Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the CBC Budget Substitute to H. Con. Res. 25 because it provides for serious deficit reduction, job creation, and promotes pragmatic economic growth. In a word: this budget puts America back in the black.

I wish to thank Chairwoman Fudge of the CBC and Congressman Scott of Virginia, a Member of the CBC who helps to drive our budget, and Congresswoman Gwen Moore who sits on the Budget Committee; Members who have taken the lead in steering our job-creating, morally righteous, and deficit-reducing budget to the House Floor.

The Members of this body have some very serious ideological differences that have manifested themselves in the respective budgets that the American people will hear over the course of the next few days. But at the end of the day we have to produce for the American people--and budget means that we must do just that--and do so by addressing both sides of the ledger.

That means tough, bedrock decisions about spending but also about revenue. My colleagues in the CBC have taken on this task in earnest and I believe produced a serious, pragmatic Fiscal Year 2014 budget alternative.

The FY 2014 CBC Budget entitled, ``Pro-Growth, Pro-People, Pro- America,'' contains $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction relative to current law, which would put debt on a downward path after the expiration of short-term stimulus spending. Debt is projected to fall from 78.8 percent of GDP in 2014 to 66.2 percent of GDP in 2023.

We include a lowering of the threshold for the tax cuts extended in the American Taxpayer Relief Act from $450K to $250K, a concept which I strongly supported in 2010, 2011, and 2012; taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, and enacting a financial transactions tax.

The CBC Substitute also cancels the harmful sequestration, enacts a permanent ``doc fix'', and includes $862 billion in jobs measures and long-term investments. Revenue

would rise to 20.5 percent of GDP by 2023 in the CBC's budget, compared to 19.1 percent under current policy. Spending would fall to 22.3 percent of GDP by 2023 under current policy, and would fall to the same level under the CBC's budget though with a great deal of short-term stimulus measures.

The CBC Budget protects and enhances Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, TANF and other vital safety net programs that save millions of families from poverty.

The CBC Budget creates jobs and opportunity via new infrastructure investments, outlined below:

Maintenance and repair for public transit, highways, airports, ports, railroads, bridges and other infrastructure investments. ($230 billion);

Workforce development programs such as the Workforce Investment Act Adult Program, the Dislocated Workers Program, Job Corps and other employment and training services. ($13 billion);

Providing relief to states to preserve teacher, law enforcement and first responder jobs. ($50 billion);

Neighborhood stabilization programs that provide affordable housing development, infrastructure improvements and other community development needs. ($50 billion);

Veterans programs that honor our commitment to help our nation's soldiers after they come back from serving our country. (Increased by $50 billion).

The CBC Budget also calls for significant tax reform measures that would enhance revenues over the next decade by $2.7 trillion. Economic history has demonstrated that you cannot starve the government of revenues. To achieve our revenue goals, the CBC Budget outlines approximately $4.2 trillion in revenue enhancements that Congress could use to achieve this goal, including:

Ending special tax breaks and closing tax loopholes. ($1 trillion over 10 years);

Limiting tax preferences for Corporate Debt. ($1.151 trillion over 10 years);

Enacting the ``Buffet Rule'' and a surcharge for millionaires. ($460 billion over 10 years);

Reduce the ``tax gap'' through better tax enforcement. ($107 billion over 10-years);

Ending the mortgage deduction for vacation homes and yachts. ($10 billion over 10 years);

The CBC Budget addresses health disparities by fully funding the Affordable Care Act and providing strong support of the National Institute of Health. In contrast, the Republican Budget attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, while using the revenues to help achieve balance.

The elephant in the room is entitlement policy. Unlike discretionary spending, mandatory spending grew rapidly from 5 percent of GDP in 1962 to a range of 9 percent to 10.5 percent of GDP from 1975 to 2007, peaking in recession years because of automatic stabilizers. The American people spoke last year and their collective voice clearly said no to haphazard, immoral, and arbitrary cuts to their hard-earned benefits; and the Supreme Court raised its voice when it upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. It is the law of the land.

I am here to say that any type of entitlement reform will not be done on the backs of Seniors in the 18th District of Texas--and I am prepared to ``stand in the gap'' to protect their benefits.

And speaking of Texas, two years ago, my hometown of Houston, Texas was forced to lay off nearly one thousand municipal employees. When these employees are put on the unemployment line, libraries close, schools cut back on essential after-school programs, community centers lose personnel, police hours are trimmed, and the truly destitute become an afterthought.

Those tough budget decisions had a human cost and I hear from my constituents every day about them, and frankly, I don't want tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of jobs for people in Texas.

Nonetheless, I stand here today and declare that the federal budget is a moral document, with meaning, fiber, and a unique texture; and the budget we craft, and what we do here today in the hallowed halls of Congress is really about the American people and the impact that our budget and fiscal policy decisions will have on them.

The Democratic Budget Alternatives stands in clear contrast to the budget that our Republican colleagues have put forward. This budget will reduce the deficit in a balanced and credible way, making difficult choices while providing investments that help create jobs now and build an even stronger economy for the future. But unlike the Republican budget--which ends the Medicare guarantee while providing tax breaks to millionaires--we ask the very wealthy and special interests to share responsibility for reducing the deficit. It is a shared American sacrifice.

This budget demonstrates that we can put our fiscal house in order without blindly slashing investments and breaking our promises to seniors, low-income kids, and individuals with disabilities. We will preserve the Medicare guarantee and work to strengthen it, along with Medicaid, and not ending it. We will provide tax relief for working families, not a tax windfall to millionaires and corporations that is financed by middle-income Americans. And we will protect the promise and opportunity of the American Dream for all, instead of leaving future generations behind.

Mr. Chair, let's roll-up our sleeves and get to work on a pro-growth, pro-people, and pro-American budget.

Mr. Chair, as a proud member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, CPC, I rise in strong support of the CPC's alternative to H. Con. Res. 25. This alternative budget, more appropriately known as the ``Budget for All'' Substitute invests in America, reforms corporate and individual taxes in a balanced manner, and adopts sensible, modern defense spending. Simply put: the CPC is an egalitarian and effective budget for all of America.

