Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and accomplishments of Micron Technology Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Steve Appleton, who died in an aircraft accident on February 3, 2012.

Mr. Appleton, 51, began his career at Micron Technology in 1983 working the nightshift on the company's chip fabrication line. As was the case with many of Mr. Appleton's pursuits, his work for Micron Technology was tireless and done with a steadfast devotion to the highest levels of performance. Mr. Appleton quickly climbed through the ranks of a highly competitive corporate structure at Micron Technology. He was named chairman, CEO and president at age 34, making him the third youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company at the time.

Under his leadership, Micron Technology grew to over 23,000 employees in 20 countries, producing annual revenues of $8.9 billion. The company employs more than 1,800 Virginians, and the work performed at its Prince William County facility has helped make semiconductors the Commonwealth's largest manufactured export. His efforts earned him the recognition of his industry colleagues. In 2011, Mr. Appleton received the Robert N. Noyce Award, the highest honor bestowed by the Semiconductor Industry Association.

Mr. Appleton is described by friends and family as a fierce competitor who valued personal relationships. For a CEO of a Fortune 500 company who remained on a first name basis with many of his employees, this balance was second nature to Mr. Appleton. In his limited spare time, he became an accomplished pilot and motocross racer. He is survived by his wife and four children.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in extending our condolences to Steve Appleton's friends, family and colleagues at Micron Technology Inc. They have lost an incredibly talented and devoted leader. Mr. Appleton's achievements cannot be overstated. He always strived to be the best.

I thank my colleague.

I support the doc fix in this bill. I support the payroll tax cut extension in this bill. I support the extension of unemployment insurance to so many of our fellow Americans who have suffered in the Great Recession. Sadly, I cannot, however, bring myself to vote for this bill.

I represent the third largest number of Federal employees in the United States. They're asking a simple question: What is the nexus, what is the relationship between their employment and these worthy subjects? And the answer is ``none.''

Three times this week the Republican majority has attempted to get at benefits and pay and compensation of the Federal workforce, and often it's based on misinformation--a bloated workforce. We entered data into a hearing record just the other day that shows that the Obama administration, in absolute terms, has 350,000 fewer Federal workers than those that served during the administration of President H.W. Bush. As a ratio to thousand population in America, it's the lowest since John Kennedy was in the White House in 50 years.

They've already given $90 billion to debt reduction through pay freezes and future pay freezes. And of course there is legislation to whack at their pensions, affecting both current and future employees in the pending transportation legislation that I hope will die of its own weight. It is not fair to ask only one group in America to make a sacrifice. Shared sacrifice should mean shared sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, there's nothing more important to democracy than sunshine. This March among the most historic and momentous cases ever to come before the Supreme Court will be health care.

Many Americans supported health care reform, many opposed it. It was the product of hundreds of hours of debate on this very floor and in committees over many months. While there are a limited number of seats for the public here in the House, thanks to C SPAN millions of Americans had the opportunity to view those proceedings.

Unfortunately, when the case comes before the Supreme Court, just 50 Americans will be able to witness it. Shouldn't transparency require that the average citizen have an opportunity to view those proceedings?

There is an easy and non-intrusive way: allowing cameras in the Supreme Court.

Along with my Republican colleague, Judge Poe, I introduced H.R. 3572, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, to require televising open Supreme Court proceedings. Sunshine remains the best disinfectant against those who might feel that the black robe of life tenure grants an entire branch of government permanent immunity from accountability.

I urge my colleagues to support this thoughtful act.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, oil companies are running a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign to approve the Keystone pipeline, a pipeline the owner itself says the price of oil in middle America to go up, not down.

Here's what the oil company, TransCanada, said in its own application:

Additional producer revenues are possible if the Keystone

pipeline also relieves the oversupply situation in the

Midwest.

It goes on to say:

The market prices of Canadian heavy crudes should rise in

the Midwest.

This gives new meaning to the phrase ``voodoo economics.''

Only in a party bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers would politicians have the audacity to claim that raising oil prices in America will lower gas prices help consumers or improve national security.

