhere because of a missed day of production, a late delivery, or a minuscule increase in production costs. The brands know this. That's why I believe they bear the ultimate responsibility for the horrendously unsafe working conditions in Bangladesh and elsewhere.

Corporate leaders in the fashion industry have a moral imperative to ensure that these tragedies do not happen again. These retailers and brands need to sign on to an enforceable agreement that will improve safety, called the Bangladesh Fire and Building Safety Agreement. It was developed by the Bangladeshi trade unions and nongovernmental organizations to prevent

these types of disasters from occurring by addressing the most urgent elements:

One, public reporting of all fire and building audits conducted by independent safety experts;

Two, mandates that factory owners make timely repairs;

Three, an obligation for the brands to terminate a contract if a factory defies its responsibility to keep workers safe;

Four, the right for workers to refuse unsafe work without retribution--to be able to refuse work without being fired, being penalized--and union access to factories, among other labor protections, so they can see for themselves what are the working conditions on any given day.

To make this work, these commitments must be contained in an enforceable contract between the brands and worker representatives because it is the workers' lives that are on the line. The holding companies of Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Van Heusen, and IZOD have signed on to this agreement already, and a major German retailer has signed on as well. Others are now meeting in Europe to discuss its provisions.

I applaud these efforts toward corporate responsibility. It is now time for the major U.S. corporations, like GAP, Walmart, and J.C. Penney, to join them, but we must also take note and call out any attempt to water down the key provisions of this agreement. Experts believe that this safety agreement will only cost a dime per garment over 5 years in order to make a real difference in the safety of these factories--a dime for the lives of these workers.

The major global brands now face a choice. They can attempt to wait out the storm and go back to business as usual and continue their race to the bottom, or they can chart a different course that includes healthy profits, without a human death toll, by signing on to an enforceable safety agreement.

I hope these American and international fashion brands sign on. In the meantime, the American consumer and those who follow the fashion industry are watching. We want to see which fashion brands will accept blood on their labels and which will not.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, more than 75 years ago, Congress empowered the American worker through the National Labor Relations Act to form or join a union and bargain for a better life. That law and the rights it guarantees have served this country well--it has built the middle class; it has brought us the 40-hour workweek; it has brought us safe workplaces. These rights have given to millions of families economic security and the prospect that their children could build even better lives, but for the last 2 years, these rights have been under persistent and unrelenting attack by this House and this Republican leadership.

There are more unemployed workers in this country today than private sector union members. Instead of working to create decent jobs for the unemployed, the majority insists on attacking the rights of the employed. At a time of stagnant wages and when businesses across the country are explaining that their number one problem is a lack of customer demand, we could be doing something useful today, like raising the minimum wage. Instead, we are debating a bill that undermines the ability of workers to bargain for better wages or for decent pensions or for safe workplaces.

H.R. 1120 would stop the National Labor Relations Board from enforcing labor law. While the bill is in effect, the agency would not be permitted to issue any new decisions, enforce existing decisions, or advance any rulemaking. That means it's open season on working people. The bill tells employers: if you want to retaliate against a worker for trying to speak out or to organize, if you want to fire her, go ahead, because there won't be any effective government response. By eliminating the authority of the government to enforce the law, this bill effectively takes away every labor right that Congress gave workers to help them better their own lives.

It's that simple.

Take, for instance, a single mother who works at a hospital, changing bedpans, lifting patients day in and day out. She works hard. She likes her job, but she thinks that she and her fellow employees deserve a raise. After her shift, a supervisor overhears her chatting with a coworker about organizing a union. The next day, she is called into the manager's office, and she is fired for talking union--something that is a protected right under the law.

This firing is illegal, and she is entitled to her job back, but under H.R. 1120, she would be out of luck. Not only would she be out of luck, but over 23,000 workers a year would be out of luck because they simply exercised the rights that are legal under the law. The law says that employers don't get to retaliate, but for those thousands of workers now, they will have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, lost the ability to support their families. They will have no recourse because of this legislation if it becomes law.

How fair can that possibly be?

I would also add that, in 2010, about 17,000 unfair labor practices were filed against employers by employees, but over 6,000 were filed against the unions for unfair labor practices.