The CPC's ``Budget for All'' wisely invests the hard earned peace dividend resulting from the successful end to the war in Iraq and the winding down of the war in Afghanistan to promote economic growth and a healthier and cleaner environment.

In addition, this budget puts Americans back to work, charts a path to responsible deficit reduction, enhances our economic competitiveness, rebuilds the middle class and invests in our future. The CPC budget makes no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits, and asks those who have benefited most from our economy to pay a sensible share. It is only fair.

The CPC budget addresses America's persistently high unemployment levels with more than $2.9 trillion in additional job-creating investments, which frankly will help depressed economies in inner-city communities across America, including those in my hometown of Houston, Texas. This plan utilizes every tool at the government's disposal to get our economy moving again, including:

Direct hire programs that create a School Improvement Corps, a Park Improvement Corps, and a Student Jobs Corps, among others.

Targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing, and cutting-edge technological investments in the private sector.

Widespread domestic investments including an infrastructure bank, a $556 billion surface transportation bill, and approximately $2.1 trillion in widespread domestic investment.

The Budget for All achieves $6.8 trillion in deficit reduction, hits the same debt to GDP ratio as the Republican budget with lower deficits in the last five years; and does so in a responsible way that does not eviscerate vital services Americans want preserved.

These benchmarks are achieved by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit: unsustainable tax policies, the wars overseas, and policies that helped cause the recent recession--rather than irresponsibly putting the middle class's social safety net on the chopping block.

The budget also taxes fairly, because it:

Ends tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans on schedule at year's end.

Extends tax relief for middle class households and the vast majority of Americans.

Creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires.

Eliminates the tax code's preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends.

Abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies.

Eliminates loopholes that allow businesses to dodge their true tax liability.

Calls for the adoption of the ``Buffett Rule''.

Creates a publicly funded federal election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good.

The CPC budget demonstrates that we have been listening to the American people because we responsibly and sensibly end our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving America more secure at home and abroad; and modernizes our military to address 21st century threats and stop contributing to our deficit problems. This is the peace dividend. With this dividend, the CPC budget:

Provides a Making Work Pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food cost's 2013-2015.

Extends Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Child and Dependent Care Credit.

Invests in programs to stave off further foreclosures to keep families in their homes.

Invests in our children's education by increasing Education, Training, and Social Services.

Mr. Chair, the federal budget is a moral document, with meaning, fiber, and a unique texture. Sometimes we lose sight of this fact given the preoccupation by many with, I could wax on and on today on the Floor about the ``baselines,'' ``benchmarks,'' and ``extrapolations and projections of future budget conditions,'' based on the assumptions that may or may not turn out to be accurate.

But real people living, struggling with real problems in the real world are not interested in such esoteric discussion. They want us to focus on their lives and their problems. They want to know that we understand the necessity of making taxes fairer, simpler, and economically reasonable.

Most economists agree, Mr. Speaker, that entitlement policy must be evaluated and progressively modified to achieve sustainability. Unlike discretionary spending, mandatory spending grew rapidly from 5% of GDP in 1962 to a range of 9% to 10.5% of GDP from

1975 to 2007, peaking in recession years because of automatic stabilizers.

Let me be clear: I am unalterably opposed to any entitlement reform that deprives seniors, like the ones that reside in the 18th Congressional District of Texas, of benefits they have labored long and hard to earn. To do otherwise would break a promise to prior generations who faithfully paid into the current system. These are not entitlements; they are earned benefits. And they must not be taken away.

And speaking of Texas; recently my hometown of Houston was forced to lay off nearly one thousand municipal employees. When these employees are put on the unemployment line, libraries close, schools cut back on essential after-school programs, community centers lose personnel, police hours are trimmed, and the truly destitute become an afterthought.

Those tough budget decisions had a human cost and I hear from my constituents every day about them. Frankly, I do not want tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of jobs for working and middle class families in Texas.

The CPC fiscal year 2014 budget alternative stands in clear contrast to the budget that our Republican colleagues have put forward. This budget will reduce the deficit in a balanced and credible way, making difficult choices while providing investments that help create jobs now and build an even stronger economy for the future.

But unlike the Republican budget--which ends the Medicare guarantee while providing enormous tax breaks to millionaires--we ask the very wealthy and special interests to share responsibility for reducing the deficit. We must embark on a truly shared sacrifice.

I ask my colleagues to support the CPC Budget for All Substitute.

Mr. Speaker, in a few weeks, transportation security officers, Customs and Border Protection, and Border Patrol agents with very devastating furloughs and cuts are jeopardizing the national security of this Nation.

Today, we can make a decision by voting on the Van Hollen Democratic substitute and a resounding ``no'' on the Republican budget. The Van Hollen bill gets rid of the sequester. It, in fact, saves 750,000 jobs and creates over 1.5 million jobs. We can do the right thing for America.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we look and do the right thing for gun control, gun regulation, gun violence prevention, and pass legislation such as H.R. 65, that is my Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act, that provides for safety locks and educational grants to train people how to be safe in using their guns and also provides for an age level for young people not being able to possess these guns.

This is a way that America wants us to go. Let us travel a pattern of saving jobs and preventing gun violence intervening in the lives of those who need our protection. That is what this Congress should be doing--providing the pathway for America's success.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 25, the House Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014.'' I oppose this irresponsible budget resolution because it continues the reckless approach to fiscal policy that that the House majority championed for years, with disastrous results.

I oppose the resolution before us because it favors the wealthy over middle class families and those struggling to enter or remain in the middle class. I oppose the resolution because it asks major sacrifices of seniors who can barely make ends meet, and fundamentally alters the social contract in our America by turning Medicaid into a block grant.

I cannot and will not support a resolution that attempts to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, children, the poor, or mortgages the future by failing to make the investments needed to sustain economic growth and opportunity for all Americans.

