Floor Statements

So it's Friday afternoon at the nursing home, and Debbie and Donna are approached by the boss.

The boss says, I have 5 hours of overtime this weekend. You can either have cash or comp time.

Debbie says, I'll take the cash. I need the money.

Donna says, I'll take the comp time.

Donna gets the overtime.

The next Friday rolls around--the same boss, the same request.

Debbie says, I'll take the cash. I'll take the overtime.

Donna says, No. I'll take the comp time.

Donna gets the overtime.

It doesn't take very long for people to figure out what the right answer is when you're asked for overtime. You might say, Well, Donna is going to be okay because she gets all this comp time.

Donna comes back and says, Next Friday is the pageant at my daughter's school for second grade. I want to take the morning off so I can go to my daughter's pageant.

The boss says, No, that's not convenient for me. No.

Now, I suppose in some theoretical universe Donna could hire a lawyer, sue her boss, and try to get to see her daughter's second grade pageant--not in the world that she lives in and the world we live in. The boss decides when she uses the comp time.

The end of the year comes, and she hasn't used it yet. The boss writes a check to Donna without interest. Donna has made an interest- free loan to her employer. If the employer goes bankrupt in that year, Donna is out of the money altogether.

This is not about flexibility. It's about the conversion of someone's wages and assets. This is an assault on the 40-hour workweek. It is not worthy of this institution. It's wrong for our country. We should vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, we're here this morning because Americans are understandably upset at sitting and waiting at airport gates. But there are other Americans who are sitting and waiting.

There are moms sitting and waiting at home to enroll their children in Head Start; after this bill, they'll still be waiting.

There are pilots in our Air Force and Navy sitting and waiting to fly their training missions. One-third of our planes are grounded. After this bill, they'll still be sitting and they'll still be waiting.

There are senior citizens who need to go to chemotherapy at outpatient clinics around this country, but because of the cutbacks of sequestration, their doctors aren't seeing them. After this bill, they'll still be sitting; they'll still be waiting.

This Congress has done too much sitting and too much waiting when it comes to sequestration. The Senate has passed a budget that ends sequestration. There's an opportunity to sit at a conference, negotiate and pass that budget.

Instead of sitting and waiting, let's start working and negotiating and pass the Senate budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of the sixth grade class of Laurel Springs School. These students took it upon themselves to honor the centennial of their hometown by writing and performing in a historical play last week.

The sixth graders involved with putting on the play to honor the history of their town are Olivia Baldino, Kejsi Bocaj, William Brandley, Elizabeth Brown, Joelle Burns, Craig Caruso,

Alijah Caul, Hannah Crane, Gabrielle Daniels, Joseph DeBlasio, Madison Dempsey, Leya Erdman, John Fox, Samantha Gross, Zachary Knight, Briana Lucha, Rachel Mai, Jarred Matchett, Joshua Matchett, Hannah McLaughlin, Stephen McLaughlin, Matthew Michielli, Riley Molway, Minas Nicoludis, Anthony Nocito, Briana Novoa, Cain Pipitone, Dominic Rattell, Melanie Schmidt, Alexandra Simber, Gian Sinfuego, Taylor Swan, Christopher Thatcher, Daniel Trantas, Sophia Troilo, and William Waer. The director is Mrs. Lucinda Garvey and the scenes were all hand-painted by Mrs. Kristen Laurenzi and Mrs. Pam Laurenzi.

The students from the class also interviewed Mr. Rich Zimmerman, a longtime resident of Laurel Springs. After gathering information about the town, they wrote their play based on Mr. Zimmerman's knowledge. These exceptional students were very excited to celebrate Laurel Spring's history and to sing happy birthday to the town after the play. The class' efforts to commemorate their town exemplify a strong dedication to learning and an outstanding commitment to their community. I urge them to continue to practice civic engagement and academic curiosity as they grow older.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Stephen Strassler, a business owner in New Jersey. His firm, Reviva Labs has been a successful job creator in New Jersey's first district for 40 years.

