Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, Chairman Thornberry, and the members of the committee, as well as the staff, for their efforts in crafting this year's bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act, which affirms our commitment to the dedicated men and women of our military, the infrastructure that enables their efforts, and the research and development required to maintain our technological edge.

I am particularly pleased that H.R. 4310 includes provisions I advocated to prevent the proposed cut in the production of the peerless Virginia-class submarines. These electric boats--which are critical to our national security and built in my district through Quonset/ Davisville by the hardworking men and women that work there--are being built ahead of schedule and under budget. This bill preserves the two- boat-per-year model that has enabled such great efficiencies.

I would also like to note the inclusion of my amendment to accelerate

the deployment of the most promising directed-energy initiatives. Just recently, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments issued a report that clearly showed that many directed energy technologies have matured to the point that ``cultural factors and the lack of resources, not technological maturity'' are the most significant barriers to operational deployment. These technologies have the potential to fundamentally shift how our military operates in the complex environments of the future and enables DOD's objectives of a ``smaller, lighter, more agile, flexible joint force that can conduct a full range of military activities.''

Additionally, this legislation prioritizes and supports the Department's cybersecurity and IT efforts. Cyber has long been a chief focus of mine; and while I'm encouraged that this legislation continues to address this critical issue, much remains to be done. FBI Director Mueller has said that cybersecurity could soon be more of a threat than terrorism, yet our Federal Government still lacks a single point of accountability for cybersecurity, and our critical infrastructure lacks many basic protections.

I am hopeful that the Rules Committee will allow floor consideration of two amendments I offered that would enable a comprehensive approach to cybersecurity across the government and secure the infrastructure on which our military and our Nation depend.

On balance, this is a good bill. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work, as well as the staff.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 250, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is about priorities. The Republican reconciliation bill provides a stark contrast between the measures Democrats know are necessary to get our fiscal house in order--creating jobs and encouraging investments, and those that Republicans covet--tax cuts for special interests and giveaways for millionaires.

It is high time we get serious about our fiscal situation, and I, like most Americans, am prepared to make sacrifices to put us on a sustainable path.

But this reconciliation bill sends our country in the wrong direction--reducing benefits for our children, elderly, and most vulnerable to pay for tax cuts to millionaires and subsidies for oil and gas companies. Under the Republican plan, 22 million families could see their food and nutrition assistance cut, and up to 300,000 children could lose both their health coverage and their school lunch program. Jeopardizing struggling families is not the way to get your country back on track.

I see the importance of these programs to my constituents every day. There are thousands of hard working Rhode Islanders who still can't make ends meet, who need a little help so their kids don't go to bed hungry or sleep in a cold house. The economic downturn has been a trying time for everyone, and all of us have a family member or a friend who has been forced to ask for help at one time or another. yet Republicans are trying to pull away the helping hand the government offers to those who are living on the edge.

At a time when we ought to be investing in our future, the Republican budget offers shortsighted measures that will irreparably shortchange our most critical national investments. With unemployment at 11.1 percent in my home state of Rhode Island, my number one priority is spurring job growth and development. Unfortunately, this Republican budget, which gives away $3 trillion in tax breaks to corporations and the super-wealthy, will do just the opposite.

Democrats are offering a fair and balanced approach that keeps the promises made to our seniors, preserves our social safety net, and maintains investments in our economic security. With key recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin budget commissions as a guide, it addresses both sides of the ledger-- through strategic spending cuts and revenues. There is simply no other way to equitably address our fiscal challenges.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget is not what the American public wants, it is not what Rhode Islanders need, and it is not what our future generations deserve. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit in a balanced way. In contrast, Republicans will bring up a bill this week that breaks our bipartisan agreement, erasing the hard work on both sides to reach compromise. This was the agreement that resulted in us allowing to raise the debt ceiling and put in place the supercommittee that could have reached a more balanced approach to budgeting, with both revenues and budget cuts. But my Republican colleagues rejected increased revenues that were needed.

This wasn't simply a gentleman's agreement that was arrived at that will put in place sequester. This compromise was signed into law as our pledge to each other and to the Nation to work together to solve our most challenging issues.