Mr. Chair, we Democrats have a better way. We understand that we are all in this together and that our current economic situation calls for a balanced approach between increased revenues and responsible reduction in expenditures. Our plan will protect and strengthen our recovering economy, reduce the deficit in a responsible way, while continuing to invest in the things that make our country strong like education, health care, innovation, and clean energy.

Mr. Chair, this Republican budget is bad for America but it is disastrous for the people from my home state of Texas who sent me here to advocate for their interests. Let me highlight a few examples.

1. If the Republican budget resolution were to become the basis of federal fiscal policy, 3,435,336 Texas seniors would be forced out of traditional Medicare and into a voucher program. Under the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it, beginning in 2024 all Texas seniors will receive a voucher instead of guaranteed benefits under traditional Medicare.

2. For the 3,435,336 Texans aged 45-54, the value of their vouchers would be capped at growth levels that are lower than the projected increases in health care costs. Previous analyses showed that this type of plan would cut future spending by $5,900 per senior, forcing them to spend more out of pocket and diminishing their access to quality care.

3. Additionally, private insurance plans will aggressively pursue the healthiest, least expensive enrollees, thereby allowing Medicare-- currently the lifeline for 3,187,332 Texas seniors--to ``wither on the vine.''

4. If the Republican budget resolution were to adopted by Congress, 206,304 Texas seniors would pay more for prescription drugs next year. The Republican plan would reopen the ``donut hole,'' forcing seniors to pay the full cost of their prescription drugs if their yearly drug expenses are more than $2,970 for the year. Seniors reaching the prescription drug ``donut hole'' would pay an average of $828 more in prescription drug costs in 2014 and approximately $13,000 more from now through 2022.

5. Under the Republican budget, 2,445,462 Texas seniors would be forced to pay for preventive health services. By repealing health reform, the Republican plan will require that the 2,445,462 Texas seniors who utilized free preventive services currently covered by Medicare in 2012 will face increased costs in the form of higher deductibles, co-insurance, and copayments for certain services, including even cancer screenings and annual wellness visits.

6. The Republican budget slashes $31.71 billion in nursing home care and other health care services for 754,500 Texas seniors and disabled who currently rely on Medicaid for their long-term care needs.

7. The draconian cuts included in the Republican budget would have a devastating impact on the 1,191 certified nursing homes in Texas that serve 91,717 seniors, with more than half relying on Medicaid as their primary payer. As a result, nursing homes would be forced to slash services, turn away seniors, or close their doors.

Mr. Chair, this budget could have invested in programs that help strengthen the middle class, reduce poverty, and strengthen our economic recovery. Instead, the Republican budget makes deep cuts to the area of the budget helping low-income families put food on the table and make ends meet. These are families who are already struggling with unemployment, lower wages, and just simply trying to make ends meet.

The House Republican budget will push millions more Americans into poverty and put a large number of low-income children, seniors, and people with disabilities at risk. It guts Medicare and Medicaid and calls for massive cuts to food assistance, all in order to protect tax breaks for special interests and for multimillionaires who are not even asking for them.

The Republican budget may be characterized in many ways--cruel, irresponsible, short-sighted, reckless--but ``fair and balanced'' is not one of them.

In contrast, the alternative budgets proposed by the Democratic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and Congressional Progressive Caucus, which were made in order by the Rules Committee, are each worthy of support because they fairly balance the need for increased revenues and responsible reductions in expenditures with the imperative of making the necessary investments in human capital required to move our country forward.

Specifically, the Alternative Budgets proposed by the Democratic Caucus, CBC, and CPC:

help create more jobs now;

replace the sequester;

make key education investments;

invest in research and development and clean energy;

invest in long-term infrastructure;

preserve Medicare as we know it;

protect health reform's benefits for seniors;

protect Medicaid for seniors in nursing homes;

preserve Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP);

reduce the deficit through a smart, targeted, and steady approach provides tax relief for working families and ends tax breaks for the wealthy;

take a balanced approach to reducing the long-term deficits and debt; and

put the budget on a sustainable path.

Mr. Chair, under the Democratic budget, the deficit would fall from 7 percent of GDP in 2012 to under 3 percent of GDP by 2015, and to 2.4 percent of GDP in 2023. The balanced plan put forward by the Democratic Caucus will bring the budget into primary balance in 2017 and complete balance by around 2040--about the same time as the House Republican budget last year.

The Democratic Budget Alternative will generate 1.2 million more jobs this year compared to the Republicans' ``austerity first'' plan by investing $200 billion in creating jobs up-front, strengthening the middle class, creating greater upward mobility, and ensuring opportunity for our children and future generations.

Included in the Democratic proposal is $50 billion to fund jobs that address immediate surface transportation priorities and $10 billion to establish an infrastructure bank, as well as tax incentives to support small businesses and manufacturing.

Additionally, the Democratic budget immediately ends the sequester, which would otherwise cost the economy 750,000 jobs by the end of the year, and replaces it with deficit reduction resulting from a balanced approach combining responsible spending cuts with increased revenues by cutting tax breaks for special interests and wealthy individuals without increasing the tax burden on middle-income Americans.

Finally, Mr. Chair, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, let me note my disappointment that an amendment I offered which would have made this dreadful budget resolution a little less hurtful was not made in order by the Committee on Rules.

The Jackson Lee Amendment to H. Con. Res. 25 would put the Congress on record in support of current funding levels for crime prevention grant programs administered by the Department of Justice. The first and most important obligation of government is to ensure the safety of the people and nothing is more destabilizing to communities and inimical to job creation and economic growth than crime. That is why it is counterproductive to cut investments in crime prevention under the guise

of balancing a budget to spur economic growth.

It is said often, Mr. Chair, but is no less true, that the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the nation's most cherished values. As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said:

``The moral test of government is how that government

treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those

who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who

are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the

handicapped.''

For that reason that in evaluating the merits of a budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility. To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also pass a ``moral test.''

The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards. The Democratic alternatives do not. For these compelling reasons, I stand in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 25 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this ill-conceived and unwise measure.

I thank both of my colleagues. I thank the gentlelady and the manager of this rule.