Our amendment prevents oil companies from gouging American consumers by requiring that any oil pumped through the Keystone pipeline stay in America which is, ostensibly, the avowed purpose of the pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, for those watching on television and here in the House, I assume my friend from Texas was talking about President George W. Bush. Certainly he was not talking about the current President, Barack Obama.

But I want to talk today about transportation. The residents of my northern Virginia district endure one of the worst commutes in the Nation. Each citizen spends an average of 74 hours stuck in traffic, costing the average commuter nearly $1,500 a year in lost productivity and consumption. They're understandably fed up with congestion and traffic, and they want to see improvements being made. They want to be able to get to work without having to leave in the middle of the night to get there on time. They want to be able to attend their child's school activities or go to a doctor's appointment without having to take half the day off from work.

The unmet needs in northern Virginia alone top $600 million a year. Across the Commonwealth of Virginia, they exceed $100 billion over the next 25 years. My constituents and I are ready for a robust transportation bill that will repair our roads and bridges and expand commuting options, especially transit. Sadly, H.R. 7 is not that bill, and it is laughable for the House Republican majority to claim otherwise. Their plan will cut investment in transportation and in our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, and it will cut, not create, jobs.

In highway funding alone, Virginia will lose $361 million under this proposal compared to current funding. H.R. 7 completely eliminates bus and bus facility funding for the Washington area metro system and the Nation's other metropolitan transit authorities. Just 5 States out of 50 will receive more highway dollars over the next 5 years. All the rest are losers. This bill eliminates all dedicated user funding for transit, prompting even the conservative Chamber of Commerce to

urge Congress to reject this proposal. Nationally, this bill will cut $16 billion and result in the loss of more than half a million jobs, which will serve as an abrupt speed bump for our economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, that's unacceptable. We can and must do better.

Twenty-six business leaders in my community--including the Prince William and Fairfax Chambers of Commerce, realtors, builders, and contractors--recently signed a resolution in which they said: New transportation infrastructure is an investment, not a cost. Failure to invest will result in economic decline.

They are right. They have witnessed firsthand the consequence of not making significant, new, dedicated, and reliable investments in infrastructure. Due to this lack of investment at the State level, Federal revenues are now the single-largest source of transportation funding in my State. That's why $500 million in State dollars are diverted annually from new construction to simple maintenance as more and more roadways deteriorate and along with them our competitiveness in attracting new employers and their families.

But it is not just roads. My community supports a multimodal transportation system that includes bus and van pools, commuter rail, and mass transit. We have the second-highest transit usership in the Nation; yet our success in getting people out of their cars and off the roads is now in jeopardy because of this bill eliminating dedicated funding for transit, breaking a 30-year commitment that we have to supporting multimodal options for commuters all across America. Under this proposal, money that has been dedicated to transit will now go to highways, and a one-time general fund transfer of $40 billion is somehow supposed to make up for it.

To further salt the wounds of my constituents, House Republicans are proposing to pay for that one-time general fund transfer by gutting the retirement benefits of Federal employees. As a result of the 2-year pay freeze, Federal employees have already contributed $60 billion over the next 10 years to deficit reduction, but that is not good enough. This new proposal would pile on by increasing out-of-pocket retirement costs by at least three times while reducing overall benefits by 40 percent. Once again, the House Republican majority is using the dedicated Federal workforce as a punching bag politically and discouraging today's young people from even considering a career in public service.

So let me get this straight. The Republican bill will actually reduce spending on transportation, end the reliable user-fee funding system that has been in place since 1956, shifting the burden onto the backs of Federal employees. That's not progress by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it will just make congestion worse.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and work together on a bipartisan alternative.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Maryland and I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for their bipartisan effort today.

