Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the valiant services of Captain Emery Burk and thank him, as he retires, for serving Wayne State University and wider Detroit communities for 36 years.

Captain Emery Burk is retiring from the Wayne State University Police Department after 36 years of dedicated service. Born in Detroit, Michigan, Emery Burk attended Hamtramck Public schools and then attended Michigan State University, graduating in 1975 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice. Mr. Burk was hired by the Wayne State University Department of Public Safety on June 21, 1976, and started the Detroit Police Academy the same month. Upon his completion of the Police Academy, Emery was assigned to patrol, often leading his shift in arrest and other related statistics. During his patrol operations, Emery was a Field Training Officer and trained many of the officers who came through the department.

Mr. Burk was the recipient of the Valor Award for heroic service as a patrol officer. At the time, he was only the second officer in the department to receive this high award. As an

officer, in addition to patrol and field training, he was also assigned to the Crime Abatement Team. He led the team to a record number of quality felony arrest and crime prevention efforts.

Captain Burk received promotions to Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain, and currently serves as the Coordinator of Line Operations. In this capacity he has shaped and directed the Department's Comparative Statistic Model of data-driven policing, directed the campus high visibility campaign, and restructured the Field Training Program for all incoming officers.

All the while, he has worked on various university committees, including the Commencement Committee and Major Special Event Coordination Committee. In serving as Coordinator of Line Operations, he also managed the additional duties of Coordination of Auxiliary Functions, handling budget and grant management, and human resource functions.

Captain Burk has received 52 Letters of Appreciation from citizens, two Presidential Award for exceptional service to the University, a Lifesaving Award, 14 Commendations for outstanding police work, a Merit Award for exceptional service to the department, and a Valor Award for Heroic service. I applaud his career and wish him a wonderful retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1911, the so- called ``Smarter Solutions for Students Act''. I propose a more accurate title ``The Making Kindergarteners Pay for Our Mistakes Act of 2013.'' I must confess that every time I hear someone say they support austerity for the children, I am forced to question their understanding of economics. I try not to question their motives, but on a day like today--that is a struggle I am hard pressed to win. This bill does little more than turn the United States government into a payday lender--charging students interest that far outstrips the government's cost of lending. Instead of a fixed interest rate, that will let parents and students know how much their education costs, this bill sets interest at a variable, market rate--plus a nice little premium for the government. I wonder what fury my friends across the aisle would raise if we were to treat banks in a similar manner.

This fall's incoming class of students born in 1994 and 1995 was in kindergarten when Republicans seized control of our country and its surplus, and moved us quickly to deficit and debt. While these children were learning how rewarding it was to read, my colleagues across the aisle learned how remunerative it was to pass unfunded tax cuts and unfunded wars onto those children. While they let wages stagnate--an act which continues to this day--and they cut funding to schools-- another policy which continues to this day--they reaped millions in campaign contributions from the billionaire's whose taxes they cut, the military contractors to whom they brought billions. Now, my friends across the aisle will vote to ensure students who were five when Republicans started running up the debt, will pay down that debt as the price of going to college.

Today a college degree is more necessary than ever, and more expensive than ever. Unlike my friends across the aisle, I remember that my own education was subsidized by the state. Unlike my friends across the aisle, I don't brag about paying for my college education during a time when our Federal and State governments looked out for students and the poor--when education was treated as a public good, and the minimum wage far outstripped its modern equivalent.

The modern Republican party--many of them bragging about their in- state educations when they want to stress how much they understand the common person's experience--have all but officially declared for the for-profit model of education. Cut funding, and cut funding, and cut funding to the school. Push more of the cost onto students. Use those students to profit. I apologize that we cannot politely agree to disagree, but treating our children as a cash cow while proclaiming concern about our children does not pass the test of well-meaning debate. If they want the government out of the educating children business, then say so. But don't treat public education as a chance to pay down the debt. Children born in 1995 aren't the reason for our problems--Republican policies are. Eighteen-year-old kids didn't force them to increase inequality; 18-year-old kids didn't force them to destroy American meritocracy by securing inherited wealth for the child of every billionaire and denying opportunity to low-income children; 18-year-old kids didn't make them destroy the middle class to secure greater wealth for those who line your pockets with contributions.