Reviva Labs has been giving back to the South Jersey community for 40 years by providing health and skin care to men and women from around the world. As part of his commitment to community service, Mr. Strassler has generously donated skin care protection aids to a variety of organizations, including the U.S. military. Mr. Strassler sent Vitamin E sticks to Iraq, so our brave men and women could protect their eyes and lips in the harsh environment.

Mr. Speaker, the commitment to community service of Mr. Stephen Strassler should not go unrecognized. I join all of South Jersey in expressing our profound gratitude and thanks for Mr. Strassler as he prepares to celebrate the 40th anniversary of his outstanding firm, Reviva Labs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the accomplishments of Mr. Tom MacAdams. Throughout his life, Mr. MacAdams has been active in his community, founding a number of organizations in Brooklawn, New Jersey. Mr. MacAdams and his wife Marie have been married for 34 years and they have three children together, Shane, Colin, and Erin. Sadly, Mr. MacAdams has Frontotemporal Dementia, a neurodegenerative speech disorder, and was recently diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

Mr. MacAdams is a paragon of community service and a true leader in his community. To combat drug use, he created the Brooklawn Drug Alliance Committee. Mr. MacAdams also served on the Brooklawn council for 18 years, 16 of them as Municipal Chair. Along with his wife, Mr. MacAdams organized the Brooklawn Christmas Spirit, a group dedicated to providing food toys, and gift cards for families in need.

An avid sports fan, Mr. MacAdams created a number of leagues in his hometown. He founded the Lady Bugs Basketball League, a girl's league which played in his family's backyard for 7 years. Mr. MacAdams also established and coached the Brooklawn Bees basketball team, and founded and organized the Brooklawn Wiffleball Tournament.

Tom MacAdams is a role model for Brooklawn and all of South Jersey. I rise to honor Mr. MacAdams for his outstanding commitment to his community, and all the work he has done to improve Brooklawn, New Jersey. I wish him and his family the best.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the One-hundredth Anniversary of the founding of the Borough of Laurel Springs.

On April 2, 1913, the people of Laurel Springs broke with Clementon Township to form their own community. In the past century, Laurel Springs has been a peaceful place to call home for many, and a relaxing destination for people from near and far. Its idyllic South Jersey location has been appreciated for centuries.

Poet Walt Whitman spent much of his time between 1876 and 1884 in a summer house in what later became the Borough of Laurel Springs. It was there that he wrote portions of his renowned collection Leaves of Grass. Of Laurel Lake, Whitman simply wrote that it was ``the prettiest lake in either America or Europe.'' Whitman's praise revealed this well-kept secret to the world, attracting residents and visitors and helping the community grow and thrive.

Mr. Speaker, this beautiful community has served as a home to generations of New Jerseyans and a home away from home for tourists from around the world. On the centennial of the creation of the borough, the citizens, mayor, and council of Laurel Springs should be congratulated for reaching this milestone. I join all of South Jersey in wishing the people of Laurel Springs another hundred years of happiness and prosperity for their community.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to myself.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a Friday across our country, and there are millions of Americans who are going to work under circumstances that exist because of the union movement and collective bargaining in the history of this country.

If they work the 41st hour, they'll get time-and-a-half for working overtime. Many find themselves protected by good health benefits and good pension benefits that will guarantee their family a good situation while they're working and a safe and secure retirement. The whole concept of the weekend--that for many American workers will begin this afternoon--exists because of the hard-fought gains of collective bargaining.

We wouldn't have a strong America without a strong middle class, and we would not have a strong middle class without collective bargaining. This bill strikes at the heart of collective bargaining by paralyzing the agency that enforces the ground rules of collective bargaining, the National Labor Relations Board.

This is really part 2 of a strategy by the Republican majority in the House and the Republican minority in the other body to paralyze the rights of Americans to organize and bargain collectively.

Act 1 has occurred since President Obama took office. He has made nominations to the National Labor Relations Board, and not one of those nominees has ever received a vote on the floor of the other body. Understand this: the minority in the other body has not voted against these nominees; they just refuse to put the nominees up for a vote.

Today, there are five nominations pending before the other body. If the Senate were to act on those nominations and reject them, the President would presumably make other nominees until he could find people who could clear the process. If the other body were to confirm those nominees, we would not be here having this discussion today because the Board would be functioning.