Republicans are reneging on that agreement. They've decided that cutting the programs which would help heat my constituents' homes, put food on their tables, and send their children to college is the right approach to rebuilding a strong economy. They've decided that denying health coverage to thousands of Americans is better than repealing tax cuts to millionaires. They've decided that going it alone is more important than working with Democrats.

Democrats have a plan to put our fiscal house back in order. It's been 500 days since the GOP took over and we're still waiting for theirs. We can do better, and I urge them to work with us.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to language included in the FY13 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that strips the Justice Department's authority to implement accessibility standards for swimming pools under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was an amendment offered and discussed earlier this evening.

As cochair of the bipartisan Disabilities Caucus and as a person who has lived with a disability for over 30 years, I am very troubled by any attempt to weaken the ADA. However, I am even more surprised to see such language included in an appropriations bill used to fund the Federal Government.

In 2010, the Department of Justice issued regulations requiring that public and commercial pools be made accessible by either a ramp or a fixed pool lift. This rule was intended to break down one of many barriers to recreational activities that people with disabilities face. I understand that some businesses, such as hotels and motels, believe that meeting these requirements would impose an undue cost burden, so I would like to take a moment to dispel some of the misunderstandings that have formed around this issue.

The Justice Department's regulation only requires existing pool facilities to satisfy the accessibility standards if it is ``readily achievable,'' which simply means that it is ``easily accomplished and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.'' This has been the governing legal principle of the ADA since its passage 22 years ago. It ensures that businesses are given the flexibility to determine whether they have the resources to make accessibility improvements rather than requiring a one-size-fits-all approach; and contrary to some misconceptions, individual parties cannot sue to get money damages as a result of noncompliance.

It is also worth pointing out that this is not a last-minute regulation rushed through by any one administration. The United States Access Board first adopted pool access standards in 2002 and incorporated those standards into its ADA Accessibility Guidelines in 2004. This rule applies those same standards to the 2010 regulation at issue, and businesses have had 18 months to prepare and give feedback on this rule. In fact, they were recently granted another 2-month extension to delay implementation until May 21, 2012.

I recognize the challenges facing many small businesses, so I feel it is important that regulations do not impose an undue burden on them. However, if this language to strip the DOJ's authority is approved, a burden will be borne by people with disabilities everywhere--whether they are trying to access commercial pools or public pools like those run at State and local recreation facilities.

Swimming is a recreational activity that provides numerous social, physical, and medically therapeutic benefits; and it has played a crucial role in the rehabilitation, overall health and increased quality of life for millions of people with disabilities, including our injured military servicemembers and disabled veterans who participate in adaptive sports and recreational swimming as a means of fitness, inclusion, and empowerment. Many veterans service organizations and disability rights groups have expressed as much in letters opposing this language, including Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans, VetsFirst, in addition to the National Council on Independent Living, American University Centers on Disabilities, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, which encompasses many additional disability, health and veterans groups.

Mr. Chairman, this language sets a dangerous precedent for civil rights enforcement, and it would mark the first time that Congress has weakened the enforcement of the ADA. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this language in any final bill that is conferred with the Senate. Once you pull that thread, you risk unraveling the protections of the most important civil rights bill for people with disabilities as well as that which binds us all together in a higher calling of equal rights for all.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Association of University

Centers on Disabilities,

Silver Spring, MD, May 7, 2012.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Association of

University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD), I am writing to

urge you to oppose Representative Carter's amendment to the

Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill that would

prevent the Justice Department from using its funds to

enforce the ADA regulations to increase access for people

with disabilities to swimming pools.

On March 15, the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design went

into effect, setting accessibility requirements for built-in

facilities including swimming pools. These standards were

adopted as part of the revised regulations for Title II and

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

(ADA). Unfortunately, the regulations were met with strong

opposition by the hotel industry due to a misunderstanding as

to what they require and the ``readily achievable'' standard

the ADA applies to ensure reasonable enforcement.

The readily achievable standard has been supported and

recognized by the business community since the passage of the

ADA in 1990. The standard, since its inception twenty-two

years ago, provides the Justice Department with flexibility

to determine what is achievable based on a covered entity's

particular circumstances, and to prevent the Department from

applying a rigid one-size-fits-all standard. In the case of

the accessibility regulations for pool lifts, therefore, if

it is too costly or burdensome for a small, family-owned

business to install a fixed pool lift at their facility, the

new regulations do not require that they do so. Furthermore,

pool owners that fail to comply with the regulations are not

subject to large damage awards largely in part to the fact

that individuals cannot obtain money damages against hotels

for violations of ADA's accessibility requirements.