The promise of the American middle class was created when affordable education made the prospect of a good paying job possible for every child. If they want to destroy it, say so. If they want to take out on our children their own guilt about the haphazard, excessive spending of Republican administrations, say so. If they don't care about our children--at least not those who don't benefit from the millionaire tax cuts they pass at every opportunity--just say so.

I urge my friends across the aisle to look at their own actions, and reassess if they can in good conscience support taking more from children just entering into the adult world. I urge them to drop this bill and begin working on a real solution, one that provides the next generation the same opportunities they were provided.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3, which is quite simply a waste of this chamber's time. Like the 37th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act last week, we are again wasting Americans' time and money doing the bidding of corrupt, private industry--selling jobs that will never materialize, while exposing American land, air, and water to dangerous pollution.

I understand my friends across the aisle have water--or oil--to carry for the energy industry, but this bill is not going to bring the environmentally damaging pipeline they support to fruition. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the decision to approve or reject the Keystone XL pipeline will rest with the president.

Unfortunately for my friends across the aisle, President Barack Obama knows the dangers of not going far enough or fast enough to stop the climate crisis. History will celebrate his decision to lead us toward a clean energy economy that solves climate change and creates long-term, sustainable jobs for Americans. We understand then, that achieving this awesome goal requires that the United States reject the TransCanada Corp.'s proposal to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would cut through the heartland of America.

Returning our economy to stable growth requires Americans to move forward toward the future, not back toward the past. We must put Americans to work building, implementing and maintaining a clean energy infrastructure that

will power the economy of tomorrow. The Keystone pipeline is dirty energy infrastructure, reflecting a generations-old approach to energy and environmental questions.

TransCanada Corp. is a Canadian company that wants the Obama administration to provide it with a permit to build the pipeline, which would run oil from Canadian tar sands all the way through our country to the Texas Gulf Coast. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, tar sands oil is an environmental catastrophe--creating three to five times the global warming pollution of traditional oil.

After refining the oil here in the United States, TransCanada plans to export this oil for sale to other countries, enriching Canadians and oil companies but doing little or nothing to decrease America's dependence on foreign oil. In the meantime we get to store dirty energy waste products like petroleum coke in our neighborhoods while we wait for billionaires like the Koch brothers to ship the global-warming byproduct overseas to China.

Common sense demands that the president reject this pipeline. Most Americans want our country to be investing in energy solutions for the future--not outdated, polluting infrastructure that will do nothing to solve our energy problems.

According to the State Department, the total number of jobs projected to result from Keystone is 3,900 direct temporary construction jobs over a one- to two-year period, but only 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs will remain after those two years of construction.

Those who are making the case for the pipeline--TransCanada, oil lobbyists and special interest advocacy groups funded by the oil lobby--are spreading misinformation about the numbers of jobs that would be created. TransCanada claims that the project will create 9,000 construction jobs and 7,000 manufacturing jobs; meanwhile, their spokesmen and advocates have been quoted in the media suggesting that ``tens of thousands'' or ``over a hundred thousand'' direct and indirect jobs would be created.

This willful misrepresentation about jobs numbers speaks to how little these oil industry leaders, and those who they are funding, actually care about Americans who need jobs. They are selling a jobs pipe dream, so they can build a polluting pipeline.

Consider the struggles of those who have lost their jobs in the recession. Consider the families who cannot pay their bills, who cannot access health care, who cannot send their children to college and who have lost their homes. Then consider how irresponsible it is for oil company lobbyists and their friends to sell this pipeline using inflated job estimates.

According to a national study from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, every dollar put into clean energy creates three times as many jobs as putting that same dollar into fossil fuels. Further, median wages are 13 percent higher in the green energy sector than those in other parts of the economy. Over the past two years, jobs in the solar industry have grown nearly 10 times faster than jobs in the rest of the economy, with only modest investment from federal and state governments. If we were to commit fully to supporting clean energy and putting an end to global warming, then we could create even more jobs. Research from the Brookings Institution has found that job quality is better in the clean energy sector, which is creating medium- and high-credential jobs at twice the rate as the fossil fuel industry.

I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote against this bill, and turn their efforts instead to developing energy solutions for 2050--not 1950. Sludge from tar sands is not going to get America moving again; it will simply mire us in the past. Lets' move forward--and put a plug in Keystone XL once and for all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act, which is simply a plan to default on the full faith and credit of the United States.