I vigorously rise to oppose this rule, the underlying bill, the Republican proposal for a budget. And I really do speak from the heart, because when you go home, it is often the best time of the service to your Nation because you get to see hardworking Americans, no matter what region you live in. And so I'm very proud to associate myself and support the Van Hollen Democratic budget substitute, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The singular theme that rides through all of these budgets, which is the very question that is raised, whether or not it's a teenager coming out looking for a summer job; whether or not it's a college student with their bright, new diploma holding it up, looking for America's great opportunity; or whether it's someone who has worked for a period of time, well-qualified, but just can't find the job to get back into the market. I know there are those who are listening, my colleagues, who have constituents like that. Every single budget, including the Van Hollen budget, the Democratic budget, helps to create jobs, gets rid of the sequester and, in actuality, brings back the 775,000 or 750,000 jobs lost by the Ryan budget, plus more.

The Congressional Black Caucus focuses on maintenance for public transit and highway and airports, creating jobs. The Congressional Progressive Caucus focuses on making work pay and emergency unemployment compensation.

But here's the story that I think is under the underlying Ryan budget--good friend of ours, of course, we work together--and the underlying premise.

I am tired of raising up the generational fight. Just because the Greatest Generation fought in World War II, are we to say to our children and grandchildren, ``You know what, we don't want to burden you when the military calls you, when your Nation needs you; we don't want to burden you''?

There's no way to protect what our grandchildren and children will have with this budget, other than the fact that the Democratic budget invests in people.

When you have a preschool program, when you have programs that transition women out of their homes after raising their children and into jobs, when you have a program that allows young people with a college degree to get a job, when you have programs that invest in infrastructure and build highways and bridges that America is begging for--like the Hoover Dam--that our grandchildren and children will receive in

America, that we invested in, they'll receive a gift. And they'll be able to work with their hands and their minds, and they will have the ability to pay down any debts and they'll close any deficit. And they'll be grateful to do it, because America will be the greatest Nation that it can.

Don't constantly pound us with our grandchildren and our children. Right now, today, America can afford to pay for what we are doing in the Van Hollen Democratic budget because we are creating jobs, we're building infrastructure, we're making America greater--the very America that people around the world admire.

So I want to vote for a growth budget. I want to vote for one that reduces unemployment under 5 percent. I want to vote for one that lifts America so that our children and grandchildren will have the benefit of all that we've done for them, and they'll have the benefit of paying for what America promises.

Vote for America's promise. Vote against the Ryan budget.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and I certainly thank the Budget Committee for the work that they have done.

I'd make the argument that clearly we have a dilemma in focus and commitment and direction. I call the other budget the budget that has a sense of lacking of what people truly need. The Democratic budget is a budget that speaks to what people need, and it cares about people. It also cares about family economic security. Under the budget that Mr. Ryan is offering, the Republican budget, 3 million Texas seniors will see Medicare end as they know it, 50 million seniors across America.

But frankly, this is the real key on how the GOP budget really works: $500 billion in their so-called balancing is taken from the Affordable Care Act in the fiscal cliff deal. That's how they say they reached budget, so that means they'll undermine millions of Americans who will not have health care. That's the budget that does not concern itself with family economic security.

Then if we want to look again at the idea of safety net programs, rather than giving Americans an opportunity to stand on their own feet, the Republican budget literally cuts the programs that help reduce poverty. So it is not one that cares about economic security for our families.

Then, Mr. Chairman, if you want to really see what works, it really works when we talk to the top 2 percent.

When you look at the tax rate under President Clinton, that was 39.6 percent, and we created 20.8 million jobs. The Republican budget is a jobs killer. Then you have where we had a 35 percent tax rate, and you lost 580,000 jobs under George Bush. Here's the Democratic budget, the Van Hollen budget. We focus on creating jobs. We replace the sequester, 750,000 jobs, reduce the jobs deficit by 450,000, and our total net is 1.2 million net jobs. Family economic security is the Van Hollen budget. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Democratic budget.

Mr. Speaker, $5 trillion in surplus was extinguished in the last Republican administration. It had been created by President Clinton.

The Affordable Care Act will help provide the health coverage that is needed by millions of Americans. I rise today to speak particularly about Texas.

Some 24 percent of the population of Texas is uninsured, and yet our State

government has refused to accept expanded Medicaid. So today, Mr. Speaker, I make a public plea on behalf of the millions of Texans who get up and work every day and do not have health insurance, and to have a State government that is ignoring their plea, and that is to have expanded Medicaid to provide health insurance for working Texans and poor Texans, those that work, as well, below the minimum wage.

It seems selfish that the concerns of those who lead State government are all political and not in any way concerned about the mothers, fathers, and children who all of the medical professionals from county governments to private practice have said that the expanded Medicaid coverage, if taken by the State of Texas, like Florida and like Ohio, will save lives.

Do it now.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 803, the ``Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act, or SKILLS Act.''

While H.R. 803 rightfully reauthorizes the Work Force Investment Act (WIA), it does so while adding destructive provisions that undermine the very core goals of the legislation. As an alternative, we ought to consider H.R. 798.

Moreover, despite some of the rhetoric coming from the proponents of H.R. 803, one need only read the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Report to know that this bill does not save the American taxpayers anything.

The Workforce Investment Act was signed into law by President Clinton in 1998, and provides a framework for our nation's workforce preparation and employment system. It was designed to help American workers advance their careers while satisfying the needs of U.S. businesses. The idea was a simple yet effective one: to train American workers for the jobs that businesses demand.

Despite partisan resistance nearly every step of the way, our current economic policies have put us on the right path toward economic growth, with 260,000 jobs added and unemployment falling to 7.7% during the month of February.

Today, while the American people are demanding that Congress act to facilitate the creation of even more new jobs, H.R. 803 would take us in the opposite direction by freezing investment in job training and other WIA programs for seven years, from Fiscal Year 2014 through Fiscal Year 2020.