The fact of the matter is, for this legislation, it works against both employers and employees, and it brings chaos to the workplace. It gives the right to illegal strikes. It gives the right to illegal firings. It gives the right to illegally take away the wages of a worker. That simply cannot be tolerated in this country, but that's what this legislation does. It's an effort that started out a number of years ago on this committee with the Republicans attacking the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board, and we should not allow this to stand.

We understand that they're upset with the recess appointments, but they weren't upset with some 300 other recess appointments. In fact, Mr. Roe just said that those were constitutional, but that's not what the court said. The court said that all of these recess appointments were unconstitutional.

So where are we today?

We have sitting before the Senate, offered by the President, a panel of appointments that they can approve, and they can cure this problem if this problem, in fact, really exists. We don't know that yet because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it.

While we are waiting for the Supreme Court to rule, they want to pass this legislation; and if they pass this legislation, the fact of the matter is both employers and employees are going to be hurt. It's going to cost them a great deal of money, and it's going to cause a great deal of chaos in the workplace because of what the circuit court said.

I worry, while they complain about the recess appointments, that it's the very filibusters by the Republicans that demanded that the recess appointments take place.

Mr. Speaker, during the week of March 18th, I missed roll Nos. 76 through 89 due to cataract surgery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll Nos. 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 88, and 89. I would have voted ``yea'' on roll Nos. 77, 78, 83, 84, 85, and 87. I would have voted ``present'' on roll No. 86.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Campolindo High School's Academic Decathlon Club for its recent success in the Contra Costa County Academic Decathlon, at which Campolindo's two teams won first and second place.

The Campolindo High School Academic Decathlon Club provides students the chance to go above and beyond academically. Through fun competition, the Academic Decathlon Club members foster enthusiasm for education not only in themselves, but also in their peers.

Participation in the academic decathlon has promoted and developed a range of skills, including team work, discipline, creativity and critical thinking. The Decathlon Club is training California's future leaders by helping ensure that our students will be qualified to join the workforce and grow our economy. It's clear that Campolindo High does an outstanding job of preparing these future leaders for a lifetime of success.

I would like to submit for the record a recent article in the Contra Costa Times recognizing Campolindo's impressive achievement.

`Going Above and Beyond': Academic Decathlon Offers Another Kind of

Competition

(By Lou Fancher)

Moraga.--It was a repeat of last year's finish, as the top

three teams at Contra Costa County's 2013 High School

Academic Decathlon on Feb. 4 mirrored the winners of 2012's

competition.

The ``Red Team'' from Campolindo High School in Moraga took

first place and will advance to the state competition March

14 to 17 in Sacramento.

This year, as last, Campolindo's ``Blue Team'' placed

second, and Acalanes High School of Lafayette placed third

for the second straight year. Other teams competing in the

county decathlon were Antioch High, California (San Ramon),

Freedom (Brentwood), Las Lomas (Walnut Creek), Miramonte

(Orinda), Pittsburg and Dublin.

California's Academic Decathlon pits nine-member teams

drawn from about 500 schools statewide in a frenzy of tests,

essays, speeches and interviews. Scrimmaging over art,

economics, music, language and literature, mathematics,

science and social science might sound like torture to many

high schoolers, but not to students like Campolindo's Zach

Scherer, this year's Top Overall Academic Decathlon

Individual Award winner.

``I like decathlon (club) because it's not a regular class,

with a teacher lecturing for 50 minutes,'' the 16-year-old

said. ``It's students, all interested in learning.''

Paul Verbanszky, an advanced-placement psychology and

government economics teacher at Campolindo since 2004, leads

the school's decathlon club.

``I used to be able to barely field a team. Because we're

winning, more students have signed up. Now I have 40 students

at the start of a year,'' he said.

The club's increasing popularity has little to do with

students aiming to shine on college applications, Verbanszky

said. Rather, the biggest motivators are the chance to excel

at something other than sports and ``going above and beyond''

academically.

Team co-captain Evelyn Steefel, 17, said it's just fun.

``The meetings are entertaining,'' she said, ``and there's

nothing like learning new, interesting facts.''

Campolindo's two teams (schools with more than nine

students participating can form multiple teams) met three

times a week, beginning in September.

This year's theme was Russia. With a mix of newbies and

veteran decathlon members, the students divvied up the study

guides democratically.

``We just put it up for whatever each person wanted to do

and made sure each section got done,'' Steefel said.