Under this measure, the Treasury could not borrow above the federal debt limit for any other purpose than to pay selected holders of our debt, many of whom are outside the United States.

While supposedly prioritizing this debt, all other already-incurred debt would still be paid by general revenues on a cash-flow basis. Forcing Treasury to default on many of our fundamental obligations, such as paying our active-duty troops, paying doctors and hospitals that care for our seniors on Medicare, paying veterans' benefits, and before American small businesses are paid.

Raising the debt ceiling to pay bills already incurred should not be negotiable, and certainly should not be held hostage for cuts to programs that serve everyday Americans.

The pursuit of this bill is not in the best interest of Americans. It rebuts economists who say that debt prioritization is an awful, if not impossible policy, especially in light of the fact that the Treasury makes 80 to 100 million payments per month. The Bipartisan Policy Center and the Council of Inspectors General on Financial Oversight, as well as the Treasury itself, all agree on the conclusion that it would be simply impossible for them to pick and choose which bills are paid and which are not.

By virtually ensuring a state of daily defaults on legal obligations of the federal goverment, this misguided proposal is more likely to create chaos in credit markets than ease investors' fears.

We should not forget the lessons of 2011, when we last neared default over disagreements to raise the debt ceiling. Political brinksmanship with the debt ceiling caused uncertainty on Wall Street, the U.S. government's credit rating was downgraded for the first time in history, and we saw increases in borrowing costs to the tune of $1.3 billion according to a report from the Government Accountability Office, which will add up to $19 billion in unnecessary additional debt over the next decade.

The consequences of a default would be much worse and reverberate across our economy, affecting every American through higher interest rates, investors fleeing the U.S. market and broad economic uncertainty.

This legislation has a very clear purpose--forcing the United States government to default on its obligations during forthcoming debt ceiling negotiations.

America is not a delinquent nation, and we cannot risk becoming one. I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill, H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of National Nurses Week. Nurses form the backbone of our nation's healthcare system. Patients depend upon nurses when they are at their most vulnerable, families entrust the care and comfort of their loved ones to their capable hands, and a happy and healthy nursing workforce means a happy and healthy American people.

This week is an opportunity for us to thank the roughly 3 million registered nurses in the United States, who provide the front-line patient contact that is critical to medical treatment that is effective and efficient--and they do so with a humanity that is refreshing. They provide understanding care to victims of domestic violence, a compassionate touch for family members who have lost a loved one, and the support and strength our wounded veterans need to recover.

As our nation looks towards implementing the Affordable Care Act, nurses will play a leading role in providing cost-effective, high- quality care to millions of new patients. One of the most important things we can do to control costs and improve patient outcomes is encourage and support both current and future members of the nursing profession. The current nursing shortage is a major hurdle that we must confront if we want to lead the world in health care quality and efficiency. By recruiting, training, and retaining the best nursing workforce that we possibly can, our nation will be investing in itself.

The acknowledged relationship between increased nurse staffing levels and decreased patient complications and reduced hospital stay lengths is too important to ignore. Shorter hospital stays means smaller premiums for all Americans. It also means fewer tax dollars being spent. But in more important terms, it means husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters who are around longer, with better quality of life. That is what nurses provide, and it is that for which I rise to say thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1406, the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.'' After reviewing the text, I must confess I am confused about how the Majority came up with the name for this bill. The ``Pay Working Families Less Act of 2013'' certainly does not have the same ring to it--but it would be a fair title for legislation that undermines the rights that workers have struggled for generations to secure. By repealing overtime protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, this legislation offers flexibility for bosses eager to exploit their workforce and roll back pro-family reforms that 21st century families need. In their place, is the illusion of flexibility wherein an employee can take overtime compensation in time rather than pay--but only when the employer decides it is convenient.

However, just giving employers more flexibility is not what this bill is really about--H.R. 1406's ultimate goal is the systematic evisceration of overtime laws and all the benefits

they guarantee. No longer will employers have an incentive to boost employment by hiring enough workers to do the job. No longer will employers be forced to do something as basic as treat employees equally. No longer will employers be forced to pay every employee time- and-a-half for working more than 40 hours a week. Instead, they can shuffle overtime hours to employees who agree to take time rather than compensation.

