Floor Statements

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

The tailored use of incentive awards, such as performance-based bonuses, help agencies recruit, develop, and retain employees who have the knowledge, skill, and ability to help agencies accomplish their critical missions. Such incentives also allow agencies to compete with the private sector for talent. Right now, we have incredible doctors, nurses, therapists, and staff at the VA hospitals all across America, that I'm sure--at least in my district--they could walk out that door and earn sometimes twice or three times as much at a private hospital as they do at the VA. The incentive programs that we have in place allow us to rebalance a little bit of what they might be compensated, but for the fact that they are committed to caring for our veterans.

It's a similar situation with the SEC. Obviously, many of our securities analysts that we use at the SEC could go to Wall Street tomorrow and earn multiples of what their salary is and have great success and incredible rewards financially. But they work at the SEC because they're committed to protecting the taxpayer and working on behalf of their country.

We have similar examples of banking supervisors at the FDIC that have such knowledge and such capability that they could go out tomorrow and work for one of these big banks like Citibank or Bank of America and go to work tomorrow at multiples of their salary. We have derivative analysts over at the CFTC that do such great work on our behalf, that I'm sure that--because that's such a hot area of employment--with their expertise and their resumes, they could demand tremendous resources. As well, we have scientists at NIH and lawyers over at the Department of Justice that we're lucky to have working on behalf of the government because we're trying to keep up with the changes in industry and in these areas of commerce that require excellent talent.

For example, a 2010 Rand Corporation study found that the Department of Defense's increased use of bonuses had positive effects on recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. Notably, the study found that without the increase in bonuses, Army enlistments would have been 20 percent lower between 2004 and 2008 when the war in Iraq was at its peak. Further, the study found that bonuses were generally a cost- effective measure.

Despite the importance of performance awards, this bill, H.R. 1541, as amended, would prohibit Federal workers from receiving discretionary bonuses that exceed 5 percent of their base pay during sequestration. This bill couldn't happen at a worse time. H.R. 1541 would undermine the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain its most talented employees in the midst of a 3-year Federal pay freeze and ongoing furloughs.

Right now, we have over 700,000 Federal employees at DOD that have taken 11-day furloughs. I sat with a group of firefighters on an Air Force base that are concerned about the safety protocols at that base because of the number of employees that are affected by furloughs. We've got 90,000 employees in other agencies that are taking between 2- and 5-day furloughs. And those furloughs are going to continue.

H.R. 1541 would undermine the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain our most talented employees in the midst of all these cutbacks. This bill would simply continue to demoralize the Federal workforce. By removing agency flexibility, the legislation would also impede managers in their efforts to keep employees committed and motivated to excel and to provide superior service.

It is understandable that these employees do accept less pay because they work for the government, in many of these industries that I mentioned. Further, these awards are exactly the type of individual merit-based performance management tools that the committee chairman and other committee members have embraced in the past.

During committee consideration, I offered an amendment that would exempt collective bargaining agreements from the caps on awards. But the majority modified my amendment so the caps would still apply to future agreements. I believe that determining by law or statute the terms of future bargaining agreements with the recognized representatives of those employees improperly interferes with the management and labor contract negotiations.

This legislation would restrict agency flexibility at a time when it is critically needed for ensuring that the Federal workforce attracts and retains the best and brightest.

For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1541, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I ask the Speaker how much time we have remaining?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to address a couple of issues the gentleman has raised and say that I have enormous respect for the previous speaker as well.

Oftentimes, these studies look at the average employee in the Federal Government versus the average employee in the private sector. In recent decades, the Federal Government has privatized a lot of our common labor rather than employing them directly. We have become a much more specialized and much more professionalized workforce, between the doctors and nurses we hire at the VA; the scientists that we have at the National Institutes of Health and the EPA; the lawyers we have at the Department of Justice; financial analysts that we have at the CFTC and FDIC, as well as the SEC and other banking industries. Those are more professionalized employees.

So naturally, if you look at a retail clerk, compare their salary to a scientist, there will be a drastic disparity between what an attorney is making or a financial analyst is making versus a secretary in the private sector. So that's a very crude way of comparison.