A dizzying array of approaches, from PowerPoint

presentations to ``Jeopardy''-style games to pop quizzes,

staved off drudgery. Winning the decathlon is more than

facts; it's analysis and skillful test-taking, Scherer and

Steefel said.

Scherer remembers the interview section of the competition

beginning with simple questions about his interests.

``I discussed the clubs I'm in, model United Nations and

math club, and how they have shaped who I am now,'' he said.

``Then they asked, 'How has being in U.N. shaped your

interest in diplomacy?'''

Steefel used the decathlon's speech portion to talk about

hypocrisy in America.

``It's a country that promotes freedom and equality, but it

goes against those principles in its actions. The major thing

I talked about was slavery, but also affirmative action and

discrimination against women. I talked about the current

generation needing to stop hating, because we're not moving

together as a country.''

The Super Quiz--during which teams work together, and a

roaring crowd of supportive family and friends is allowed--

tested their knowledge of Sputnik 2. Another question

challenged them to compare and contrast two Russian

composers.

``First, you have to know about the specific facts,''

Scherer said. ``Then, you have to know about the

controversies involved, the worldwide movements, the

complexities.''

Verbanszky said it's not the two Campolindo teams' high

scores or crafty mental gymnastics he's most proud of.

``They care about the program, but also each other,'' he

said. ``Freshmen to senior--they help each other with

homework and talk about their problems. They've become

friends.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Congressman Mike Thompson, Congressman Jerry McNerney and Congressman Eric Swalwell to recognize the unparalleled career of Mr. Stephen Weir and congratulate him as he retires after forty years of public service on behalf of the people of Contra Costa County. Steve Weir has been known throughout our community as a man of uncommon commitment and unwavering integrity.

Born in Richmond, California and raised in Pleasant Hill, Steve has been a life-long resident of Contra Costa County. Following his graduation with Honors from the University of California at Berkeley, Steve moved back to Central County to begin his career as a public servant. He won his first elected position in 1973 as the Contra Costa Water District Director. After serving seven years in that capacity, Steve was elected to the Concord City Council in 1980, and in 1984 he was selected by his colleagues to serve a two-year term as Concord's Mayor. During this time, Steve also took on the responsibilities of regional Commissioner for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and became Chairman in 1991.

It was in 1989, following the death of County Recorder Jim Olson, that Steve was appointed to fill the vacant seat for County Recorder. Steve was subsequently elected to the office in 1990 and has been returned to the position by voters every four years since.

As County Clerk-Recorder, Steve immediately went to work streamlining the Clerk office system from five offices spread throughout Martinez, to one consolidated, state-of-the-art facility. Leveraging nearly $13 million in federal and state grant funding, he developed and purchased a vote tabulation system and introduced electronic recording to our county. Steve's efficiency continued to garner favorable results as his implementation of a department-wide Performance Management Program

brought high praise from the Contra Costa County Grand Jury. He also established a Real Estate Fraud Notification System which has protected the County's property owners.

Steve has earned many awards and distinctions throughout his career, including the 1993 Citizen of the Year Award from the California Transportation Foundation in recognition of his skill in bringing improvements to the Contra Costa and Bay Area's transportation systems and under his watch, the Contra Costa County Clerk's Office was awarded the County Department of the Year Award in 1994. However, we are certain that the distinction Steve and his long-time partner, John Hemm, take most pride in is the fact that their marriage in June of 2008 was the very first same-gender union ever conducted in Contra Costa County.

As Steve trades his desk chair in Martinez for his bicycle seat, we expect to see him quickly surpass the record 5600 miles of roads and trails he logged last year and to easily hit his personal goal of 75 round trip rides to the 3,864 foot summit of Mt. Diablo this coming year.

Mr. Speaker, we invite our colleagues to join us in commending City Clerk-Recorder Steve Weir for his years of outstanding service to the citizens of Contra Costa County. We are pleased to join his husband, John, his family, friends and colleagues, in congratulating Steve on an outstanding career and wishing him the very best as he begins a well- deserved and we imagine, a very active retirement.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Chair, the House today is considering Republican legislation that reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act. Rewriting the Workforce Investment Act is an important task, and it should be taken seriously. It should be an opportunity to address some significant challenges in our economy, including how to educate and train a diverse workforce with the skills required to compete in a global market.