Of course, this bill purports to protect against such manipulation. H.R. 1406's sponsor has said that the bill addresses these concerns because it bans employers from intimidating, coercing, and threatening workers. However, she also very clearly and very tellingly failed to include protections against discrimination. This lets employers force their employees to compete against one another for who will do the most work for the least amount of compensation.

If my friends across the aisle were serious about being friendly to families, they would find a way to help them without gutting important wage and hour protections that middle class families need to survive. If my friends across the aisle were serious about workers' familial responsibilities, they would support Representative DeLauro's Health Families Act. If they wanted to ensure that an illness did not bankrupt a family, they would help working families save by supporting the Fair Minimum Wage Act. If they cared about working mothers, they would support the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women aren't receiving 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.

Unfortunately, they simply are not serious--at least not about helping working class families find the stability and security that a flexible work environment offers.

I urge my colleagues to provide working families with legislation that provides real workplace flexibility and oppose this flawed and disingenuous bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a one-sentence bill, H.R. 900, that repeals the sequester, and many of my colleagues have already begun talking about it and joining with me on it today.

These cuts are currently diminishing our Nation's education quality, our research output, leaving more with untreated mental illness, more hunger, more homelessness and fewer Federal criminal prosecutions. The sequester means that we'll have 2,100 less food inspectors for examining the safety of our food.

If Congress is unable to craft a bipartisan agreement that takes sequestration off the table, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 900, my one-sentence bill to repeal the sequester.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to begin our discussion with H.R. 1549, which will be up tomorrow, Helping Sick Americans Now Act.

I am not supporting this bill because the bill's proposals are counterintuitive to the anticipated outcome of the Prevention and Public Health Fund. This legislation strips 4 years of funding from the prevention fund to pay for a very short extension of a new enrollment in the preexisting condition insurance plan.

Further, the bill insists on a partisan offset that effectively eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund through 2016 to, instead, reopen the Federal High-Risk Pool Program provided by the Affordable Care Act through the end of the year.

While I support reopening the high-risk pool, I cannot support how this bill goes about creating the funding.

Madam Chair, this week, the House of Representatives is scheduled to take up the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). Among other things, the legislation would authorize open-ended sharing of threat information between certain private companies and the federal government, and grant those companies unlimited legal immunity. I--along with more than 30 civil liberties and privacy groups ranging from the ACLU to the Competitive Enterprise Institute--believe the bill is badly flawed, and will harm the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. While the Intelligence Committee amended CISPA last week, purporting to address privacy-related issues, the changes do not ameliorate the core concerns I have with the bill.

CISPA would create a ``Wild West'' of information-sharing, where any ``certified'' private-sector entity could share information with any federal government agency for various ill-defined purposes. By allowing for the direct sharing of information between the private sector and the National Security Agency, as well as other Defense Department agencies, the legislation hastily casts aside time-tested legal prohibitions against intelligence agencies and the military from operating on U.S. soil. The bill should be amended to prevent this direct sharing with non-civilian agencies.

CISPA would also create duplicative information-sharing processes with no central oversight or accountability. Successive administrations have expended enormous resources building proper information-sharing programs at the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI; these efforts should be enhanced, not clouded by permitting the proliferation of redundant programs across the federal government.

The legislation also removes current legal protections applicable to companies that facilitate and process our private communications and share them with the government and one another. Companies sharing information would be exempt from all privacy statutes and would be relieved of liability for recklessly sharing, or deciding not to share information. Without narrowly defining the information that may be shared, limiting to whom it may be shared and why, and preserving mechanisms to provide accountability for wrongdoing, the privacy of our citizens and confidence in the trustworthiness of our electronic communications networks would be weakened. For example, the bill would not prevent a company sharing cyber threat information from including data not necessary to understanding the threat, such as private emails between family members or personal information such as medical records, in a data dump to the government.

The bill should narrowly define the categories of information that may be shared, such as malicious code or methods of defeating cybersecurity controls, and require that companies sharing the data take reasonable steps to remove information identifying individuals not involved in the threat. It is not enough to require government recipients of the data to remove the private information because it should never be sent to the government in the first place. The bill therefore should be amended to require that companies sharing cyber threat information make reasonable efforts to

remove such personally identifiable information from the data they share with other companies and the government.