The hotel industry has known about this issue for a decade,

and has participated in every step of the way. They were

given 18 additional months (past the publication of the

finalized rules in September 2010) to prepare before the

standards went into effect. As a result of the forgoing built

in protections in the ADA, this amendment is not needed to

protect small hotel owners.

Additionally, it is crucial to understand, that access to

swimming pools is important for people with disabilities--it

helps them participate in their communities, spend time with

their families and, for many, is a critical means of exercise

and maintaining good health.

If Congress intercedes by passing this amendment, we fear a

dangerous precedent will have been set that could chip away

at other provisions of the ADA. The final rule was the result

of an extensive regulatory process that provided ample

opportunity for participation. Accordingly, AUCD urges you to

protect the ADA by opposing amendments that will take away

the right of the Department to enforce such critical

regulations.

Sincerely,

A. Anthony Antosh,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I was terribly saddened by the recent passing of a Rhode Island resident and a dedicated, 15-year veteran of the Providence Police Department, Sergeant Maxwell Dorley. I join his family, his colleagues and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss.

Though he was always mindful of the dangers of his profession, Sergeant Dorley lived to serve and protect his family and his community. He emigrated from Liberia to the United States as a child. Throughout his life, he regularly gave back to his native country by donating supplies, law enforcement uniforms, and equipment to improve Liberian public safety and wellbeing. As a law enforcement officer and a beloved member of the Rhode Island community, Sergeant Dorley epitomized a dedicated public servant. One of my own staff members was fortunate enough to serve with Sergeant Dorley and has spoken with great admiration and affection of his kind, generous and courageous spirit.

On Thursday, April 19th, Sergeant Dorley died tragically in the line of duty. While responding to a call to assist fellow officers, he tried to avoid a car that had turned in front of him, resulting in his cruiser crashing into a pole. I share the shock and sadness of the Providence Police Department and so many Rhode Islanders with his untimely passing. Sergeant Dorley is survived by his wife, Lou, a daughter, Amanda, and son, Robert. I offer them my deepest condolences at this time of tremendous loss, and I hope they will take great comfort in knowing how fondly Max will be remembered by those whose lives he touched.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today in strong support of the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act offered by my good friend and colleague, the cochair of the Cybersecurity Caucus, Mr. McCaul. The gentleman and I have been at this issue for several years now; and when we first began the effort back in '06 or '07, I think for the most part most people, when we talked about cybersecurity, it was, cyber what? Oh, how things have changed.

I think we certainly, collectively, between him and I and many others, have raised the awareness of this issue, its importance, and the challenges that we face in securing our Nation in cyberspace, and I deeply am grateful for his efforts.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of the cyberdomain to our national security, our infrastructure, and our economic competitiveness. Clearly, we all recognize how much we use the Internet every day in our daily lives, whether it's for commerce or communication, social networking, or national security issues. It really has become a part of our daily lives. But in securing the cyberdomain, we also face immense challenges.

Cyberthreats are clearly growing more numerous, sophisticated, and successful. We all know of someone who perhaps has had their bank accounts hacked and had money stolen or their identity stolen or their credit card number or Social Security number stolen because of a cyberattack on a company or government institution. We also have heard of numerous attacks, and we see them daily in the area of cyber- espionage, and the gentleman from Texas did a great job in outlining some of the specific challenges.

The F 35 is one case in particular that comes to mind. There are billions of dollars in R&D that is stolen on a daily or weekly basis by our adversaries; and, of course, we have heard and have documented numerous issues of cyberattacks. Thankfully, nothing major yet in this country. But as General Alexander, the Director of the NSA, has outlined, these days perhaps would come and we need to do all we can to avoid them.

Well-intentioned technological changes that create great efficiencies through automation and advanced management techniques, of course, can leave us even more vulnerable to cyber-exploitation.

Clearly, these efficiencies that have been brought through automation have helped us to be much more efficient; but as the test from Idaho National Labs, which showed how easy it would be to conduct a ``skater attack'' that penetrated systems that are government safety systems. Pumps and valves and generators could easily be penetrated and cause that generator to blow itself up. So these things can happen, and we need to do all we can to avoid them. Make sure that that day never comes.