One way of comparison is required in the Federal Pay Comparability Act. That's a statute that we passed here in Congress. It requires that we compare the levels of Federal doctors versus private sector doctors; federally employed scientists versus private sector scientists; finance analysts at the SEC versus those at Goldman Sachs. So we compared job to job. At the end of that analysis, the studies showed that Federal employees are making 26 percent less than their comparable job in the private sector; just a point that I wanted to raise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out, though, if we're talking about what's fair and what's not fair, I think the Federal employees have taken it on the chin recently. They're in year three of their pay freeze. A lot of them say that's not fair because as costs keep going up, their pay has been frozen for the past 3 years. Now, on top of the third-year pay freeze, they're being asked--at least 700,000 employees in the Department of Defense, including civilian employees that we rely on for a lot of key services--are being asked to take 11 days on furlough without pay. About 100,000 other Federal employees are being asked to take between 2 and 5 days right now. The first year of sequestration I think we cut $37 billion. This year we will cut $52 billion, next year is 60. And this is just year 2 in a 10-year furlough schedule. So if you want to talk about unfair, I think that they're being asked to do more than their share.

I do want to remind the gentleman that the bonuses and awards limited by this bill, H.R. 1541, are based on performance. The quality step increases are given to rank-and-file employees who achieve superior performance. The Presidential Rank Awards are given to senior employees who achieve extraordinary results or who are able to sustain superior accomplishments.

Recruitment bonuses, now, they can't be paid to employees who work for the Federal Government, but someone who's done a very good job in the private sector, you know, running a hospital might come onto the Federal payroll to do that, and we might have to recognize that person's prior service. An individual's performance rating is based on how well they met or exceeded their expectations.

In addition, I know that my friends across the aisle are eager to cap Federal employee and senior executive pay, but they're completely silent on capping Federal contractor pay. Under current law, Federal contractor executives can be reimbursed by the Federal Government for their salaries up to $950,000--Federal contractors. This is the private side. These are not the folks that are being capped. These are not employees. These are private contractors, $950,000 for 2013. Not a word, not a word in print or speech to cap those individuals. Contracting employees at the Department of Defense, Coast Guard, and NASA can also have their salaries reimbursed up to $950,000 as well in this current year, 2013.

But just a comparison, the maximum salary for a senior executive in the Federal Government is $179,700. For example, the VA Administration head, the hospital director at one of my hospitals, he makes $179,700, while the average salary in my district for a hospital director in the private sector is $800,000. That's for the private hospitals in my area. So my VA director earns about 25 percent of what they make in the private sector.

By the way, the maximum salary for a General Schedule step 10 employee at the top of the ladder is $155,500. That's what we're talking about here. And they are blown away by the salaries paid--as I mentioned, $950,000 in 2013--for Federal contract executives who are not Federal employees but are on the Federal payroll, about which this bill says zero. Completely silent. Zip.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Just one final point before I yield. The gentleman is correct, we did address contractor caps on pay in the NDAA, but we capped it at $950,000 a year. That's a far cry from anything that any Federal employee is earning here.

As I mentioned before, the head of our VA hospitals makes $179,700. That's the max. Meanwhile, private contractors working for the Federal Government are making $950,000 this year, in 2013, with the NDAA caps in place. I'm just saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. There's an opportunity in this bill to cap these salaries, and we have not done that.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1660, the Government Customer Service Improvement Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Representative Cuellar, my friend from Texas, for his leadership and his persistence in advocating for this bill.

The Federal Government provides services that significantly impact the American people. There are many dedicated Federal employees who perform their jobs with professionalism and distinction.

But there are areas in need of improvement. For instance, the Department of Veterans Affairs takes an average of 243 days to process a disability claim, and that is unacceptable.

This legislation would require the Office of Management and Budget to establish government-wide standards for customer service delivery, including target response times for phone calls, emails, letters, benefits processing, and payments.

I thank the chairman of the full committee for working with me during the committee's consideration of this bill. The bill we are considering today includes a pilot project to evaluate customer feedback systems. This was a compromise that will provide a more limited application than requiring every agency to institute their own individual feedback system. I hope the chairman will continue to work with us and all Members on both sides in moving this bill as we go through this legislative process. It is important that we ensure that the bill can achieve its intended purposes without negatively impacting the ability of Federal employees to do their jobs.

H.R. 1660 is a good government bill in the truest sense.

At this point, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), the principal sponsor of this bill.

At this point, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

First of all, I want to thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, and also Ms. Kaptur from Ohio, the ranking member, for the great work they've done.