But a functioning Board is clearly not the objective of the other side here. So then act 2 comes along, and this is act 2. This bill says that the National Labor Relations Board can do effectively nothing. My friend, the chairman, referenced the story of a woman who is seeking back pay because of alleged violations of her rights by her union, and she's unable to proceed with the collection of that remedy because the minority in the other body has refused to confirm or refused to even consider any nominees of the National Labor Relations Board; and should this legislation go through here today, we are guaranteeing that nothing will happen because the Board cannot go to court to enforce one of its orders if the Board cannot act. Under this proposed statute, the Board could not act.

We are here today because a recalcitrant minority in the other body has steadfastly refused to even take a vote on the President's nominees to the National Labor Relations Board. This bill compounds that travesty. This bill creates chaos. It says that decisions of the Board cannot be taken to court to be enforced, which means as a practical matter those decisions will never be enforced. It says that 11 regional directors of the National Labor Relations Board now have their appointments in jeopardy since their appointments were made since January of 2012 when this bill--it says anything following that is invalid.

Employers and employees and unions go to the regional offices of the NLRB to resolve disputes, to prevent strikes, to achieve justice; but this bill paralyzes that effort.

There are some who believe that an America in which the bosses make all the decisions and the rest of us stand up, salute and say, yes, sir, is how the country should function. We do not believe that. We believe in a country where workers can freely organize, speak for themselves, sit at the bargaining table, and stand up for their rights.

The agency entrusted by law to enforce those rights is being paralyzed by this bill, collective bargaining is being paralyzed by this bill, and we should oppose it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, President George W. Bush used the same legal authority to make appointments to the National Labor Relations Board that President Obama used here. There was not a word of challenge from the other side ever in that process.

At this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the leading champion of workers' rights in the House of Representatives, the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, what President George W. Bush did 171 times--the legal authority he relied on 171 times--is the legal authority relied on by President Obama, which is the subject of this discussion this morning.

I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to someone who understands the value of collective bargaining to America's middle class, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

President Obama is relying on the same constitutional provision that President Reagan relied on when he appointed Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, the same constitutional provision he relied upon when he appointed Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), someone who stood up against the assault on collective bargaining and the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House, I'm certain, wants to follow the Constitution. On our side, we think that the Constitution means the same thing whether George W. Bush is President or Barack Obama is President, and that Constitution vests the President with recess power appointments which were never challenged by the other side in the Bush administration.

At this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a long-time fighter on this committee for the rights of the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

With all due respect to the last speaker, this bill doesn't push the pause button. It pushes the erase button. It erases the rights of American workers to bargain collectively and organize.

At this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend and neighbor from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee, and someone who understands that there's a direct connection between economic growth and collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a Member who fought for these kind of rights before she got here as a litigator and has fought for them since.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

My friend talks about playing by the rules. President Obama followed the rules that President Reagan followed, President Bush followed, President Clinton followed, President George W. Bush followed. The other body has the ability to resolve this dispute by taking votes on the five nominees that are presently before the United States Senate.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a consistent voice for America's working families across the country, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the prior speaker's own words indicate the contradiction of his position. He said it is unconstitutional that these recess appointments took place. He then just said that the appeal of this matter is pending before the United States Supreme Court. Marbury v. Madison does not give the D.C. circuit the final say on constitutionality or the Supreme Court that authority.

I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to someone who has made a career here of fighting for the rights of working Americans and collective bargaining, the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds.

I thank my friend, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to someone who has walked in the shoes of those collectively bargaining and organizing, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend and the Speaker that we have no more speakers at this time.

What I would propose, with the Speaker's discretion, is I'd like to speak for about 1 minute. Perhaps if your other speaker arrives, we could accommodate that person. If not, I would then close for our side and then the chairman defending the bill would close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The House deserves an accurate record of where this matter stands legally.

After the Senate refused to cast a vote on any of the President's nominees to the National Labor Relations Board, the President acted through the recess appointments clause that his predecessors have relied on far more often than he has. The D.C. Circuit ruled that those appointments were invalid. The case is presently under consideration under writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which either will or will not hear the appeal.