For 40 years, this task has been taken seriously by Members of both parties. Job training legislation was generally bipartisan. So I wish we were here to present a bipartisan bill on the floor. I wish we were here to discuss the product of months of bipartisan negotiations. I wish we were here to consider getting something done for the American people.

But that's not the point of today's exercise. Today, we are here to meet a deadline set by the majority leader as part of a rebranding strategy. This bill is a political product. It puts ideology over practical solutions and evidence-based reforms. It fails to take a thoughtful approach to what our workers and businesses need. It decisively walks away from the program's mission of helping our most disadvantaged workers. That is why I oppose this bill.

First, the bill eliminates and consolidates programs simply for the sake of elimination and consolidation. The populations served by these programs often face daunting challenges in the job market. Youth, older workers, farm workers, workers with disabilities, English-language learners, veterans and low-income workers are among those who face the greatest barriers to employment. Yet, programs that serve these populations are the very programs targeted by the Republicans.

Even worse, the bill eliminates the directive requiring these poorest workers to be given priority of service. With limited money, hard-to- serve populations will be left out in the cold. And we have yet to hear any credible evidence that eliminating these programs will save taxpayer money. We have yet to hear any credible evidence that these programs are duplicative, nor have we heard credible evidence that this approach will make the system work better.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office warned that this one- size-fits-all approach may make services less accessible to the many groups considered hard to serve. Second, the bill restructures the workforce system in a way that locks out key stakeholders and leaves the system vulnerable to favoritism.

The legislation arbitrarily mandates that workforce boards increase business participation of the board from 51 percent to 67 percent. This will allow people in power to lock out key stakeholders, including labor, community-based organizations, community colleges, or people who work with youth or workers with disabilities. These stakeholders know how to get training to the people. And they provide a voice for the very people who need training and the very people looking for work.

The Republican bill will also allow Governors to remove local control so that local communities won't be able to direct their own workforce systems. Yet local communities working with local businesses, workers, and other organizations know best how to respond to their economic needs.

Finally, the Republican bill essentially turns funding into a block grant and freezes authorization levels for 6 years. We all know that this is a code word for cutting funding. That's what the Republicans have been doing in the CR, and that's what the Republicans have been doing in sequestration.

The Democrats have a different version. We agree that the current system is in need of significant reform. So don't believe the other side who falsely say that we want the status quo. The system should be improved in ways to maintain our Nation's commitment to expand opportunity for all Americans. We want to make job training programs more efficient and more effective. This can be accomplished by requiring unified plans that streamline and coordinate these services. Democrats want to ensure real accountability so everyone knows which programs work and which programs don't work.

Finally, we want to promote innovation in the workforce system by fully engaging community colleges. This can be done by ensuring that there are resources for community colleges to effectively respond to economic challenges and to meet future industry needs.

This should be Congress' way forward to strengthen the workforce investment system. Congress should not be dismantling the system and leaving those who need help the most at the back of the line. I'm disappointed that we have reached this point on this very important topic. For months, the Democrats have extended a hand to work together with the Republican majority.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the ranking member on a subcommittee of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), one of the primary cosponsors of the Democratic alternative.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I yield myself 30 seconds.

In closing, I think what's clear from the speakers on the Democratic side who spoke this morning is that it was really quite possible to have a bipartisan bill come to the floor of the

House out of our committee. We offered to enter into Member-to-Member negotiations. That offer was not taken up.

This bill was introduced 1 week in a hearing and reported the next. And the fact of the matter is I think there's a great desire on both sides of the aisle to make this a well-run, well-functioning program for the people who need it so they can get back into the workforce in the American economy. But, unfortunately, that didn't happen, and we're now left with a partisan bill, much like we were last year. I think, unfortunately, it's going to make it very difficult to get a good job- training bill to the President's desk for his signature.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I met a young man named Gregory Reynoso. He lives in Brooklyn. He is married, and they have a little girl who will soon turn 3 years old. He is a pizza delivery man. He makes $7.25 an hour, but he can't make ends meet. As Gregory told me, if he pays one bill, he can't pay another.

He told me: I'm delivering food to other people all day, but sometimes I need food stamps so my family can eat.

When I look at the bill before us, I think of Gregory and a million other hardworking Americans like him. The bill before us is not for him. He's low-income. Under this bill, he loses his priority of service even if he wanted to train to try to get new skills for a better job with better wages to provide for his family. With this bill, he wouldn't be able to. With this bill, we shouldn't ask what it does for people like Gregory but what it does to them.