It is inconceivable that at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work, this bill proposes to cut funding from the very programs that would help give the Americans the skills they need to secure jobs in our changing economy.

Moreover, WIA funding has already been cut in half since 2001. After more than a decade of placing funding for WIA on the backburner, now more than ever is the

time to invest in American workers to assist them in securing their economic futures.

Worse still, H.R. 803 effectively consolidates 35 programs under the WIA into a single block grant, despite the lack of any independent evaluation of whether such a consolidation would be beneficial. Currently, the programs are individually tailored to meet the needs of different types of workers, including adults, youth, farmworkers, dislocated workers, and other disadvantaged populations.

However, by consolidating these programs into one lump sum block grant, diverse groups of workers with different skills and different needs would be forced to compete with one another for the same resources.

The youth employment rate remains unacceptably high, and the SKILLS Act would force young aspiring workers to compete with adults for the resources of a single fund focused on serving the needs of adults.

If enacted, H.R. 803 would allow state officials to choose to reduce or eliminate programs that support some of our nation's most vulnerable populations who derive the most benefit from the programs.

H.R. 803, if enacted would have a disparate impact on youth, persons living in high-poverty communities, minorities, women, seniors, persons with disabilities, those recently incarcerated, single parents, veterans, those who lack English proficiency or do not have a high school diploma or GED.

Perhaps the most appalling part of H.R. 803 is that it eliminates the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, which is specifically tailored to help disabled veterans.

Veterans who return home to the country that they sacrificed for deserve to have a program dedicated to helping them overcome their challenges in obtaining employment as a result of injuries sustained while serving.

Eliminating the program without providing disabled veterans with an alternative that contains accountability measures that preserve their unique interests is categorically unacceptable.

I urge Members to alternatively consider H.R. 798, the ``Workforce Investment Act of 2013,'' which modernizes the Workforce Investment Act to improve the nation's workforce investment infrastructure.

H.R. 798 is focused on focusing on finding workers jobs and careers via strategic partnerships with in-demand sector employers, community colleges, labor organizations, and nonprofits.

The American people want tangible solutions; not another ideologically partisan bill that harms the very people who can least afford it during an economic recovery.

I thank the distinguished ranking member of this committee, and I thank the floor managers. I particularly thank Mr. Hinojosa for his long service on workforce issues and about higher education issues to the proponent of the amendment. Certainly, we know that reporting is important.

What I want to focus on, Madam Chairwoman, is what America is all about. We are, in fact, the land of opportunity and dreams. We are the richest country in the world, and our benefit and our success has come because we have invested in people. As we watched the Depression and the era of World War II and our soldiers coming home, prosperity began when we gave them the GI Bill; and here we are today, trying to undermine under H.R. 803 the very opportunity in States for those people who are still seeking to climb the ladder.

By block-granting these 35 programs and shifting to our State governments individual programs that are to serve our adults and youth and farm workers and dislocated workers, we are going down a road of no return. We are eliminating the priority of service delivery for low- income adults and out-of-school youth. We are eliminating the thought processes that are necessary to know what rural neighborhoods or communities and urban communities need.

Texas is one of the largest States in the Union, and I can assure you that eliminating separate training funds for youth programs is devastating. It was devastating when we lost the summer youth job program, which I'd always said would have been a more effective

program if you'd joined it with training. In our local communities, that's what we did--we joined summer youth jobs with training. Now you're telling us that we will be eliminated from doing that.

Rather than suggesting that the problems of this deficit are always on the least, it would be best for us to chronicle how we got here-- billions of dollars in the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, Medicare part D, the bailout.

I thank the gentleman.

It is important to support the Democratic alternative, which streamlines and improves the coordination of training programs, which puts the dollars in community associations that are there on the ground.

Madam Chair, America is not good with this bill, H.R. 803, but it is good with the Democratic alternative, which invests in people and makes America great.

I thank the floor leaders for their hard work, but I have another explanation for where we are today.

My colleague before me indicated that flexibility is important. It means that we, your Representatives, are listening to you. But I'm listening to more voices than just those who are here on this floor. I'm listening to the voices of those who want to get out of poverty, and I'm delighted to be part of a newly established caucus that focuses on eliminating poverty.

I was here for the first reform bill, and I do believe there's something important about work; but let us understand that when we talk about poverty, we're talking about children, we're talking about parents who are raising children and who may need to be home. We've always made the argument that mothers working at home is work.

I'm disappointed in this legislation primarily because it takes the flexibility away from Governors to determine how best to get people back to work. But why don't we bring a bill to the floor to raise the minimum wage from $7 to $9? Why do we not listen to people who say, I barely can make it, such as one of my constituents who said, Not only am I at minimum wage, but they require me to pay for my parking. Can I please get a lift?

Or maybe we're not aware of title 3 in the housing act that has people in public housing being able to work, which was an amendment that I offered to that particular title to allow those to work on projects that the housing authority has. My housing authority just told me that people are lining up to work. They have people working.

So this is not about making people work. It's about ignoring and picking on, again, President Obama's administration because they decide to listen to Republican and Democratic Governors to work on behalf of the American people. Let's get it right. Let's talk about getting people out of poverty. Let's raise the minimum wage. Let's talk about the flexibility so that people can work. Because they want to work. I haven't heard anybody that doesn't want to work. But realize if you are getting TANF, you're getting it because of your children, because of some situation that puts you in a place that you hope to get out of.

I don't think it is the right thing to do to strangle the hands of the administration doing what the American people would like them to do. Let's vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to simply express my disappointment in H.R. 890, The Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of 2013, which it actually does not do.

I had an amendment prepared which would simply make the effective date for this bill of December 2035. This is not a whimsical attempt to delay implementation; but merely an expression of my frustration that Members on the other side have come to disagree with policies which their Caucus, past and present, helped to create and foster.

In 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would consider requests from the states to operate demonstration projects within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to help recipients prepare for, find and maintain employment.

The effort was partially a response to requests from governors throughout the United States--including many Republican governors-- asking for just such flexibility to operate TANF. The Secretary of HHS has stated that any governor wanting such a waiver must commit that their proposal will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work.