In spite of the fact that many Members are coming up with refining amendments, I do want to acknowledge the great work they've done, for example, on the manufacturing piece that's in this bill as well as the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which has been amply funded and is so important to a lot of the coastal communities. Myself representing the Port of Boston and a large swath of the South Shore of Massachusetts-- some beautiful cities and towns--I do appreciate the work that they've done. However, there does appear to be a gap in funding with respect to the Army Corps of Engineers.

The purpose of my amendment would be to increase funding to the Construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers by $20 million. This increase would, of course, be offset by decreasing the Fossil Fuel Research account by a corresponding amount.

I am fortunate to represent a district that relies heavily and benefits greatly from the proximity to the coast, and I have wonderful, historic, beautiful towns and cities, like Quincy, Weymouth, Hull, Cohasset, Hingham, and Scituate, that, as I say, are benefiting

greatly because they're on the coast. They house commercial fishing fleets and host wonderful beaches and marinas, and they are vital components of our Statewide economy and regional economy. But while these benefits are there, they are also exposed to the most recent violent coastal storms that have become increasingly devastating in recent years.

Like many of my colleagues, I have seen firsthand the devastating effects that these much more intense storms have had on our communities--beaches erode, and roadways and bridges get washed away. In our case, we have not been hit as hard as places like the district of the gentleman from Louisiana or New Jersey or New York with the Superstorm Sandy effects, but much of our seawall infrastructure and protection for our beaches have been damaged considerably. We've benefited from prior Congresses that have made sure that the funding and the maintenance have been there to preserve that protection, and we are at that point again.

It seems like we are having 100-year storms every 3 or 4 years now in my district, and I'm sure it's like that in a lot of places across the country. I think it's entirely appropriate that we balance this out, that we rebalance the priorities here, by putting $20 million into the Construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers while we are removing a corresponding amount from the Fossil Fuel Research account. I think that most of us realize that the impacts of climate change are at least increasing the intensity of the storms that we've seen in recent years, and we need to provide the Army Corps of Engineers in our communities with the resources they need to protect against these natural disasters. I believe my offset does that in a fitting way.

Like President Obama, I think we need an all-of-the-above energy policy. I'm not here today to debate the cause of global warming or of climate change, but temperatures and sea levels are rising, and fossil fuel consumption is a contributing factor. So, as long as we are forced to rely on fossil fuels, we need to also deal with the fallout from our own energy policies. We need to protect our coastal communities from future devastation.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I appreciate her gracious remarks.

I do want to point out, though, that, since 2010, we've cut $688 million from this account. Now, we all have great respect and admiration for the Army Corps of Engineers, but having cut $688 million since 2010 has been reducing their ability to prioritize those projects around the country that need to be worked on. Some of those are Democratic districts, and some of those are Republican districts. That's not what this is about. This is about our infrastructure. So a $688 million cut since 2010 is a serious obstruction for them to do their job, and that's all I'm asking here.

I'm asking that we recognize our responsibility and our stewardship of protecting seawalls and ports and marinas, whether they're on the Great Lakes or whether they're on the Atlantic or Pacific coast. I am just asking that we step up and meet our responsibility in a meaningful way.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Lynch

Amendment No. 37: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I would just like to raise an issue here with the amount of money in this bill that we are appropriating for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction account. I have heard several of my colleagues here speak earlier on individual projects in their districts that affect their constituencies, and I am totally in agreement with that on both sides of the aisle.

But I do want to acknowledge the priority that should be recognized in this bill, and that is recognizing the impacts of these large coastal storms. I happen to represent the port of Boston and the community south of Boston along the south shore; a beautiful area that has a great number of towns with great history there. While they were not affected to the degree that New York and New Jersey were during Hurricane Sandy--Superstorm Sandy--a lot of their infrastructure was damaged

to the point of near collapse. So there is a great need for seawall reconstruction. They withstood that impact. They did the job that they were intended to do at the time that they were constructed. But I feel that this bill in its current form continues to undermine the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers to keep pace with the needed maintenance and reconstruction of our infrastructure.

I just want to call to mind the whole initiative here and what our priorities should be. We are, in many cases across the country, the beneficiaries of people who came before us and made the necessary investments in infrastructure. They saw the need, and we today, and up to today, have enjoyed a competitive advantage against some of our international neighbors because our infrastructure is there.

There is a definite increase in the number of these catastrophic storms. It seems like in my area we have 100-year storms every 3 or 4 years now. There is definitely something going on with climate change and the intensity of these storms.