I'm pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I'm listening to the concerns from our friends on both sides of the aisle, especially those on the Appropriations Committee, and I'm not unsympathetic to the constitutional concerns raised about what does this do to the balance of power. I believe our friend from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Budget Committee, very ably just explained how this framework takes cognizance of those concerns and guarantees that while we give the President an opportunity to take another look at the whole bill and make some excisions, it also gives us another crack, an up-or- down on whether we agree or we don't. I believe that we as an institution cannot have it both ways. We can't say that we are obsessed with the national debt, but when a statutory remedy is at hand to try to address it, we say ``no'' because of an argument about prerogatives.

The debt is so large and it isn't, I say to my friend from Illinois, a matter of Democrats or Republicans. No hands are clean when it comes to the national debt. But we have in front of us one more tool to add to PAYGO, to add to the sequestration process, and hopefully other debt-relief measures.

Here is a tool right in front of us, a statutory tool, not a constitutional amendment, that actually can make an efficacious difference. I believe we should do that. I believe it will make a difference, and I believe that it doesn't compromise the balance of power between the executive and the congressional used the way it's designed.

So I'm happy to rise in support of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to think carefully before they vote about whether we say ``yea'' or ``nay'' to this tool in a kit bag.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Expedited Rescission Act, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.

It is no secret that if left unchecked, our federal deficit will cause lasting damage to our economy and to American families. No one action, and no one party caused the fiscal challenges we face, but it will take bipartisan efforts like this bill to put us back on the right path.

Just as you cannot build a house with just a saw, there is no one panacea to correct the debt imbalance. The Expedited Rescission Act, however, is another tool in our toolbox for fixing the Nation's financial problems, and it builds upon our previous actions.

As my colleagues will recall, we re-instituted the Statutory Pay As You Go Act in the last Congress. PAYGO is a simple concept that some here in Washington often forget--if you have a nifty idea, you have to find a way to pay for it first. The original PAYGO was a bipartisan bill enacted under a Democratic Congress and a Republican President in 1990. A Republican Congress and a Democratic President then adhered to it throughout the 1990s, culminating in four straight surpluses starting in FY1998. Unfortunately, PAYGO was allowed to lapse in 2002 until we revived it in 2010.

More recently, we took another critical step in addressing our financial challenges when the bipartisan debt ceiling agreement was enacted into law last August, cutting $2.1 trillion of debt over the next decade. Although a number of my colleagues recently have suggested we retrench on that agreement, it represents the largest debt reduction in our Nation's history. While more must be done, this was a significant step.

Today, Expedited Rescission presents us with another tool we can use. It gives the President and then Congress a second chance to review federal spending proposals and eliminate unneeded expenditures. Encouraging fiscal discipline and creating one more opportunity to cut unnecessary spending will help strengthen our Nation's financial foundation.

The Expedited Rescission Act is a bipartisan effort that will move us closer to reducing the federal debt and building a stronger and sustainable fiscal future, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. James P. Falcone of

Centreville, Virginia, on the occasion of his retirement at the end of February after 38 years of public service with the Internal Revenue Service.

Throughout his tenure with the IRS, Mr. Falcone provided an example of model leadership through his work in both tax administration and later in support operations. He served in various roles such as Director of Facilities and Operations, Director of Real Estate and Facilities Management, IRS Human Capital Officer, and the first acting Chief of Mission Assurance. During his career, Mr. Falcone assisted with many successful initiatives, including the reorganization of the IRS following the passage of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. He also played a role in establishing the Mission Assurance organization following the September 11th terrorist attacks. That effort instituted new safeguards for the tax administration and assured the safety of its employees, facilities, and information systems. In addition, Mr. Falcone assisted in reducing the size of the IRS' real estate portfolio to realize operation efficiencies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing Mr. Falcone for his lifelong service to our constituents. His distinguished career and accomplishments serve as a reminder of the great value of public service to our country, and I congratulate him on his retirement.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Both the Transportation and Infrastructure and the Oversight and Government Reform committees have marked up legislation to save money through the disposal of Federal property. We've identified bipartisan common ground on the subject in the past. I hope we can continue to do so with this bill.