Rather than embrace the Administration's efforts to provide states flexibility, however, Republicans in Congress have waged a disingenuous campaign against the waiver proposal, drawing rebukes from fact- checkers.

On Feb. 28, House Republicans introduced H.R. 890 to prohibit the Administration from granting such flexibility to states. The bill was unanimously opposed by my Democratic colleagues during a Committee markup held on March 6, 2013.

This year's action comes after Republicans took nearly identical action last fall. After passing it out of the Ways and Means Committee against unanimous opposition from Committee Democrats, House Republicans passed a resolution disapproving of the Administration's flexibility plan on Sept. 20, 2012.

Let's look at some facts:

Same Waiver Authority Used by President Clinton--On July 12, 2012, HHS issued guidance that it was exercising the agency's authority under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act to entertain requests from States to conduct demonstration projects under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. A legal analysis from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that HHS' current waiver initiative is ``consistent'' with the prior practice under the Clinton Administration, which permitted dozens of welfare waivers prior to the enactment of the 1996 welfare law.

Projects Must Focus on Increasing Work--The HHS notice clearly and repeatedly states that all demonstration projects must be ``focused on improving employment outcomes.'' Such outcomes must be demonstrated by a rigorous evaluation, and states must meet targets for accelerating job placements for welfare recipients.

Cutting Red Tape and Increasing Performance--Governor Herbert of Utah, a Republican, informed HHS that his state would like to be evaluated on the basis of the state's success in placing welfare recipients into employment, rather than on their participation in certain activities, and that this approach ``would require some flexibility at the state level and the granting of a waiver.''

Providing States with Flexibility, While Holding them Accountable-- HHS Secretary Sebelius has stated, ``the Department is providing a very limited waiver opportunity for states that develop a plan to measurably increase the number of beneficiaries who find and hold down a job.

Specifically, Governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the state's past performance.''

No Effect on Funding Levels or Time Limits--Nothing in the waiver authority applies to the current five-year federal time limit on TANF assistance. Additionally, demonstration projects will in no way affect the fixed block

grant amounts now provided to states under the TANF program.

Republicans Were For Welfare Waivers Before They Were Against Them-- In 2002, 2003, and 2005 Republicans passed legislation on the House floor that included a provision allowing the waiver of TANF work requirements. While these waiver proposals were broader and affected many more programs than the policy now proposed by HHS, the Congressional Research Service confirms that all of these bills ``would have had the effect of allowing TANF work participation standards to be waived'' Chairman Camp, along with Speaker Boehner and Representative Ryan, voted for all three of these bills.

Claims that Waivers Remove Work Requirements Are Clearly False-- President Clinton, who signed the 1996 welfare reform law, said ``When some Republican governors asked if they could have waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama administration listened because we all know it's hard for even people with good work histories to get jobs today. So moving folks from welfare to work is a real challenge. And the administration agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment. Now, did I make myself clear? The requirement was for more work, not less.''

Ron Haskins, the lead Republican Congressional staffer in charge of drafting the 1996 welfare reform law, has said ``there is merit to what the Administration is proposing,'' and ``I don't see how you can get to the conclusion that the waiver provision undermines welfare reform.'' Politifact declared that Governor Romney's claim that the waiver proposal would eliminate work requirements for welfare recipients was ``pants on fire'' false. The fact checker said the contrary was true, stating: ``by grating waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them.''

FactCheck.org says Romney's claims on the issue ``distorts the facts'' and is ``simply not true.'' It reiterates that work requirements are not being dropped under the waiver proposal, and that ``benefits still won't be paid beyond an allotted time.''

Let me thank my friend from New York, Congresswoman Maloney, for her leadership on economic issues particularly impacting women, for the persistence of her introduction of the Equal Rights Amendment, long overdue, that we all join in to ensure the rights of women. And let me thank the gentlemen that are on the floor that joined us this evening.

I want to follow up, as I listened to the discussion that you just had, I met with Dr. Brinkley in the hallway, who is one of the leading researchers in biomolecular research from Baylor University, in my Congressional region, if you will. I consider representation because it is such a massive institution. And he brought with him two of his researchers. In fact, the headline on one of my papers was the standstill work of one of our important researchers because of the sequester, and certainly because of this budget. All of that points to women who are most vulnerable as relates to the needs of research in chronic illnesses.

Let me cite for my colleagues about this question of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security what is drastically cut and reordered under the Ryan Republican budget. I'm really saddened that misinformation comes that the Medicare's predominance, in terms of its help, goes to those who are fat cats.

Let me share some numbers with you. Many of these are women. We do know that women live longer, and so the needs that they have for Medicare and Social Security may be extended.

And may I take something out of our vocabulary, though it is in the dictionary. Medicare and Social Security are earned. I don't know where we got the word ``entitlement,'' because entitlement suggests you're entitled with no basis of responsibility. But they earned this. Women earned this.

And women started before the fight that we had, Congresswoman, for pay equity over the last decade or two. They were making the lower wages, and so their Social Security input had to be much lower as they continued to work years in.

But let me just share with you on the Medicare beneficiaries:

Annual income less than $22,500: 50 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries include in that number women;

Chronic conditions: of those who receive Medicare, 40 percent include in that number women;

Fair and poor health: 27 percent, women in that population;

Cognitive mental impairment: 23 percent, women in that population;

Functional limitations: 15 percent, women in that calculation.

So, as I look at this budget, 60 percent of it is taking away health care from the poor and middle class, which would include women.

The idea that the bill slants itself toward protecting the interests of the wealthy by not listing any deduction that you're willing to take. Now, I know if we get into a discussion about deductions, we put ourselves in that circle; but let me just say, middle class

Americans need mortgage deductions. I know, however, that that is one that is under discussion.

But why did our friends writing this budget not list the deductions that they would be willing to put on the table? Some of us realize that mortgage deductions help young families. It helps single women. It helps women who are maintaining or getting their first house. So here we have a special emphasis.