It seems appropriate that we try to recognize the need here. I notice we are putting an awful lot of money into fossil fuel research and not nearly enough money to recognize the impact that climate change has already had on a lot of our coastal areas. We should be reinvesting in that infrastructure so that we are not faced with the total collapse that we saw in New York and New Jersey with Superstorm Sandy.

I just would call on my colleagues across the aisle in a request for bipartisanship and for recognizing the long-term interests of Americans across the country, Democrats and Republicans, and making sure that we use a commonsense approach in this bill. I think that we are off course with respect to the defunding of the construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers, not just for my district--I'm not saying that just for the communities that I represent who do have considerable need because of recent storms--I'm talking about all across the country. I'm talking about Republican districts as well as Democratic districts.

We have a wonderful organization here in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They do fantastic jobs. We get more than our money's worth. We put $1 into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and we get $5 back or $7 back, depending on the project. I think it is just wise stewardship to make sure they have the resources necessary to perform the reconstruction in some cases and maintenance in other cases of the seawalls along the east and west coast to make sure that we are indeed prepared for these storms that are inevitably coming.

I have an amendment later on at the appropriate time in this bill where I will be asking for additional money for the construction account of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Lynch

Amendment No. 34: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chair, this en bloc includes my amendment to address a critical aspect of oversight for U.S funds being spent in Afghanistan. It requires an assessment of the Afghan National Security Forces' (ANSF) capability to operate and manage the facilities currently being built for the Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army.

As we speak, the United States is undertaking a process whereby our servicemembers, as well as those of our allies, are redeploying. By the end of 2014, the Afghans will be fully responsible for their security. In the meantime, our efforts are now primarily focused on training the Afghans to take on their new role.

However, we are not only providing training: we are also investing millions in constructing facilities to be used by the Afghan Army and Police forces. In order to ensure the best use of this funding, we need to make sure that the structures will be able to serve the Afghans long after we leave. Proper operations and maintenance is the key.

Unfortunately, there is a serious deficit in this capability. In October 2012, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, published an audit in which it noted a significant lack of trained personnel with the skills to operate and maintain ANSF critical facilities. They include vital systems such as water supply, waste water treatment and power generation.

The amendment will require the Department of Defense to assess, and report on, Afghan capability to address these needs and what is being done to prepare them to be able to do so. It is the best way to ensure that our investment will result in a national security force that will be able to meet Afghanistan's future security needs.

I would like to thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order and the Armed Services Committee for including it in this en bloc amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I rise today in strong opposition to the bill before this House today, H.R. 1256, the Swaps Jurisdiction Certainty Act. It should be called the Wall Street Bailout Certainty Act because that's the actual effect this is going to have. It will do serious and irrevocable harm to our efforts to rein in the reckless behavior of Wall Street.

In the words of our own Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler, this bill will ``blow a hole'' in the hard-fought derivatives reforms we passed 3 years ago. Section 722 of the Dodd- Frank Act gives the CFTC authority to regulate overseas derivatives that have a direct and significant effect on the commerce of the United States.

If my colleagues need an example, I harken to the ranking member's example of why this cross-border authority is so critically important, and that's the case of AIG, the insurance giant. AIG engaged in increasingly complex and risky derivatives bets on the subprime mortgage market out of its AIG Financial Products subsidiary in London. And because there was virtually no oversight of derivatives markets, AIG Financial Products was able to deal in the shadows. And when the housing bubble burst, no one, not its directors, not its counterparties, not even its regulators, knew just how deeply in trouble AIG was.

So while we have adopted a number of regulations within Dodd-Frank, this bill will allow all of the companies that would be regulated to escape that regulation by doing these derivative deals through their foreign subsidiaries. And the four biggest derivative dealers in this country have over 3,000 foreign subsidiaries each. So this is an escape hatch for them. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Let me just make one final point on this. What this bill will do now is to give the Cayman Islands or London or some other jurisdiction the ability to write derivatives rules that cover U.S. affiliates.

Now, the problem with that very idea is that the Cayman Islands or any other jurisdiction has no interest in protecting the U.S. taxpayer. That's the truth.

When the bailout for AIG came, it was $160 billion in U.S. currency, supported by the U.S. taxpayer, that bailed AIG out. So any of these foreign affiliates that go under in foreign jurisdictions, those foreign jurisdictions, whether it be the Cayman Islands or any other jurisdiction, have no interest, they have no dog in the fight to protect the American taxpayer.