In the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Members and the staff have worked on a bipartisan basis to report legislation expediting the disposal of real Federal property. The bill we reported unanimously included, by voice vote, my amendment to protect the ability of local governments to work with the Federal Government on real property disposal. The amendment before us today includes identical language to protect local planning prerogatives and to ensure that Federal decisions take cognizance of local circumstances. I reiterate, an amendment that had Republican support on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I introduced this amendment because I have direct experience with successful real property disposal in my northern Virginia district. My predecessor, Republican Tom Davis of Virginia, worked with me and my colleagues in local government and with the GSA to sell the former Lorton prison site, which was under Federal control, to Fairfax County, Virginia.

The land transfer saved the Federal Government the cost of maintaining over 330 structures on the property and many historic buildings. In collaboration with the community, we created a new park with cultural and recreational attractions, and the project set off a development boom in the southern part of our community.

In short, this land transfer was a win/win for the Federal Government, for the local government. Both benefited from the sale, and local residents who lacked adequate park land, and a win for the private sector which capitalized on residential and commercial redevelopment opportunities as a result.

Other communities across America ought to also be able to work with the Federal Government on mutually beneficial land disposal processes like those that turned Lorton prison into a vibrant new community in my county.

Mr. Denham and the T&I Committee have judiciously included stipulations that the BRAC-type commission for property disposal include individuals with historic preservation and community development expertise, and I appreciate that. However, these individuals cannot possibly know about the individual local circumstances in communities all across America.

For that expertise, we must return to the conservative principle that local people, not the Federal Government, know the most about their own local circumstances. To that end, my simple amendment would protect the ability of local governments to work with GSA to dispose of real property which would be suitable for park land.

This amendment would not interfere with the author's objective of liquidating high-value Federal buildings, nor would it compromise the BRAC-type commission. It simply would give local governments and local taxpayers a voice in the disposal of property in their back yards, if that property is suitable for park land.

As we learned in Oversight and Government Reform hearings on this topic, my amendment would save the Federal Government money because it would eliminate Federal maintenance expenses; and we know that maintenance costs represent the largest and most achievable cost- savings opportunity in real-property disposal.

In summary, this amendment is based on local success we realized working with Congress, both Tom Davis and Jim Moran, to preserve park land and save money for the Federal Government. Similar language was adopted unanimously in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently when we marked up similar legislation to H.R. 1734. It would protect local governments' and local citizens' roles in the land- disposal process, based on the conservative principle the Federal Government doesn't always know best.

I appreciate the time the T&I Committee staff took to try to work with us on this amendment. I also appreciate the support for this language from Democratic and Republican members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee during our markup, and I urge our colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I heard the eloquent cry for bipartisanship from the gentleman from California just a few minutes ago. Here's an amendment that passed unanimously, without objection on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It, by no means, grants the kind of authority just described to GSA. It is a simple protection for local governments to get in the process.

I regret very much that the fix is in, that we're not going to have bipartisan amendments adopted tonight to this bill, and little wonder then that your bill will have no support on this side of the aisle.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question to allow us to bring up H.R. 3858, which would freeze salaries for Members of Congress for another year through 2013.

I have consistently supported and voted for freezing member salaries, yet I along with 116 other members--in bipartisan fashion--opposed a bill last night that the Republican Leadership mischaracterized as doing just that. In fact, that bill was nothing more than a Trojan Horse to allow House Republicans to once again use federal employees as a punching bag.

My Republican colleagues thought they were being clever by pairing a continued freeze on member pay with a continued freeze on federal employees. As one reporter correctly pointed out, it was nothing more than a cynical, political dare from House Republicans so they could run ``gotcha'' ads against those who opposed it.

Of course, the Republican leadership conveniently ignores the fact that our dedicated federal employees already have had their pay frozen for two years, contributing $60 billion to our deficit reduction efforts.

Just 14 percent of our 2.3 million federal employees live within the National Capital region. The rest provide vital services in communities throughout America every day. They guard our borders, protect the safety of airline travel, fight forest fires, and track down online child predators. So following the cynical approach of House Republicans, one might argue that passage of last night's bill could aid and abet terrorists, cross-border gun runners, and child pornographers, right?