The bill's liability protection provisions are also unnecessarily broad and eliminate the ability of aggrieved citizens and companies to protect and secure their privacy, as well as their property and physical well-being. Regardless of whether a company acted recklessly or negligently, the bill would prevent civil or criminal actions for decisions made for cybersecurity purposes ``based on'' cyber threat information. In effect, the legislation removes critical incentives for industry to act reasonably concerning cyber threat information.

Consider a situation in which a telecommunications company through its operations becomes aware of a cyber threat directed toward a utility but fails to notify the critical infrastructure company of the threat, denying the utility the opportunity to engage in defensive measures and resulting in a catastrophic event producing substantial property damage and loss of life. Under the legislation, the telecommunications company characterizing its decision not to notify as one made for a cybersecurity purpose would be able to avoid legal liability. The bill's exemption from liability should therefore be narrowed to exclude protection for such decisions.

The cyber threats our nation faces are serious, and we need to take action. The president's recent executive order directing the enhanced sharing of cyber threat information by the government to industry is a significant step in the right direction. Legislation encouraging information-sharing by the private sector is also required, but it must be carefully crafted and limited to actual threats. The House version of CISPA is not the right solution to this real problem, and it must be fixed before it reaches the president's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1120, the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act. This legislation is anti-worker, anti-management, and rather than creating certainty, it would throw the world of labor relations into complete chaos by shutting down the final arbiter--the National Labor Relation Board. And it would do this all in the name of upholding a single decision that overturns decades of court precedent and executive practice upholding intra-session recess appointments as constitutional.

If H.R. 1120 becomes law, it would put us in a situation where employees and employers

would be denied recourse in the courts--a fundamental guarantee in our society. Final review of decisions would be all but impossible to obtain, effectively nullifying the consequences for unfair labor practices. The National Labor Relations Act, overseen and enforced by the National Labor Relations Board, protects working Americans' rights to form unions, bargain collectively for fair wages, and ensure they work in a safe environment. The National Labor Relations Board also protects employers, who have recourse before the Board in the same way employees do. Eliminating the Board helps only those who wish to violate labor laws without consequence. That is not a constituency this Congress should be representing.

H.R. 1120 does two things. First, it prevents the NLRB from operating, which is in and of itself a reason to oppose it--America's workers depend on a functioning Board. Second, H.R. 1120 legitimizes the obstructionism of the minority in the Senate, which led President Obama to make these recess appointments in the first place. It is responding to hostage taking by giving the hostage-takers everything they want and more. This creates a no-win situation where neither side has any incentive to compromise for the good of our country.

The Framers of the United States Constitution included the recess appointment clause in Article II of the Constitution to ensure that our government could function even if the Senate is unavailable to confirm the President's appointments. It is time that we honor their wisdom. That means that here in the House of Representatives, we vote down this wrongheaded bill; in the Senate, that means getting to work and voting on whether the Presidents' appointees are qualified or not.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation and uphold over a half-a-century of precedent and practice, and ensure our working men and women are not denied justice by way of delay.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 25, the Ryan Republican Budget, and the coarse meanness it embodies. I rise today in defense of those who are the subject of this legislation's contempt. I rise today in support of the New Deal, the Great Society, and the programs that have pulled our people out of poverty and our Nation out of depression--the programs that Mr. Ryan's budget demolishes to pay for tax breaks to the already wealthy.

There is so much wrong with the Chairman's budget I do not know where to start. It attacks the poor, the working, and middle class; it guts programs that protect our seniors, our children, and our environment; it relies upon fuzzy math and budgetary tricks that are not befitting of federal legislation. It is quite simply a perfect distillation of the disdain its authors have for everyone who is not a millionaire.

Mr. Ryan's budget is one of the cruelest that has been introduced in the House of Representatives. It shifts Medicare to a voucher system, which virtually assures that many seniors will be unable to receive the care that they need. It destroys two million jobs with the same wrongheaded austerity measures that have Europe standing on the precipice of economic calamity. It hands a six-figure tax cut to millionaires. But then you see the other side of the Chairman's budget--the fantasist side. That is the side that imagines all those tax cuts will be paid for by eliminating deductions; the side that imagines that those deduction eliminations will not harm the middle class; the side that imagines that after a majority of Americans roundly rejected this ``tax cuts now, tax revenues later'' platform last fall, it is a good time to double down.