That's the problem with this bill. That's the bottom line. We should vote against it. This is a disgrace. But it does show the power of Wall Street, I'll say that.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases surface transportation security funding by about $15.6 million, bringing it to the enacted FY 2013 level of $124.3 million. This would be offset by a reduction in a similar amount to the Office of the Under Secretary for Management.

Last April, the United States received a chilling reminder that it remains a target for attacks by terrorists and their sympathizers when two men detonated bombs in my home city at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Just 1 week later, authorities foiled a plot to attack a passenger train running between Canada and the U.S.

After the September 11, 2001, attacks, we, as a Nation, undertook-- and rightly so--a massive effort to strengthen aviation security. We invested significant resources into making our skies safer. I strongly supported those efforts but would also caution that we cannot forget that other forms of transportation remain vulnerable to attack.

Since fiscal year 2002, $69.3 billion in funding has been dedicated to aviation security. However, during that same period, surface transportation security has been funded at about $3.3 billion. Less than 5 percent of our transportation security funding has gone to our transit systems--our rails and buses.

Now it is sometimes said that our military planners are guilty of fighting the last war. I believe that in the war on terror, my fear is that it may be the case here.

Over the last number of years, we have seen buses and passenger rail systems targeted throughout Europe and Asia. I'll just mention a few.

As I mentioned, in April of 2013, there was an al Qaeda-linked plot to attack a passenger train running between New York and Toronto. In July 2006, seven bomb blasts over 11 minutes took place in a suburban railway in Mumbai; 209 were killed and over 700 injured.

In March 2004, coordinated bombings on the Madrid commuter rail system resulted in 191 killed and 1,800 injured. In February 2004, two suicide bombers attacked the Moscow metro stations; at least 40 were killed and over 100 injured. As well in Israel, France and Japan, they have suffered similar attacks on their bus and railway systems.

Many people don't realize that U.S. passenger rail systems carry about five times as many people as do airlines. For a potential terrorist looking to cause as much damage and panic as possible, we cannot ignore the fact that our rails and buses are a target. This amendment is one step to better secure our surface transportation systems that move millions of Americans each and every day.

I urge my colleagues to support both this amendment and the main bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Georgia and the gentlelady from New York who spoke previously on this, and I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from Iowa's

amendment that would prevent Davis-Bacon from being enforced on projects under this act.

It is a shame, I believe, that this funding bill--which provides needed facilities for our servicemembers and benefits to our veterans-- is being exploited to undermine hardworking Americans, but here we have it.

Ironically, however, in contravention with some of the things that have been said here on the floor under this amendment, Davis-Bacon requires that workers of every color and every gender be paid based on their work, not on the color of their skin, not on their gender. That flies in the face of some of the accusations that have been put out for the original purpose of this.

I do agree with the gentleman from Iowa that there were two Republicans who did originally sponsor this back in 1931, but I disagree that the danger, that the evil that it was trying to fight against back then, has gone away. As a matter of fact, it is just a race to the bottom that would ensue if we got rid of Davis-Bacon.

Like the gentleman from Iowa, I have worked on Davis-Bacon jobs. I was an ironworker for 18 years--very proud to work with the men and women of the building trades--and I've worked on jobs where some of the workers were union and some of the workers were nonunion; but the important thing was that we were not exploited by trying to pit us against each other in a race to the bottom based on the wages that we earned.

Since 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act has required Federal contractors to provide workers the local ``prevailing local wage.'' What happens is that's not the union wage, and in many cases, as the gentleman from Georgia has pointed out, it's the nonunion wage, but it is determined by a survey of the Department of Labor of the wages in that area.

The danger that it's meant to deal with is that, in some areas of the country where there's no work and folks are dealing with the recession or depression-like conditions in the construction industry, unscrupulous contractors can go down there where workers don't have any shot of going to work and they can take them at very low wages and transport them to another area of the country that has work and then depress the wage base in that area. That's what Davis-Bacon is meant to deal with, and that's still the situation that we have today and the danger that we guard against.

On these federally funded construction projects, Davis-Bacon protects these workers by preventing wage exploitation while still ensuring that the value for the taxpayer dollar and work quality are not compromised. This amount would bar funding to administer these wage requirements. Without Davis-Bacon protection, unscrupulous contractors will be free to exploit those tradesmen and -women who, despite a slight recovery in their jobs numbers, still today face high levels of unemployment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak for a moment about my time as an ironworker and about my involvement with the men and women of the building trades. These people are incredibly hardworking, they are immensely skilled, and they work in a dangerous industry. They truly care about the craftsmanship, and they are dedicated to getting the job done and doing it right, and working side by side with them was a true honor for me.