Under the Foxx bill, seniors and youth no longer have wage protections. Low-income workers no longer get priority of service. The voices of labor and community colleges are squeezed off the Workforce Investment Boards, and the poor and disadvantaged get the shaft.

We propose this motion to do something different so that, no matter what happens with the adoption of the Foxx bill, the poor will get a better shot at better jobs, and those who are working in low-wage jobs will get a decent wage. This amendment raises the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. It indexes it to inflation, and gives tipped workers a raise for the first time in 20 years. For the first time in 20 years, they will get a shot at a raise and a decent wage for the work that they do in waiting on other people.

Without an increase in years, the working poor have been falling further and further behind. While corporate profits soar, while the Dow breaks new records, and while the CEOs take home 380 times the wages of average workers, the lowest paid workers are falling behind. If we vote to raise the minimum wage, we pump more than $32 billion into the economy, money into working people's pockets, money into Main Street small businesses, money spent locally, money that generates demand, and demand that generates jobs.

A minimum wage increase pays for itself. Some businesses might have to pay higher wages, but they'll see higher revenues thanks to higher demand. The number one complaint from small businesses, according to Steve Case, the founder of AOL, is that there are not enough customers on Main Street because they're not earning enough money. They can't spend on Main Street because they're not earning enough money. That's why business owners are coming out for the raise--large businesses, like the CEO of Costco--encouraging and supporting the minimum wage; small businesses, like the restaurant owner Andy Shallal who came out for the minimum wage; and business leaders like the CEO of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. In 2005, the chairman of the board of Walmart came out for the minimum wage because, like today, their customers don't have enough money to buy the necessities of life. So think what this means if they can have an increase in the minimum wage. Think what this means to those individuals.

Over two-thirds of the people in this country support an increase to the minimum wage. A majority of self-identified Republicans support an increase in the minimum wage. We must understand that this is a pay raise for 30 million Americans. Half of those workers are women in this country; 88 percent of those workers are at least 20 years of age; and 17 million children will live in families that will get an increase in the wages and the incomes to those families.

These hardworking Americans have suffered enough in the Great Recession. Enough of the attacks on Medicare, Head Start, and now job training. Let's do something different this time. Let's do something that's right. Let's reward work for people who go to work every day in very difficult jobs, in sometimes very dirty jobs, in sometimes very demeaning jobs. They work every day, and they go home poor. At the end of the year, they end up poor. They work 52 weeks--they end up poor. They work in tough jobs--they end up poor.

Now is your opportunity to reward work to provide them. Let's help these individuals. Let's help these families. Let's raise the minimum wage. It's time for $10.10 an hour. Vote ``yes'' on the final passage-- the vote for the minimum wage--and protect seniors, protect veterans, protect low-income workers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcements by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2013, I missed rollcall Nos. 59, 60, 61, and 62 due to upcoming cataract surgery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 59, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 60, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 61, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 62.

On March 12, 2013, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 63. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on February 27, 2013, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll No. 53. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of House Resolution 77. And I commend the chair of the committee and the ranking member for bringing this to the floor, and I hope that all of our colleagues will participate in this competition for students in STEM subjects to create these apps and to further, hopefully, their careers in STEM.

But I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am also deeply worried that our hopes to increase the number of students who will participate in STEM education and become part of the STEM careers that are available to them that this Nation so desperately needs could all be for naught, this resolution and all of our efforts, if on Friday we are not able to set aside the sequester and make a balanced proposal to reduce the deficit and to provide for the ongoing needs of this Nation.

Right now, if we do nothing between now and Friday, there will be a $740 million cut to title I, impacting over 1 million students, low- income students, and 9,000 teachers and staff jobs. Those are the people that we want to encourage to go into STEM. Those are the very same students that have a 1 in 7 chance of having a qualified teacher

teach them mathematics or science in their schools. So the very population that you're trying to encourage will have less of a chance because of sequestration.

Over $600 million cuts for students with disabilities, eliminating some 7,800 teacher and staff jobs with respect to those students.

For those students who are trying to acquire the English language so they can participate in STEM careers and STEM academics, nearly 210,000 children and 450 teachers would be eliminated by the sequestration. And the same goes with community learning centers, where it's an opportunity to expose these students, after school and in additional time, to these careers, to these opportunities, to the applications and to the Web sites that are available to them that they can't use during class time.