Now, obviously, we have to tap into our creative and innovative spirit to address today's challenges and position ourselves to be agile in the face of tomorrow's threats.

I'm pleased that this bill helps us to make this need a reality by strengthening the coordination and cooperation among the various cyber- research and development efforts across the Federal Government.

The fruits of that research will be critical to our Nation's future defense and the cyberdomain.

Additionally, I'm pleased to highlight that this bill enhances programs that increase the size and skills of our Nation's cybersecurity workforce. Now, we have obviously a critical shortage of qualified cyber-experts, and we need to address that need. The director of the CIA's Clandestine Information Technology Office estimates that we only have about a thousand people that can operate in the country at world-class levels in cyberspace, and what he says is we need somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people.

We all heard about the skills gap that we face in this country where, in particular, high-tech companies are having a real difficult time finding qualified workers to fill those jobs of the 21st century. We need to do better in closing our skills gap.

To this end, last year the National Defense Authorization Act commissioned a study that the Pentagon had to conduct to determine its cyberworkforce needs and give them a better situation awareness about who they have with those capabilities and what their needs will be both now and in the future. It was a successful study, and the Pentagon is putting that plan and that information into action to close that gap.

And at the high school level in Rhode Island and in several of the other States, we, working with the Sands Institute, created the cyberchallenge. We need to focus on our young people and get them focused on a potential career in cybersecurity, and that program has been incredibly successful.

So in closing that gap and developing a cyberworkforce, this legislation is an important step in that effort. So I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue, and I'm

pleased to support this bipartisan legislation.

I'd like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding, and for his outstanding leadership on this issue and so many other issues in education.

Mr. Speaker, we obviously absolutely cannot allow the interest rate on student loans to more than double. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4628.

While Congress must prevent the Stafford loan interest rate from doubling to 6.8 percent, it is unconscionable that the Republican leadership is forcing us to choose between education and health care. Too many students face unnecessary barriers to pursuing a college degree, and it is our responsibility to empower them by investing in their education and health.

Republicans are putting us in the untenable position of paying for this measure by gutting the prevention and public health fund, the sole purpose of which is to reduce chronic conditions that are driving up the cost of health care in the first place.

Now, instead of sacrificing our public health to score political points, we need to work together to ensure our students can pursue their dreams without the burdens of unnecessary costs and debt.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 3523, and I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for a bipartisan and inclusive process on an extremely difficult and technical issue. While I don't believe this legislation is perfect, and much work remains to be done, CISPA represents an important good-faith effort to come together as a necessary first step towards better cybersecurity for our Nation.

I have long worked on this issue for many years to raise awareness and to secure our Nation against the threats that we face in cyberspace. Quite frankly, we are running out of time. I believe it's important that we act now to begin our legislative response to this critical issue.

We all know how dependent we are on the Internet and how we use it so much in our daily lives, but the Internet was never built with security in mind. What's happening is our adversaries are using the vulnerabilities against us.

I've also been very clear that we need to have robust privacy protections that must be included to safeguard personal information and also defend civil liberties in any cybersecurity response that we do enact. I'm pleased to say this legislation has been strengthened in that regard, and I believe more can be done as we continue this important debate.

That being said, the efficient sharing of cyberthreat information envisioned by this legislation is vital to combating advanced cyberthreats and stemming the massive ongoing theft of identities, intellectual property, and sensitive security information.

This legislation clearly and simply will allow the government to provide classified information threat signatures to the private sector and also allow the private sector to share with us the cybersecurity attacks that they are experiencing, sharing that with the government so we have better situational awareness. If you look at this, it basically gives us radar, if you will, in cyberspace, sharing information back and forth on cyberthreats that are facing the country.

This bill is a good step, but it's only a first step. Voluntary information-sharing is helpful and it's needed, but it does not, on its own, constitute strong cybersecurity.

I thank the gentleman for the additional time.

I have long maintained that we must also move forward on legislation that establishes minimum standards for the cybersystems that govern our critical infrastructure, particularly the electric grid and our water systems.