The majority is advancing a rather novel legal theory that a decision by one circuit court of appeals establishes with finality the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of a provision. This is truly a novel theory. Marbury v. Madison makes it clear: only the United States Supreme Court has finality in these sort of matters. The President acted in good faith under a constitutional provision that others have followed before.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the Speaker and colleagues of both parties for the spirited nature of this debate. At its core, this debate and this bill is about the primacy and value of collective bargaining in our country.

There really are two different points of view on collective bargaining: one is that it's a nuisance; the other is that it's an engine of economic growth.

There are those who believe that the proper organization of our economy is that the bosses decide what happens, everyone else salutes, and that's what happens. This led us to situations where we had children working in sweatshops, people working 80 or 90 or 100 hours a week, and people being forced out and fired for all sorts of invalid and irrational reasons.

In our country's history, we're fortunate that there was a great movement of collective bargaining among the working people of this country. In the 1930s, those who preceded us here enshrined the rights of collective bargaining in various statutes. Since then, for nearly 90 years these statutes have worked to promote fairness, equity, and economic growth in our country.

Collective bargaining works--not just for those in a union, but for all those in the United States of America. This bill is a direct assault on collective bargaining. It is an assault that has seen its manifestation in other parts of the country--against public workers in Wisconsin, against all workers in Ohio.

Collective bargaining is one of the main engines of the development of America's middle class, and America's middle class is clearly the main reason for the development of the strongest economy on the face of the Earth. A vote against this bill is an affirmation of the value of collective bargaining. A vote for this bill is an erosion of that precious right that Americans have always enjoyed and should enjoy.

We have the opportunity to stand up for those who wash the dishes, patrol the streets, build our buildings, teach our children. We have the opportunity to stand up for the right of collective bargaining. I urge both my Republican and Democratic friends to stand up for America's middle class and vote ``no'' on this bill that paralyzes and assaults collective bargaining in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend for yielding.

In the summer of 2011, as the country continued to see rising deficits, Members of the Congress knew that they had to do something about that in connection with the extension of what we call the debt ceiling, which lets the country borrow money to pay its bills.

As a part of that agreement, a large number of people from both parties voted for something that hasn't turned out very well, and it's called sequestration. This is not something that's just a word that gets tossed around in this Chamber and has political consequences; it is having a real and negative impact on the country.

I just came from a hearing of the Armed Services Committee where the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense told us that nine battle groups and three bomber groups of our Air Force and our Navy planes have been grounded. About one-third of the Nation's air capacity isn't flying.

Across the country today, people who are on Medicare who need chemotherapy treatments from their doctors' offices are finding that many doctors are declining to do chemotherapy treatments for cancer patients because of the cuts that take place in sequestration.

I met earlier this week with employees of the Naval Sea Systems engineering command in Philadelphia, whom I represent. They are looking at a 20 percent pay cut because of furloughs. These are real problems that are affecting real people. The House is opting to do nothing about this--nothing.

The economists have told us that these ill-advised sequestration cuts will cost the economy 750,000 jobs this year. Mr. Van Hollen, my friend from Maryland, has a bill, and that bill says that we should save an amount of money equal to what the sequestration is allegedly saving and not have these cuts in cancer care and not have a third of our air power grounded and not have Federal employees take a 20 percent pay cut.

Mr. Van Hollen proposes that we cut subsidies to huge oil companies, that we cut subsidies to huge agribusinesses, and we have people who make more than $1 million a year in income pay a slightly higher tax rate. I understand, ladies and gentlemen of the House, that some would agree with that proposal and others would disagree with that proposal. That's democracy.

We're not even taking a vote on that proposal because the majority Republican leadership has refused to put on this floor any piece of legislation that would stop this harm to the country. I know they'll say it's the President's fault or it's the Senate's fault or it's whoever.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there will be lots of back and forth about whose fault it was that we got into this position. It's everyone's fault. There are people on both sides of the aisle that made a bad judgment on this. I'm one of them. But now we have a responsibility to fix it; and if the majority has an idea as to how we could fix the sequester problem, bring it to the floor.