But, finally, there is even a more direct harm that will be done by sequestration, and that is that the National Science Foundation would issue nearly 1,000 fewer research grants and awards, impacting an estimated 12,000 scientists and students and curtailing critical scientific research. That's the scientific research that builds this Nation.

And for that reason, I ask unanimous consent that the House now take up H.R. 699, a balanced approach introduced by Mr. Van Hollen, to replace the sequestration and save jobs and avoid these cuts in education that are so desperately needed.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, does that mean that we will not be taking up sequestration between now and Friday so that we can get rid of the sequestration with a balanced plan?

Mr. Speaker, I read with interest Majority Leader Cantor's speech last week on the majority's latest relaunch of the House GOP's attempt to identify with the middle class.

Leader Cantor said that the House will pursue an agenda of health, happiness, and prosperity for more Americans and their families. He went on to identify a very important problem for millions of Americans: how to balance work and family.

Unfortunately, that was the end of the relaunch. Because to address this problem, the majority leader proposed an old scheme that actually takes away workers' rights to overtime pay in exchange for employer- controlled comp time. This scheme has been bouncing around the Big Business wish list for decades. It's a twofer for Big Business: workers get less predictable schedules, and they earn less pay.

Leader Cantor's prescription for what ails working families is to administer more poison. It's to give a working parent less control over her life and less money in her pocket. This plan does not give workers flexibility. This plan is about giving corporations another way to pay workers less.

That's how you help working families? I don't think so.

If the Republican majority party wants to seriously talk about healthy, prosperous, and happy American families, then they should help to create real opportunities to help families to be healthy, prosperous, and happy.

Here's one serious way to help working families: give workers real flexibility on the job and the ability to take advantage of paid time off.

Last week was the 20th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Back in 1993, this law was a big step forward for America. It guarantees workers job-protected leave when they need time off for family or health reasons, for a newborn child, to take care of a sick child or spouse. It's been used more than 100 million times over the last 20 years. Workers got to take off time to care for a newborn or sick spouse or to get an operation without fear of losing their job.

With the Family and Medical Leave Act, our country made it a priority to give workers the ability to balance the demands of work and family. It made the healthy development of babies, healthy families, and healthy workplaces a priority. It was a remarkable accomplishment at the time, but it was intended to be a first step, not the last.

Today, only half of all workers can take advantage of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The rest are ineligible because of their part-time status or who their employer is. Half of all workers don't have job protections to take time off to welcome a new baby to the family. They can't take time off to help an elderly parent without fear of losing their job.

Here's another serious idea to help working families: Extend the family and medical leave protection to all workers. And furthermore, let's guarantee paid leave under the law. The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act only guarantees unpaid job-protected leave. Too many families simply cannot afford to miss a day or two of work. That's why Congress should finally deliver on the paid leave that our Nation's workers deserve.

I recently heard from Matari Jones from San Antonio, Texas. While she said that the family and medical leave was a godsend when her children were born, taking unpaid time off to care for her newborns to heal from a complicated delivery was a significant financial struggle. Unfortunately, Matari was not alone. A working woman--or any worker, for that matter--shouldn't have to choose between family members they love or the paycheck they need.

California, the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Washington State, and New Jersey have taken steps for paid family and medical leave and sick leave. The policy is good for families, and it is good for business.

The least-paid workers in our society are also least likely to be able to afford a day off when they are sick. Many of those workers are behind the lunch counter or taking care of our older family members.

If Leader Cantor and this House are truly serious about helping working families, then let's deliver on the full promise of workplace leave policies that properly value our Nation's families. Extend family and medical leave benefits to all workers, and look for ways to guarantee workers' access to paid family and medical leave and to sick leave.

There are other steps Congress should take to ensure that workers can share the prosperity that they're helping to create. Let's make sure that women are paid based upon their worth by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act. Let's raise the minimum wage that will boost the economy by putting money into the pockets of millions of working people.