With that, I again want to thank Chairman Rogers and Mr. Ruppersberger for their outstanding efforts, and I ask my colleagues to support this important cybersecurity information-sharing legislation.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill that we are considering today creates a voluntary information-sharing network, which could provide owners and operators of critical infrastructure with valuable threat information that would help them to secure their networks from cyberattacks.

Unfortunately, the legislation specifies that it applies only to ``private sector entities and utilities.'' While ``utilities'' is defined extremely broadly in the legislation as any entity that provides ``essential services,'' including telecommunications and transportation providers, there remains the possibility that the definition may exclude pieces of our critical infrastructure that have significant cybervulnerabilities.

My amendment, which I am offering with my good friend Mr. Lungren from California, strikes the uses of the word ``utilities'' and replaces it in each instance with the phrase ``critical infrastructure owners and operators.'' This is a commonsense way to avoid potential confusion and to eliminate any possibility that critical entities could be denied the opportunity to opt into this voluntary information- sharing framework and thereby share and receive the valuable classified threat information that will be available under CISPA.

This amendment will not significantly expand the scope of the legislation, but instead will help prevent interpretations of language that could be contrary to the committee's intent, which I believe is the same as mine.

Now, while I recognize that any regulation of critical infrastructure would be outside the Intelligence Committee's jurisdiction, I nonetheless want to take this opportunity to voice my strong conviction that our efforts must not stop with the legislation that we are considering this week.

Just as the airline industry must follow Federal Aviation Administration safety standards, the companies that own and operate the infrastructure on which the public most relies should be accountable for protecting their consumers when confronted with a significant risk. I, along with many Members on both sides of the aisle and experts within and outside of government, have come to the same basic conclusion: the status quo of voluntary action will not result in strong cyberprotections for our most valuable and vulnerable industries. The Secretary of Homeland Security emphasized last week that our critical infrastructure control systems, which are mainly in private hands, must come up to a certain baseline level in cybersecurity standards.

With increased public awareness helping to build momentum for legislative action, we have a real chance to address these threats. I hope that we will not look back on this moment years from now, regretting a missed opportunity after the damage has been done. While the amendment we are offering today will not by itself provide the protections that Mr. Lungren and I ultimately believe are necessary for our critical infrastructure, it is a useful first step, and I am thankful to Mr. Lungren for joining me in this effort.

With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his thoughts. I respectfully disagree. The word ``utilities'' is important, but I believe ``critical infrastructure,'' out of an abundance of caution, is a better term than ``utilities''.

How much time do I have, Madam Chair?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman on the Department of Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Again, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his thoughts. I want to be very clear that this term substituting ``critical infrastructure'' for ``utilities'' does not lend to regulating critical infrastructure. It just allows for the broadest possible definition of information-sharing among those entities that are deemed to be critical infrastructure.

With that, I thank Chairman Lungren for his support of this bipartisan amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague and friend, the chairman of the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Issa.

I'd first like to thank the chairman for his hard work. His efforts to update the Federal Information Security Management Act have been commendably inclusive and bipartisan, and I want to thank him and his staff, as well as Mr. Cummings and Mr. Connolly and their staff, for all the outreach and good faith negotiation that's occurred during the crafting of this legislation.

There can be no question that the FISMA reform language before the House today is both sorely needed and long overdue. To this end, together with my good friend and our former colleague, Ms. Watson, I introduced an amendment that passed the House overwhelmingly last Congress during consideration of the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act.

That amendment, which was, unfortunately, stripped out during conference with the Senate, would have made important updates to FISMA, in addition to establishing a National Office for Cyberspace in the Executive Office of the President.

Such an office has been recommended by the Obama administration's 60 Day Cyberspace Policy Review, public-private sector working groups such as the CSIS Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency, which I cochaired with my good friend, Mr. McCaul, and the GAO, as a response to security deficiencies throughout the Federal Government.

While I applaud my friend for delivering on the need for FISMA reform, I'd like to ask the chairman if he gave thought to such organizational changes within the executive branch and, in particular, an organization like a National Office for Cyberspace during the drafting of this legislation.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that. In that spirit, I'd like to encourage the gentleman to continue in this open and bipartisan fashion. I'd like to ask if you would be interested in working together on such subsequent legislation, along with Mr. Cummings and Mr. Connolly, who have been so involved and thoughtful on this issue.

I believe that such legislation should include strong, centralized oversight to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure, including budgetary oversight powers, while remaining accountable to Congress.