Since the new Congress took office on January 3 of this year, there has not been one hearing, not one markup, not one bill, not one vote on fixing this problem that threatens the jobs of 750,000 Americans. Rather than this metaphysical legal debate we're about to have about the National Labor Relations Board, why don't we put on the House floor legislation that would create jobs in this country, postpone the sequester, and deal with the problems that we talked about here today. The House is in session, but it's missing in action when it comes to addressing the real problems of the American people.

I support the Van Hollen budget because it recognizes that reducing our deficit is important, and that fiscal restraint, spending cuts, more revenues in a balanced way, is the way to do that. But I also support it because it chooses American economic growth over the European-style austerity.

Prior to 1965, in this country, when you got old and retired, you moved in with your kids and hoped you didn't get sick. And only the very lucky or the very wealthy got to go to college.

In 1965, two things changed. We adopted Medicare that said that retired people had health security, and we adopted the Higher Education Act that said that sons and daughters of truckdrivers and teachers could get a college education.

What happened?

Prior to 1965, on a per capita basis, our economy grew by $323 per person per year. After 1965, our economy grew by $523 per person per year. Investing in Medicare, investing in education yields growth.

The Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantees and will severely raise the cost of going to college for American families. Vote ``yes'' on the Van Hollen plan.

I thank my friend for giving me the time.

It is a vexing problem that at a time of high unemployment we have a lot of jobs unfilled in our country because we don't have sufficient training for our people to fill those jobs. This is not a partisan problem; it's a commonsense problem.

I believe it's a commonsense problem we could have solved if the parties had worked together here, but Mr. Miller, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Tierney, and many others on our side reached out to negotiate a consensus on this bill, and those negotiations never happened. I believe they should happen in the future and will happen in the future to give us a better work product.

Here's what I think is wrong with the bill that's before us today. We absolutely have to do a better job at training our own people to fill the jobs that are vacant in this economy, but if you leave that decision as to how to do that up to State politics and State capitals, I think the evidence is pretty clear that people get left out of that job-training situation.

Let's take a worker who's worked in an oil refinery or a factory and his or her job has been outsourced to another country and at the age of 50 or 55 they have to start all over again. If you

leave the decision up to State politics as to whether or not that worker gets training, I think it's pretty likely that he or she won't get the training because people like that don't have a whole lot of clout in State legislatures as far as I know.

We have teenagers, 17-, 18-, 19-years-old, that dropped out of high school for reasons of having a child or having some criminal problem, and they need to get back on their feet and back into the workforce. They need a youth job-training program. These are people who don't have lobbyists in the State legislature or much political clout at State capitals, and they could be forgotten.

You have women that are the victims of domestic violence who are nearly beaten to death by their husbands or boyfriends, and they need to get back into the workforce so they can be self-supporting and self- sustaining for themselves and their children.

But if you leave it to the State legislature, I'm not sure that those citizens will get the job training that they need because they don't have a whole lot of clout in the State legislatures across our country.

We should be sure that that displaced worker has the funds to get the training for a new job. We should be sure that that teenager who needs to be trained to lift himself or herself up has training for that new job. We should be sure that the person who's a victim of domestic violence has that kind of training that is needed to lift themselves and their families up.

The fundamental division here is whether we guarantee that funds will be available for the people I just described or whether we do not.

The right thing to do is to negotiate those kinds of guarantees into this bill. When we do, I believe that we will go forward with a bill that reforms and improves our job-training system.

Let's not waste any more time. Let's vote ``no,'' but then start the negotiation today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in gratitude to the members of the Phifer Middle School student council, concert band, chorus and cheer squad for their welcoming reception during a recent visit. I enjoyed the cheer performance by Zoe Dillard, Irez Ramirez, and Jeanny Valerio Disla, as well as the assembly of talented young students who sang and performed music, making my visit quite memorable. As these Middle School students continue their education, I hope they choose to cultivate and develop their talents, as they have done at Phifer.