So I would say to my friend from Virginia, the majority leader, if he is serious about helping working families, then join with us and let's enact policies that put these families first in both the workplace and in their homes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jacqueline Douglas upon her induction into the California Outdoors Hall of Fame. This is a terrific and well-deserved honor for a mainstay of the California sport fishing community

Jacky, known affectionately as ``Wacky Jacky,'' is a San Francisco native and the only female fishing charter boat skipper in the Bay Area. She is a legendary voice within San Francisco's sport fishing community, respected by fisherman of both Golden Gate and Pacific Coast Salmon fisheries, and one of the Bay Area's most passionate voices for protecting salmon and their habitat. She is a fervent fighter for conservation and water issues, as well as a tremendous advocate for salmon, wildlife, and the California coast.

Jacky has also been a great help to the members of the Bay Area congressional delegation in our efforts to achieve a water policy in California that will sustain all of our state's interests, including the important fisheries that yield so many jobs for people up and down the west coast.

Wacky Jacky was confirmed by a record 40 of 41 votes from peers, the highest vote tally of any member to gain entry into the California Outdoors Hall of Fame. She was nominated due to the fact that she has inspired thousands of Californians to take part in the great outdoors and conservation. She was also previously inducted at the International Sportsmen's Exposition at Sacramento's Cal Expo and honored by the Bay Institute for her dedicated advocacy. And in further recognition of her many accomplishments, Jacky was also inducted into her high school's Abraham Lincoln High School Wall of Fame in May 2002.

With 29 years of fishing experience, she is still taking people from all over the world fishing out the Golden Gate. At 84, she is a hero among her fellow fishing captains, and is one of the most popular party boat captains in America. She was the first and remains the only woman to own and skipper her own commercial boat in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Douglas passed her Coast Guard examination in 1972, purchased her first party boat and has mastered boating, safety and fishing ever since. She started fishing on San Francisco area boats in 1955, and became a deckhand in 1970, after which she skippered a private boat and fished commercially for several years. She became the skipper of the Wacky Jacky in 1973, unheard of for a woman at the time.

Jacky is well known for taking good care of her customers, and says the most important thing is, ``to have my customers leave with a smile on their face.'' In the meantime, Jacky, continually improves her sailing skills, has now earned her master mariner's license which permits her to skipper boats up to 100 tons. Over her career, she has taken an estimated 150,000 people out to fish.

Her unique position on the bay has made Jacky a part of what makes San Francisco such an incredible place. She has inspired numerous newspaper articles as well as television spots on CNN and National Geographic. During her career, Jacky has won a number of awards, including honors from the Commonwealth Club and the Golden Gate Fisherman's Association. Her work with newspapers, radio show hosts and TV broadcasts has made it easier for Californians to connect to the world of the outdoors. She was married to George Douglas and has four daughters.

I invite our colleagues to join me in congratulating Jacqueline Douglas, a woman beloved by all that meet her, for her lifelong efforts in fishing and conservation and her dedication to educating others about the outdoors.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, at the end of the day when we vote today, we will simply be voting to kick the can down the road--which every Member of this House has told their constituents they no longer wanted to do--but we will kick the can down the road on the question of the debt limit of the United States and whether or not the full faith and credit of the United States will stand behind the bills that we owe the rest of the world, the businesses and our companies, individuals, people's retirement plans. That's all this bill does. Under some sort of camouflage about withholding pay, what have you, they kick the can down the road.

You know, Americans are starting to realize that the economy is starting to recover after the devastation of the housing scandals, of the Wall Street scandals. Small businesses are starting to hire; spending over Christmas was reasonably good; the stock market is at a 5-year high; the housing market is coming back; builders are in fact building new homes because of the demand in housing.

All of a sudden, enter the Congress of the United States and it says that we're going to put the full faith and credit of the United States of America on a 90-day leash. We're going to take the greatest economy in the greatest country with the greatest responsibility in the world and we're going to put them on a 90-day leash.

How does a great country respond on a 90-day leash? We know how it responded last time the world saw this happen. We got downgraded in the credit rating. That drove up the borrowing cost of the United States. That drove up the borrowing cost of corporations. That drove up the borrowing cost of counties and cities--the counties and the cities that we represent. And we're told again that should we falter on the credit debt of the United States, that we can expect a downgrade and we can expect a further downgrade in cities and counties all over the country, and somehow we're supposed to believe that this is a good plan.

What this plan does is hold the jobs of America's families and working people all across this country hostage. It holds them hostage to the passage of this legislation, and it holds them hostage 90 days from now.