I thank the gentleman for that, and I look forward to working with my good friend to ensure that our Federal Government is properly addressing this critically important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor to H.R. 3674.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2341.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Equal Pay Day to highlight the persistent wage gap between women and men. April 17th marks how far into 2012 a woman has to work in order to make what her male counterpart made in 2011. This is a travesty, and a milestone we should not still be forced to mark in the 21st Century.

In the 111th Congress, we passed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which reinforced the ability of women to sue for pay discrimination. This was a crucial victory, but we must continue the fight and finish the job by passing into law H.R. 1519, the Paycheck Fairness Act. As in past Congresses, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill would narrow the wage gap between men and women and strengthen the Equal Pay Act, which makes it unlawful for an employer to pay unequal wages to men and women that have similar jobs within the same establishment.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would allow women to sue for wage discrimination and receive punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages. Currently, women who seek compensation for unequal pay can only recover back pay, or in some cases, double back pay. While this bill would increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for equal work, it also provides incentives such as training programs for employers to eliminate pay disparities and grant programs to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.

Some may argue that these changes are not necessary, but the numbers speak for themselves. Despite greatly increased commitment to the labor force over the past 45 years, women working full time make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man--less than a 20-percent increase since the Equal Pay Act was signed into law in 1963. In Rhode Island, the median pay for a woman working full time, year round is $40,532 per year, while the median yearly pay for a man is $50,567. This means that women are paid 80 cents for every dollar paid to men, amounting to a yearly gap of $10,035 between full-time working men and women in the state.

Even more troublesome, nationally, African-American women earn 66 cents to the dollar and Latina women earn 55 cents to the dollar compared to men. According to a Census Bureau study, male high school graduates earned $13,000 more than female high school graduates in 2006. Women with a bachelor's degree employed year-round earned $53,201, while similarly educated men earned an average of $76,749. This same study also noted that the pay difference between men and women grows wider as they age.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Paycheck Fairness Act to protect the fundamental right of women to earn equal pay for equal work, to support mothers who just want to be treated fairly by their employers while they provide for their children, and to ensure that daughters still in school can reach their full potential when they graduate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that we are facing difficult fiscal challenges and that we absolutely have to get our fiscal house in order. Obviously, that means that we have to make smart budgetary decisions and invest our dollars wisely in those things that will yield the greatest benefit. However, it doesn't mean that we just cut for the sake of cutting.

I rise today in opposition to the Republican budget, which eliminates the Medicare guarantee as we know it. Particularly, it eliminates the Medicare guarantee for my constituents in Rhode Island, our seniors. It also cuts programs that keep my constituents' homes heated, that help families afford college, and that ensure proper access to health care.

I rise in opposition to slashing infrastructure spending that literally prevents our bridges from falling down, as well as gutting investments in education, medical research, and emerging technologies, which provide key areas for job creation.

Finally, I rise in the strongest opposition to cutting these vital programs and economic investments while at the same time maintaining tax breaks for millionaires, Big Oil, and Wall Street.

Mr. Chairman, our budget reflects our values and our priorities, and the Republican budget prioritizes the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else. I urge my colleagues to reject this measure and to support the Democratic alternative, which keeps our promises to our seniors, preserves our social safety net, invests in education for our children, invests in creating a 21st century infrastructure for a 21st century economy, and that asks all Americans to pay their fair share toward reducing our deficit.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the bipartisan, Senate-passed highway transportation reauthorization bill, or MAP 21.

We all know, in this global economy in which we now live, in order to truly be competitive we need to have a 21st century infrastructure to match a 21st century economy, but we're not there. Our Nation right now, of course, is facing a fragile economic recovery. Nowhere is that more apparent than in my home State of Rhode Island, which currently has an unemployment rate of 11 percent.

MAP 21 will help rebuild America's economy on a stronger, more sustainable foundation. It will provide the financing for critical highway and transit projects, and it will support almost 2 million jobs--9,000 of them right in my home State of Rhode Island. The failure to pass a long-term transportation bill could result in additional job losses, threatening our economic recovery and countless families who are barely getting by as it is.

The Senate has done its job. Now it is time for the House to do the same. Let's bring MAP 21 to a vote and move forward on the path to rebuilding our roads, our communities, and our economy.