I'm glad my colleague mentioned breast cancer. I have introduced legislation on triple negative. It happens to have a far-reaching impact on women from all ethnic groups, whether they are Caucasian, whether they are Hispanic, or whether they are African American or Asian, but it is a deadly form of the disease, a more deadly form of the disease. And so that kind of research which many of us are arguing for is now limited because of this budget.

The budget does not--well, let me just say this. The budget takes for its own what was accomplished with the savings in the Affordable Care Act. It takes for its own the cuts that we made, were willing to make in 2012, over a trillion in cuts and spending. And it totally ignores economists who have indicated that the austerity format that was taken in Europe was the completely wrong direction, and that, then, impacts our families more negatively.

I would be happy to yield.

I thank the gentlelady for that astute assessment. When I give these various points, women are disproportionately placed. Many of them are heads of households, many of them are senior women. Many are going back into the workforce because they have resource shortages, if you will. And the Ryan budget takes in all of these; i.e., the $85 billion in sequester cuts. By the way, again, I introduced legislation to eliminate the sequester provision out of the Budget Reconciliation Act. I happen to think that it is meritorious because we need to start from a fair point of view, not what I call nickel and diming, ending people's research, closing doors in the Capitol, and a number of other things that are not good for America.

But let me just finish on this. If we're interested in R&D, as we indicated, or clean energy--slashed. Obviously, it will have an impact on the quality of life of families who are raising their children. What about nutrition assistance, the SNAP program? What an obliterating cut to the SNAP program, which is now serving 48 million people. Let me remind my colleagues that these are military persons, women who are in the military. These are young families. These are individuals who are in school. And so women are disproportionately impacted.

And this, I think, is clearly one of the largest conflicts of reason, and that is to underfund or take away the funding for the Affordable Care Act, which has been reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court and has been documented as having a health care savings and providing for a healthier America. And here we are taking away coverage from 27 million Americans.

They take all the good things that, might I say, the Democrats have worked on and can really be defined as balanced and fair and utilize it in a budget that is absolutely lopsided. And I thank you for having us on the floor to explain to the women of America why this budget will not be good for them, their children, or their expanded families, and that we're committed to standing against this kind of approach that is really not the American way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate H.R. 749, the ``Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act,'' which seeks to eliminate wasteful and unnecessarily duplicative privacy notification requirements for financial institutions.

More specifically, H.R. 749 would amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to exempt from its annual privacy policy notice requirement any financial institution that:

(1) Provides nonpublic personal information only in accordance with specified requirements, and

(2) Has not changed its policies and practices with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from those disclosed in the most recent disclosure sent to consumers.''

Under current law, financial institutions are required to give notices to customers that delineate their information-sharing practices. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act of 1999 attempted to balance the information privacy interests of consumers with the need for financial institutions to share information for ordinary business purposes.

To that end, GLB required financial institutions to inform their customers, in the form of a privacy notice, about the types of information they collect as well as the types of businesses that may be provided that information.

In order to give the customer the choice of determining whether he or she is comfortable with the sharing of their information, the privacy notice is required to be issued upon the opening of a new account as well as once a year.

Financial institutions collect basic information from customers, such as your name, phone number, address, income, and details about your assets. Moreover, in determining whether someone qualifies for a particular product, such as a loan, a financial institution may collect additional details from other sources, such as credit reports from credit bureaus. Furthermore, some financial institutions track your use of products like credit cards and record information such as how much you borrow, how much you buy, where you shop, and whether you pay your balance in a timely fashion.

Some financial institutions share this collected information with other entities, including unaffiliated companies like retailers and telemarketers. This is why it is particularly important that customers know the privacy policies of their financial institutions; customers must make a determination as to whether they are comfortable with how their bank intends to share their information.

However, requiring financial institutions to submit annual privacy notices to customers when they remain unchanged can be considered wasteful. Moreover, because the notices must be issued with regularity, it may have the effect of lowering awareness on the part of consumers when a change to a privacy policy is in fact made.

H.R. 749 intends to eliminate this waste and potential for diminished customer awareness by removing the annual notification requirement for financial institutions, so long as the policy remains unchanged from the last notification and the financial institution otherwise complies with the requirements for notification.

For that reason, Members ought to copsider H.R. 749 in contemplation of the intent of the notification requirements in Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1035, a bill ``To require a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance option and how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program, and for other purposes.''

More specifically, this bill directs FEMA to study options, methods, and strategies for making voluntary community-based flood insurance policies available through the National Flood Insurance Program. Moreover, this study would include a strategy to implement options that would encourage communities to undertake flood mitigation activities.

Flooding is the most common and costly natural disaster in the United States. 90 percent of all presidential-declared U.S. natural disasters involve flooding. Flooding occurs in all 50 states and chronically impacts many communities, including my constituents in the 18th district of Texas.

In Houston, there are a number of areas which are frequently flooded from excessive rainwater in bayous. These areas include the Buffalo Bayou, the Greens Bayou, and the Halls Bayou. These areas, and others across this nation, could greatly benefit greatly from this study.

In 1968, the U.S. Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to address the nation's flood hazard exposure and challenges inherent in financing and managing flood risks in the private sector.

The program has played a central role in U.S. flood risk management policy; that is, the prevention and recovery from flooding disasters. Under the NFIP, the federal government (1) identifies areas of flood risk; (2) encourages communities to implement measures to mitigate against the risk of flood loss; and (3) provides financial assistance, through contracts of insurance, to help individuals and small businesses recover rapidly from flood disasters.

Until 1986, the NFIP was financially self-supporting from policy premium revenue and fees that covered all expenses and claim payments.

However, because of its below-market insurance rates and catastrophic hurricane-related floods in recent years, the NFIP has accrued a substantial debt that as of September 30, 2011, stands at $17.75 billion. Under current law, the funds borrowed from the U.S. Treasury must be repaid with interest.

Because the NFIP cannot charge risk-based premiums for all of its policies, hold loss reserve funds to offset unusually catastrophic losses, or purchase reinsurance, the program faces a constant risk of financial insolvency.