This bill says if you don't vote for the Ryan budget--because we know the votes are on the other side of the aisle to pass the Ryan budget-- then we go back to putting the credit of the United States at risk. The last time the American people looked at the Ryan budget they rejected it overwhelmingly. Do you remember the election of November, just a couple of months ago? They rejected those cuts in Medicare, those cuts in Medicaid, and the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yet all of this is being put back on the table by holding the debt limit hostage, holding the credit hostage, and holding American jobs hostage. So if you don't vote for that budget, then they get to play with the debt limit again. They get to play with the debt limit again.

We have got big lifts to make between now and then, folks. We have sequestration, we have tax reform, and we have a budget to write. Let's just get down to business and do it. Just do it. Don't play with the credit of this country. Don't play with people's pension plans. Don't play with the interest rates that corporations have to pay to borrow. Don't play with the interest rates that your local municipalities have to pay to borrow for projects in their districts.

This has got to stop. If you really believe that America is a great country, if you really believe that we're an international power, then we ought to start acting like one, and the Congress of the United States ought to start acting like it. And 90-day extensions on the creditworthiness of the United States is not the picture you paint when you're an international power.

It has to stop. It has to stop. We cannot continue to go through this and put all of this at risk and put this recovery that is, in fact, happening at risk because of the actions of the majority here in this House, once again, to fool with the credit.

Do you want to shut down the government? Have at it. I was here when it happened before. You'll find all your constituents up close and personal. You'll get to know them. That's a lot different. That's a lot different action. You want to go off with sequestration? You don't like the cuts that come up with its substitute? Fine. We voted for sequestration. You told the American people with your votes you were prepared to have sequestration if we didn't do the job. So you've got a lot of tough votes to make. Don't try to avoid them by holding the creditworthiness of the United States at risk.

It has got to stop, and it should stop today on the floor of the House of Representatives. We should say to the world that we are prepared to have this country pay the bills. The deficits have been incurred by our actions. It has got to stop today with a ``no'' vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the career of Doug Christopher who is retiring this month as Business Manager and Secretary-Treasurer of District Council 16 of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) after 28 years of dedicated service to its members.

Doug has lived and worked in the San Francisco Bay Area and has made great contributions to the strength of our middle class and the Bay Area economy. He has many achievements to be proud of and deserves our commendation and public recognition for his service and his leadership in his union and in his community.

Doug was elected as an Executive Board Member At-Large to the Glaziers Local 1621 in 1984. With his election to President in 1985, he established the union's Defense Fund. Doug Christopher served the members of Local 1621 from 1997 to 1999 in various capacities and provided expert advice and leadership in advancing and defending the rights of working men and women.

Highly regarded in the labor community for his expertise and longstanding record of accomplishments, Doug was elected as Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer for District Council 16 in 2007.

It is appropriate at this time to commend Doug Christopher on his outstanding record of union and civic leadership and extend our sincere best wishes for a rewarding and gratifying retirement.

America is strongest when its middle class and working men and women are strong, and Doug has every right to be proud of the work he has done to make our country strong.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise to engage the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, in a colloquy.

As the chairman knows, Superstorm Sandy displaced thousands of children from their homes, leaving them homeless and struggling to regain stability in their lives. Many of these children were forced to move out of their school districts, while others could not return to their schools because of storm-related damage. These children face the prospect of educational disruption, compounding the upheaval and trauma

they've already experienced. Fortunately, under the current law, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, homeless students, including those displaced by disasters, are entitled to important educational protections and services, including transportation to stay in the same school.

Public schools in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are working tirelessly to support uninterrupted education of displaced children through the McKinney-Vento program, yet these schools face significant unexpected costs associated with the increased number of homeless students. Congress has appropriated supplemental funds, to help defer the costs associated with these increases, from past disasters.

Mr. Chairman, if I might, given that the bill before us today does not contain direct funding for McKinney-Vento, is it your understanding and intention that the Department of Health and Human Services and that the Department of Education work with the States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut to assist the school districts affected by Superstorm Sandy to access funds under the social services block grant to support the education of students displaced by the storm, including transportation, counseling, and supplies?

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman very much. I also want to thank you and the staff of the majority and the minority for helping to work out this solution. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, on January 1, 2013, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 655. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' While I support freezing pay for members of Congress, that was achieved by passage of H.R. 8, and I do not believe that it is appropriate to freeze pay for Federal employees for another year, given the sacrifices that they have already made.