Earlier this week my friends across the aisle seemed to admit a hard to swallow fact: they are out of touch with Americans. The report that came out Monday suggested that Republicans need to reach out to a broader segment of society; that they need to court voters outside the insular world of the million dollar a year club. Given that a majority of Americans last fall cast their vote for a Democratic President, a Democratic Senator, and a Democratic Representative--I would tend to agree. But let me offer you some friendly advice about outreach--the answer is not to keep making the same base attacks on the poor we heard last summer and last fall. The answer is not to weaken Medicaid and TANF; the answer is not to weaken Social Security, or turn Medicare into a voucher system; and the answer is not to eviscerate all labor laws--as the Republican Study Committee budget would. The answer is none of the above--the answer is creating a budget that helps more than just the small crescent of the wealthy who make it into rooms where they can hear about how much better they are than 47% of Americans.

If you want answers, take a look at the budgets put out by the Congressional Progressive Caucus' ``Back to Work Budget'' and the Congressional Black Caucus' ``Pro-Growth, Pro-People, Pro-America Budget.'' If you want to show Americans that your party cares for those who are not already millionaires, you need to provide the answers they are asking for. Those answers involve federal investment in the programs critical to having Americans who are prepared in mind, body, and spirit to build a new economy for the next generation. Those answers address concerns about our educational system, our infrastructure, and the critical services that will make sure our children are prepared to lead the world in the 21st Century. Those answers understand that any changes to Social Security need to be made separate from the yearly budget process. Those budgets understand that Social Security is a multi-generational pact--not a ``pay for'' and that it should not be changed to reflect the whims of a particular wing of a particular party.

The answers that the American people are looking for reflect the fundamental proposition they voted for last fall--that those who have benefited the most from our society's bounty are blessed to have the most to give back.

The American people recently spoke to the Budget Committee Chairman, but sometimes I wonder if he was listening.

As much as you may wish that it is the answer to your political problems and the economic issues facing our country, the answer Americans are searching for does not involve continuing to repeal the Affordable Care Act again and again and again--you'll excuse me if I don't say ``again'' for each time my friends across the aisle have voted to repeal the ACA. It would seem a rather pointless exercise and it would take quite a while. While we may be tired of the gimmicks and the pointless political theatre, we are not too tired to defend a century of progress. You cannot exhaust the conviction of Americans that Social Security is a promise to our seniors; that Medicare should not be a voucher; that Medicaid should not be a block grant left to the states; and that children should not be left to fend for themselves. These repeated attempts to do so are wastes of our, and by extension, America's time.

I know sometimes it is tempting for my friends across the aisle to engage in name-calling and class warfare: implying that those who need federal services are lazy, laying about on hammocks. But not everyone is born into a family made wealthy through government infrastructure contracts. Some children are born to parents who simply are not prepared to provide all the skills and knowledge that our modern society requires of students, workers, and citizens. That is where Medicaid and CHIP come in: ensuring that children grow up healthy. That is where food assistance comes in: ensuring that children are not too hungry to learn, too hungry to care about their future. That is where Head Start comes in: ensuring that children receive the early engagement critical to success.

When we consider the Chairman's budget--I want us to think what we would want for our own children if we were rendered unable to help them. I hope you will consider that question. What if it was my child who needed the programs I am cutting to give six-figure tax cuts to everyone who makes more than a million dollars a year? What if it was my child who was struck by a chronic ailment--but they could not get treatment? What if it were my child who needed the support I am now denying to other people's children? No, we would want them to have the services protected and improved in the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budgets. Whether you care to admit it or not, no child who goes to sleep hungry or in pain, is comforted by the thought that millionaires have a few extra hundred thousand dollars in their banks.

So instead of Chairman Ryan's budget, which guts federal assistance to the poor and threatens to plunge us into a deep recession, I encourage all my colleagues to endorse the budgets offered by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. These bills get Americans back to work; they invest in infrastructure improvements and repairs which necessity dictates must happen eventually. They know that the key to addressing our deficit is not cuts, but economic growth, that is why the Congressional Black Caucus adopts my Humphrey-Hawkins legislation, which puts every American who wants a job to work. And they provide trillions in deficit reduction over the next decade, but they do so through cuts and revenues that reflect a balanced approach. For example, they keep the Bush-era tax cuts for those making less than a quarter million dollars a year. And they treat the income of hedge fund billionaires just like they treat the income of a bus driver, something even President Ronald Reagan supported.