The public holds us responsible for getting our fiscal house in order, and it is appropriate that we continue the pay freeze on member salaries given the current situation. Continuing to go after our civilian workforce not only damages the public service profession, but it also puts at risk those services on which our public relies on a daily basis.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 534 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

3858) to provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a

cost of living adjustment in pay during 2013. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of

order against consideration of the bill are waived. General

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on House

Administration and the chair and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion

except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has

come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next

legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third

daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve

into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of

the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this

resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, yet important, amendment that will in fact deliver the actual transparency the proponents of this bill claim to be providing. My amendment will ensure the dynamic scoring called for in this legislation and will capture the broader economic effects of Federal spending as well as Federal tax cuts.

The way this bill is written, to exclude appropriations bills highlights the political intent of the authors of this bill to only take into account the effective tax cuts. Both spending Federal tax dollars and sending them back have economic consequences; we all know that. And looking at just one side of the ledger is nothing more than political gamesmanship.

Of course, my Republican friends have cleverly baked into the base a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts which CBO already has said will create a drag on the economy in the long term. But I guess we don't want to let the facts or sound economic policy get in our way. That's why my amendment would include the appropriations, will fix that disparity, and provide us a clearer picture of the economic effects of all of our actions.

As my Republican friends seem to have forgotten, the Federal Government has had a long history of partnering with the private sector, and our Nation's universities in support of basic research are a great illustration. These investments spur American innovation and provide measurable, tangible economic benefits.

For example, the Federal Government has invested $12.8 billion in the Human Genome Project since it began in 1988. According to a recent report by the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, the total economic investment of that one project and its return has exceeded $780 billion. In 2010 alone, the field of genomics directly supported 51,000 jobs in this country and another 310,000 indirect jobs. It generated $67 billion in economic activity last year and resulted in $3.7 billion coming into the Federal Treasury. The economic return on that single Federal investment has been significant and bears consideration as my Republican colleagues are trying to retrench on such spending.

While not every appropriation will have a similar positive economic result like the Human Genome Project, the economic effect of each should nonetheless be considered by this Congress as it actually appropriates funds.

My amendment will simply correct that oversight and provide proper balance to the accountability and transparency the authors of the bill say they wish to achieve. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. If Congress is serious about capturing the true impact of all of our actions in the economy, we ought to consider all of them, including spending and appropriations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would inquire of the Chair how much time remains on this side.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that the same logic my friend from Georgia uses that a simple 1-year appropriation may not have much measurable impact on the economy could also apply to tax cuts, short-term tax cuts. I would further point out that his opposition to a simple improvement to this bill, I think, sheds light on the intent of the bill. It exposes what's really going on here: Let's try to find a facile way to guarantee the Bush tax cuts are extended and the tax cutting is even easier on the wealthier who ought to be paying their fair share.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the recipients of the 2011-2012 ``In Hope Freedom Rings Foundation'' Scholarships.

Founded in 2005 by local businesswoman and former teacher Margo Friedman, the In Hope Freedom Rings Foundation (IHFR) provides 2 scholarships, each in the amount of $10,000, to deserving Fairfax County Public Schools seniors. The scholarships are awarded based on academic excellence, financial need, extracurricular activities, and community service. Due to the generosity of its sponsors, IHFR has awarded $130,000 to Fairfax County students in just 6 years.

I extend congratulations to the following recipients of the 2011-2012 In Hope Freedom Rings Foundation Scholarships:

Elizabeth Knippler, Chantilly High School

Hanan Awel, Robert E. Lee High School

Fairfax County often is ranked as one of the best places in the country in which to live, work, and raise a family. Our exceptional public school system is a significant factor in this ranking and the success of public-private partnerships like IHFR between our local business community and our schools serves to enhance and strengthen not only the educational opportunities for our children but also our community as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating the 2011-2012 Scholarship awardees Elizabeth Knippler and Hanan Awel for their accomplishments and in thanking the In Hope Freedom Rings Foundation and their sponsors who have made these grants possible.