Participants in the assembly included members of the Phifer Middle School student council, made up of Davina Nguyen, Natalya Portobanco, Medina Talebi, Carmen Rosario, Alejandro Rodriguez, Franshayla Matias, Krystian Duong, Monica Van, Nicole Alfino, Michael Zuckerman, Zach DiPietro, Jennifer Luu, Grace Pietzsch, Kaitlyn McGowen, Maresha Morton, Kiara Banchs, Yesarie Rivera, Brianni Lugo, Daisy Anyanwu, Maryann Dwomor, Laura Espaillat, Christina Van, Areli Olarte, Jasmine Magalong, Asia Davis, Michael Nguyen, Yasmeir S, Marcellus Edwards, Alyssa Edelman, Xavier Molina, Kyla Green, Emilie Reustle, Michelle Olivares, Christian Alvarez, DaJone Saunders, Alina Ayala, Selena Carter, Alyza Alix, Alexis Taylor, Angel Davis and Jadae Turlington.

Members of the 7th and 8th grade concert band, accompanied by the 8th grade chorus performed America the Beautiful, the Star Spangled Banner and ``Plaza de Toros'' by Mark Williams. Members of the 8th grade concert band include: Johnny Almonte, Isaac Amato, Daniel Ball, Nicholas Camacho, Michael Camacho, Asia Davis, Toni Deliso, Jude Dizon, Sarah Eisenhower, Kyle Faraghan, Emily Gmyr, Dimitri Hicks, Jose Jimenez, Ryan Lam, Nicolette Markakis, Xavier Martinez, Elijah Medina, Kristina Mitchell, Isaac Munoz, Christian Nicdao, Alexandra Pasamihalis, Talisa Prince, Irez Ramirez, Alison Rosado, Mario Sagliocca, Micheal Sculley, Jake Urena, Vivian Vu, Aaliya Ware and Steven Williams.

Members of the 7th grade concert band include: Carlos Acevedo, Ariana Alameda, Nicole Alfano, Briana Allende, Jonathan Almonte, Tyler Barrett, Karoline Cedano, Nicole Chin, Desiree Colon, Angel Cruz, Megan Flaherty, Joshua Hall, Destiny Hernandez, Jonathan Hernandez, Paige Hickman, Eric Hoang, Kaitlyn McGowan, Jamil Morris, Gabriella Pavel, Jesse Pringle, Deanna Rodriguez, Serenity Sanders, Sydney Slaton, Gina Stone and Irene You.

Members of the 8th grade chorus include: Dezeray Adams, Amanda Alicea, Alina, Ayala, Irisell Baetz, Teyonna Balkman, Michelle Bello, Selena Carter, Flarissa Crawford, Angel Davis, Courtney Dixon, Josh Echeverria, Janiskaliz Espada, Lucas Figueroa, Jurnee Gabri-El, Toni Glatz, Bobbi-Sue Godwin, Michael Hartka, Vivian Hnynh, Elias Horiates, Krystiana Jalosjos, Talia Johnson, Taylor Johnson, Kayli Jones, Alexis Laboy, Kimani Lawson, Tyler Lee, Zephenia Lindsey, Saniyah Mack, James Marchese, Kinaya McEady, Emma Muller, Kiara Munoz, Jessica Ngeth, Areli Olarte, Hannah Pietzsch, Kaitlyn Pratt, Jose Ravelo and Tyiya Richards.

I thank my friend for yielding.

It is, and I think should be, the law in this country if you're able- bodied, you can't get welfare unless you work. That became the law in 1996.

Last year, two Republican Governors approached the administration and said, Before we send people to work full time, what we'd like to do is get them some training. So instead of simply getting a job, a person gets a career so they make some more money and don't wind up back on the welfare rolls because they're in a string of entry-level jobs. And the administration said to those two Republican Governors, Well, we'll let you do that, but only if you can prove that the result of this experiment will be more people are working, not fewer. The only way you can get this waiver is if you can prove that there will be more people moving from welfare to work than under the present system. This makes perfect sense to me.

It's said around here all the time that Washington should not dictate the rules, that one size does not fit all, and

that some of the best ideas come from our State capitals and local officials. If you believe those things, as I do, then you should vote against this bill. Because what this bill says is there will be no waivers, under any circumstances, for any Governor, whether it makes sense in their State or not. Keep this in mind.