The NFIP currently covers approximately 5.6 million households and businesses across the country for a total of $1.25 trillion in exposure.

The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, was established in response to increasing Federal Government spending for disaster relief.

Standard homeowners insurance does not cover flooding and therefore offers no protection from floods associated with hurricanes, tropical storms, heavy rains and other conditions. The NFIP mandates that federally regulated or insured lenders require flood insurance on properties that are located in areas that have a high risk of flooding.

Unlike private insurance programs, the NFIP is not actuarially sound; it is not designed to ensure that its premiums will cover the average claims and expenses expected over the long run. By law, some NFIP policyholders receive insurance at rates that are subsidized. Such subsidies are mainly granted to property owners whose properties were built before their communities joined the program and are intended to encourage communities to participate in the program and thus mitigate potential losses.

H.R. 1035 would study the means by which communities can enhance their own ability to recover from flooding. Giving communities the opportunity to effectively become the policyholder of a flood insurance program, rather than individual property owners, renters, or businesses, would potentially yield several benefits.

The study produced by H.R. 1035 would explore the policy of community-based flood insurance to find ways to incentivize communities to mitigate future flood losses, as well as to provide them with a greater role in determining flood risk assessment, mapping, and insurance pricing.

Furthermore, the study would allow communities to implement mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements tailored to a community's individual needs.

Moreover, the study would reveal the extent to which community-based flood insurance may produce economies of scale for a community, streamlined underwriting, as well as reduced administrative costs for the insurer.

Community-based flood insurance programs have the potential for the development of synergies between local communities and the National Flood Insurance Program.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the H.R. 1035, which directs FEMA to study how to improve our national system of disaster insurance with respect to community-based flood insurance. This bill is a timely response to recent flooding disasters wrought by Hurricane Sandy, as well as sensible way to address future floods that occur in communities across our country.

Mr. Speaker, it's my intent to bring the House's attention to several important issues.

First of all, I would like to join in a mutual effort with Mr. Poe to address the devastation of the people in Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty. Those are Iranian refugees who have been attacked and who have been mistreated, and we must fight for them and ensure their safety.

I also want to comment on the introduction of a new budget by the House and to say that we have to come together and not be conflicting with programs or initiatives that will not happen; and to have a budget based upon the elimination of the Affordable Care Act, it simply will not happen. We must come together.

Finally, America is ready for comprehensive immigration reform. In a meeting I held yesterday in Houston with over 90 to 100 persons, if you heard the story of a father who was told to leave his children behind and to leave the country, you would know this is not about immigration. It's about families. It's about humanitarianism. It's about bringing America and Americans together.

We have a few things to do in this country and a few things to do in this Congress. Let's get on with it and do it in the right way.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for his words. I associate myself with Mr. McGovern. But also, I do acknowledge Mr. Cole, my good friend. You have certainly joined us on bipartisan issues, as has already been stated, and I thank you for that. But I do want to, in essence, gently correct the gentleman on whether or not the President got his, it's now time for us to get ours.

I think what we have missed is that this is an ongoing process, an ongoing process to find the right balance of revenue and the right balance of cuts. Let it also be on the record that we've cut over $1 trillion already, and I can tell you that it has come out of the backs of poor people.

Now, let me give you some resounding, exciting breaking news: the Dow hit the highest amount yesterday, 14,253.77, the highest in history. Wall Street is celebrating while the backs of poor people are being broken.

This is not a rule that should pass today. We should remain snowed out. We shouldn't even be here. Snow us out until we can get the right kind of balance.

This is the bill that we received in less than 24 hours, and they're asking us to vote on it. And while we're asked to vote on it, let me suggest to you that the long-term unemployed will be particularly impacted:

$130 a month will come out of their unemployment. It will be brutal to government workers and job training programs, those that we slash and burn, but these are the men and women that work and do the business of government;

For women who are caretakers, they will find that 50 percent of them are more likely to hold government jobs, they're going to be impacted;

$725 million is going to come out of poor people's children's education;

Those of us who support community health clinics, $120 million of Federal support for community health centers will just drop, and 900,000 patients will not be served. 540,000 doses of vaccine will not be there.

The point is that when it comes to the backs of those who will bear the brunt, it will be those who need clean energy, education, and research and development.

I introduced H.R. 900, a simple bill to get rid of the sequester. My point would be that we need to go back to work and vote ``no'' on the rule. It is on the backs of poor people.

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me thank the gentleman's tone, and let it be known that all of us want to engage in that kind of civil discussion. I assume, if we all got locked up in a room, we'd be able to find the compromise.

Let me just indicate that the revenues and cuts that you just spoke about are over a 10-year period, but they're still cuts. This bill not only adds to that, but then the sequester adds to that, as well.

Our suggestion in my remarks is that this will have a heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy impact on vulnerable and innocent persons.

The cuts are going forward, and so my question is: Why can't we continue the discussion on how we balance cuts and revenues? We must operate the government.

Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically rise to support John Conyers' H.R. 900, of which I'm an original cosponsor, which is a thoughtful response to legislation that was really hostage-taking, and that is the passage of sequestration almost 2 years ago. Everyone knows it was the need for the debt ceiling to be raised that generated it. But I'm not about excuses. H.R. 900 simply eliminates the sequester provision in the Budget Reconciliation Act. It is thoughtful and allows us to proceed.

However, we will not be able to pass it because our friends on the other side of the aisle are celebrating about the $85 billion in cuts across the board, hurting seniors, children, and families. And then they want to acknowledge this is the President's fault. Well, the President is willing to not look at poll numbers to be able to fight, to support, and enhance revenues and spending cuts. Thank you, Mr. President, for leading.

For those who say nothing has happened, it's because it has not happened yet, but I will tell you the continuation of sequester is going to hurt the American people and kill jobs. The continuing resolution that devastates those nondiscretionary projects of Head Start and education will also hurt the American people. Let's pass H.R. 900 and begin a process that the American people can buy into and a budget that is fair, with taxes and spending cuts that work on behalf of the American people.