Madam Speaker, for those who believe in the Mayan end of days and the prophecy of the end of the world in 2012, the fact that our Republican friends have finally met a tax cut they don't like surely must be a sign of the apocalypse. Republicans fought tooth and nail opposing the middle class tax cut, only relenting at the 11th hour to a 2-month extension. But in the more than 40 days since then, they've ignored almost every attempt to enact a full-year extension. Why?

Perhaps because it's primarily a middle class tax cut, saving 160 million Americans almost an average of $1,000 a year. Perhaps it's because President Obama proposed it, and in an election year, they'd rather defeat the President than, in fact, support initiatives designed to help the American people. Whatever the reason, Republican opposition, once again, threatens to raise taxes on millions of Americans, deny unemployment insurance to 2.3 million Americans, and risk Medicare access for 48 million Americans.

It's long past time the Republicans stopped putting politics over people and instead extend those tax cuts for 160 million fellow citizens without making Americans wait until judgment day.

Madam Speaker, once again the Republican leadership is attacking America's 2.3 million civilian Federal employees. In a brazen act of political opportunism, Speaker Boehner is using the public's well-founded dissatisfaction with Congress to bludgeon public servants. H.R. 3835, which we will vote on under suspension of the rules on Wednesday, will freeze pay for Members of Congress . . . and Federal employees.

Two million of the 2.3 million Federal employees--which is 86%--do NOT live in the Washington, DC metropolitan region. They live in what has been referred to fondly as the ``real America.'' The region with the highest percentage (37 percent) of Federal employees is the South, home of such venerable institutions as the Oak Ridge research lab, Red Stone Arsenal, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The majority of Federal employees work on defense and homeland security. They guard our borders, protect the safety of airline travel, fight forest fires, and track down online child predators. Would it be unreasonable to point out that passage of this bill could aid and abet terrorists, cross- border gun runners, and child pornographers?

We can all anticipate the anonymous PAC-funded television ads that will run against those of us who oppose this ignominious legislation: ``Call and ask why Congressman X voted to raise his own pay.'' The other consequences of this bill, should it pass, are far worse. Freezing pay of a workforce that already receives 26 percent less than the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, will further degrade critical public services and weaken an already fragile economy.

Federal employees' pay has been frozen for the last two years. While private sector pay has grown, Federal pay has stagnated. By denigrating public service and dismantling Federal pay and benefits, we are crippling our ability to recruit and retain the next generation of top tier public servants. The victims of this assault on public employees are our constituents--the public we are supposed to serve--who rely on services provided by Federal employees every day in every American community.

I respectfully request that we maintain whatever shreds of dignity this institution has left and reject H.R. 3835.

Madam Chair, we are not prepared, either as families or as a society, to pay for the long-term care supports and services most of us will need before we die.

Today 10 million Americans require some level of long-term assisted care, and that number is on pace to triple as the Baby Boom generation ages. Annual costs top more than $200 billion, and that doesn't count the time and energy of family caregivers. The growing demand and costs for long term care cannot be ignored, yet that is precisely what this legislation does.

Not only does this legislation repeal the voluntary, self-supporting long-term care insurance program created by the Affordable Care Act, but it also repeals funding for the national clearinghouse of information on long-term care services that helps seniors, their families and caregivers navigate the maze of options.

HHS said it could not implement the CLASS Act as written. It did not say such a program should not be implemented at all. In fact, HHS said that 15 million Americans will require some form of long-term care in 2020, yet fewer than 3 percent will have long-term insurance coverage. It went on to say that allowing that to persist will only increase the burden on taxpayers at a time when we're working to reduce such federal health care costs.

Madam Chair, this is nothing more than an ideologically-driven attempt to undermine the President's signature initiative and score political points at the expense of our seniors. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, so we can pursue a workable solution to this mounting challenge that threatens the safety and security of our seniors and our economy.