Under the administration's policy, you can't get a waiver unless you can prove that more people move from welfare to work than under the present system. This is common sense. It's federalism. It lets the States do what they think is best under the right circumstances. And we should vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. William H. Redd, a retired member of the United States Marine Corps who is receiving a lifetime achievement award for his service in the Montford Point Marines.

Mr. Redd was drafted into the Marine Corps during World War II where he was sent to Camp Montford Point, a segregated training camp in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Upon completion, Private Redd was stationed in Iwo Jima and Sasebo, Japan where he worked in Pacific Theater of Operations with the 66th Supply Platoon. He provided support, guard duty, and engaged in combat. Shortly after the bombing at Pearl Harbor, Corporal Redd was stationed in Hilo, Hawaii.

After four years of enlistment, Corporal Reed was honorably discharged and returned to his wife and children in Camden, New Jersey.

Mr. Reed was one of the nearly 20,000 Montford Point Marines who helped pave the way for African Americans in the United States Armed Forces. On June 27, 2012, Mr. Reed and his fellow Montford Point Marines received the Congressional Medal of Honor for their service.

Mr. Redd will be receiving his Life Time Achievement Award from Each One Teach Consultants at the 10th annual Black History in the Barbershop Program in Camden, NJ. The program is dedicated to preserving the historical contributions that African Americans have made to society.

At least, over time, 750,000 people will lose their jobs as a result of the sequester.

Who are these Americans? They're Federal employees who inspect our food or who inspect toxic waste dumps or who work in the Federal court system or for the FBI. But they're also people in small businesses around the country and big businesses. It's the woman who owns a software company who has a contract with NOAA, the National Weather Service, that gets canceled or cut back. It is the caterer who serves an Air Force base or an Army base or a Coast Guard facility. It is the small businessperson who is a utility contractor on a transportation project to be funded by Federal dollars. These are real people who, over time, will be very badly affected by this.

We have a plan that would save these jobs but continue to reduce the deficit. It's Mr. Van Hollen's plan. That plan says that we should save an equal amount the sequester would save by cutting back on corporate welfare to huge oil companies, by cutting back on corporate welfare for huge agribusinesses that own land and get payments from the Federal taxpayers through the Ag Department, and that anyone who makes more than $2 million a year should have to pay at least 30 percent of their income under the Tax Code and not exploit loopholes and deductions.

Today would be the right day to take a vote on that plan. My friends on the other side would probably oppose the plan. That's obviously within their right. But the House has not yet taken up any proposals to save these 750,000 jobs. That is wrong. You can disagree with our proposal, you can try to amend our proposal, you can try to do better than our proposal, but for the House not to take one vote on saving these 750,000 jobs is wrong.

We will have an opportunity on the previous question vote to remedy that wrong.

A ``no'' vote on the previous question would mean that this body could take an up-or-down vote on whether or not to save these 750,000 jobs while still reducing the deficit in the ways that I just talked about.

Look, the basic job that we have around here is to make decisions and take votes. If you vote with us, that's fine; if you vote against us, that's fine. That's democracy. We should celebrate it. But to fail to take a vote is to avoid that responsibility.

Let's accept our responsibility to turn off this sequester, save those 750,000 jobs and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for his graciousness and fairness in all respects.

I'm not sure anyone has control over the United States Senate. But I am sure of this: last week a proposal very similar to the one that I just talked about that would save those three-quarters of a million jobs got 51 votes on the floor of the United States Senate, a majority. Of course, under their peculiar rules, it required 60 votes to go forward.

So understand this: a majority of the United States Senate, in fact, adopted the plan that I talked about. We should be given the chance to do the same thing.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, my friend reflected on some criticism of the Senate, which I would generally agree with.

I would say this, though: the Senate did something we've not done. They put a Republican plan on the Senate floor to end the sequester and save those 750,000 jobs and a Democratic plan on the floor to save those 750,000 jobs. I think we owe it to our constituents, to our country to do the same thing. This is the opportunity to do that.