I want to praise these budgets for their focus on the future. In the great choice that we face as a Nation, they do not simply abdicate responsibility as H. Con. Res. 25 does. They do not simply shovel money to the wealthiest Americans in ruinous tax breaks that are all but assured to explode the deficit--instead, they invest. They invest in infrastructure across the nation; they invest in our youth, providing increase in Pell Grants and workforce training; they invest in our public servants, the men and women who teach our children, guard our streets, and pull us from burning buildings. And they actually pay for all that with specific proposals rather than accounting gimmicks.

Mr. Chair, let us end the division. Let us end the giveaways to those already lucky enough to make more than a million dollars a year. Let us come together--not just some, but all of us--and pass a budget--one that benefits not just some, but all of us. I urge all my colleagues to vote against H. Con. Res. 25, and for the CBC and CPC alternatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 803, ``The Supporting Knowledge And Investing in Lifelong Skills Act.''

I join with the National Skills Coalition, a national network of business leaders, union affiliates, community colleges, community-based organizations, and public workforce agencies who oppose H.R. 803. This bill eliminates more than thirty-five federal job programs. H.R. 803 gives states too much discretion to decide who would receive jobs services, and what kinds of programs would be offered. I also agree with the National Skills Coalition that consolidation, in and of itself, will not produce reform.

Block granting 35 programs, including those designed to serve adults, youth farmworkers, dislocated workers, and other disadvantaged populations without any independent evaluations of whether or not these programs would benefit from consolidation is bad public policy.

I am particularly concerned that H.R. 803 would have a harmful impact on job and training opportunities for our most vulnerable citizens, including the long-term unemployed, veterans, individuals with disabilities, low-income youth, and adults from underserved communities.

H.R. 803 eliminates the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, and other supported employment programs that benefit people with disabilities.

We must ensure that every veteran who has served our nation with distinction can return home and be able to quickly find a good job at a livable wage. Therefore, we in Congress, in good conscience, should do everything in our power to strengthen funding for WIA programs that help veterans find jobs--not eliminate them.

Clearly, at risk youth and adults lead more productive and law- abiding lives, when they have the dignity and hope that comes with being employed. H.R. 803 also completely eliminates the priority of service delivery for low-income adults and youth. Youth will now have to compete against adults for Workforce Investment Fund funding. This is not the time to eliminate training opportunities for low-income adults and youth, especially during one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression.

I must respectfully ask the following question: what job programs have my friends on the other side of the aisle put forward to create jobs for our nation's veterans, and the millions of Americans who are currently out of work? I have not seen one direct job-creation program being proposed by conservative lawmakers, and I continue to see fierce opposition to any direct job creation programs proposed by President Obama and my other colleagues in the House of Representatives.

H.R. 803 is simply another example of ``you're on your own,'' ``fend- for-yourself'' public policy that is bad for business, bad for the economy, and harmful to the unemployed.

Respectfully, I would request that Congress give serious consideration to legislation that would create millions of ``fast track'' jobs for unemployed veterans, youth, and adults. We can put America back to work now rebuilding our nation's infrastructure, schools, housing, and communities. I therefore urge Congress to pass a comprehensive direct job creation bill now, like the program I have proposed in H.R. 1000, ``The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment And Training Act.''

I urge this body to vote ``no'' on H.R. 803.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 890. I urge members of both parties to oppose this legislation, which in only a few pages demonstrates all that is wrong with Washington--politicians putting partisan concerns ahead of constructive policy. Governors from several states have overcome partisan differences to support the waivers H.R. 890 wishes to eliminate. Let us follow their lead and defeat this legislation together.

H.R. 890 is a simplistic bill. It prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from giving effect to the July 2012 guidance that granted states waivers regarding the design of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs. It also prohibits further experimentation, banning pilot programs or demonstration programs that could potentially revolutionize TANF, making it more effective and less costly. Though these changes seem small, they can mean a world of difference for families in need of the training and educational opportunities that new approaches to TANF could provide.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is one of the most remarkable pieces of work that I have ever seen considered on this floor. Not because it is such a bad piece of policy. Not because of how abominably it misrepresents the current state of federal and state practices. Not even because we are still litigating a claim which was dreamed up by a failed presidential campaign last summer, and which was roundly rejected by the American people.

No, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is remarkable because my friends across the aisle are demanding that we wrest control from the states in favor of a more inflexible and inefficient approach. The claims of federalism invoked by my Republican colleagues in so many of legislative battles I have witnessed over the years are nowhere to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 890 is wrong--and it is wrong for all the wrong reasons.

Despite H.R. 890's claims, the waivers granted to TANF program operators in July 2012 do not weaken TANF's work requirements--they strengthen them. These waivers provide states with the opportunity to determine what works best for them. These waivers allow states to experiment with alternative employment and training programs that reflect the varied problems confronting TANF recipients who wish to join the work force. Successful programs can then be replicated in other states and limited resources can be stretched further to ensure more effort is expended finding jobs instead of complying with red tape.

Despite what H.R. 890 presumes, these waivers won't lead to TANF recipients laying on hammocks, but rather are the key to unlocking the potential of men and women who want their own piece of the American dream. The waivers will allow program officials to provide the training and education necessary for many beneficiaries to join the ever more competitive labor market. Further, they will allow states to tailor their programs to the specific demands of their local economies, and ensure that TANF continues to improve in its mission to see recipients become self-sufficient. This--Mr. Speaker--is what good government looks like. This--Mr. Speaker--is why Republican and Democratic governors across the nation support these waivers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friends across the aisle to put aside partisan concerns for just this moment and vote their conscience on this matter. I want them to ask whether they can in good conscience continue to oppose these commonsense reforms simply because it plays well with the fringes of their party. I want them to consider what it will sound like next time I hear from them that the federal government is too large and should cede more authority to the states. I want them to consider what people will hear when they claim to favor state solutions to national problems. Quite simply I want them to consider their professed principles instead of partisan politics--for if they do, they cannot support H.R. 890.

I urge everyone, Democrat and Republican, to vote ``no'' on H.R. 890. We've litigated this long enough--lets finally put it to rest.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 34th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). Having served in this body during the passage of this historic legislation, I am happy to note the success that the Act has achieved.

When Congress debated the Act, it sought to protect the freedom and integrity of the people of Taiwan at a time when the island's future was uncertain. The TRA's success in helping to provide the climate for Taiwan's remarkable economic growth and its model democracy has proven beyond all doubt the merit of this particular agreement.

Today, Taiwan's people have one of the best health care systems in the world, which I believe we would be well-served to emulate. Its people enjoy a true democracy with all the benefits of a free people. Its economy is the envy of many nations around the world.

The Taiwan Relations Act continues to play an important role in maintaining peace in an important region of the world and I am certain that it will continue to do so for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise my voice against the set of across-the-board cuts--known as ``the sequester''--currently taking effect across the country.

These devastating cuts are unique among American public policies for a simple reason: they were purposefully designed to be a bad idea.

During the debt ceiling standoff of 2011, the ``sequester'' was designed as a default option so revolting to both Democrats and Republicans that it would force the bipartisan ``Super Committee'' to adopt a workable budget plan. While that Committee failed at this objective, the American people have been left to pay the price.

The sequester, if fully implemented, will put more than 2 million jobs at risk--more than half of which are associated with small businesses:

The sequester will also create tremendous uncertainty in financial markets and among consumers, ultimately contributing to an estimated one-half of one percent drag on economic growth this year;

These cuts will also undermine military readiness, educational quality, and research output while leaving us with longer airport security lines, more untreated mental illnesses, more hunger, more homelessness, and fewer federal criminal prosecutions.

It should come as no surprise that, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, Americans oppose the sequester by a more than 2- to-1 margin.

If Congress is unable to craft a bipartisan agreement that takes sequestration off the table, this body has a duty to avert these catastrophic cuts by any means necessary. This is why I introduced the ``Cancel the Sequester Act,'' a one-sentence bill that would repeal the section of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that created these senseless, job-destroying cuts.

Please consider cosponsoring the ``Cancel the Sequester Act,'' so that we can prevent Washington's dysfunction from inflicting further harm on the American people.