Generations of trades workers, by the sweat of their brows and the toil of their hands, built our great Nation. They deserve our respect, as does the work that they do. Protecting Davis-Bacon does just that.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will not create jobs, it will not house our military, and it certainly will not result in better care and services for our veterans. All it will do is take away critical wage protections and open our workers to exploitation in a race to the bottom.

I urge my colleagues to stand behind our American workers and to stand behind our veterans and oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered by: Mr. Lynch

Amendment No. 11. Page 19, line 1, after the dollar amount

insert `'(increased by $15,676,000)''.

Page 3, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $15,676,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Dr. Peter A. Kurzberg in recognition of his outstanding contribution to public education and his twenty-two years of leadership in the Braintree, MA School District.

Peter was born and raised in Springfield, MA. The son of Holocaust survivors, he was the first generation of his family born in the United States. He graduated from Classical High School in 1965. Subsequently, he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Early Childhood Education and Child Development from Goddard College.

Peter began his teaching career as a special needs teacher in East Hartford, CT, where he also served as Vice-President of the East Hartford Education Association. He continued his education while teaching and received his Master of Science degree in Special Education from Central Connecticut State College. After five years of teaching, Peter attended the University of Iowa where he earned his Education Specialist degree (Ed.S) in Special Education and his Doctorate (Ph.D) in Educational Administration.

While attending graduate school in Iowa, Peter worked as a special education consultant and secured his administrative position as Coordinator of Special Education for the Grant Wood Area Education Agency assigned to Iowa City.

Mister Speaker, Peter returned to Massachusetts in 1981 as the Director of Special Needs and later the Director of Instructional Programs for the Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools where he served for five years. Subsequently, he was hired as Assistant Superintendent for the Barnstable Public Schools and served in that capacity until 1991 when he assumed the position of Superintendent of the Braintree Public Schools. He has served with distinction for twenty-two years.

During his career, Peter has served as president of both the Old Colony and South Shore Superintendents Roundtable. He is a current member of the Executive Committee of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, and he has served as Chairman of the Board for the South Shore Educational Collaborative. He is a past President of the Braintree Rotary Club and is currently the President of Temple B'Nai Shalom in Braintree.

Mr. Speaker, Peter has had the good fortune to be married to Karen for thirty years, and they are the proud parents of two sons, Marc and Daniel.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Dr. Peter A. Kurzberg's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank him for forty-two years of dedicated service to public education, and especially express our gratitude for twenty-two years of inspired leadership of the Braintree Public Schools.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Sacred Heart School in recognition of its one hundred years of educating the children of Weymouth and Braintree, Massachusetts.

Sacred Heart School was founded in 1913 by the Sisters of Saint Joseph at the request of Father John B. Holland. The school had a humble beginning with thirty-three first graders who were taught in the dining room of the convent under the direction of Sister Margaret Mary.

Today, Sacred Heart School serves over 260 students. Though it is now staffed by an all-lay faculty, the qualities of the Sisters of Saint Joseph live on through the commitment and dedication of the teachers.

Mister Speaker, the Sacred Heart School is committed to developing the whole child, in mind, body, and spirit, by integrating a strong academic program with a distinctly Catholic education; as a result, Sacred Heart students consistently score above the average on standardized tests. Community service is also an important component of a Sacred Heart education and the commitment to that service helps students develop a strong sense of civic engagement and lifelong sensitivities to improving the welfare of others.

A strong bond between the parish and school has long been a trademark of Sacred Heart. When a fire destroyed Sacred Heart Church in December of 2005, the school and parish communities came together to support one another during the difficult rebuilding process.

Another important trademark of Sacred Heart School is the level of parental involvement. Through the school's Home and School Volunteer Program, parents contribute nearly seven thousand hours of direct service to the school each year, which allows the school to offer a variety of academic and social programs for students.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with the Sacred Heart School community in celebrating one hundred years of Catholic education.

Mr. Speaker, today, February 28, 2013, marks the sixth annual International Rare Disease Day, a day to raise awareness of the nearly 7,000 rare diseases affecting 30 million Americans, or about one in ten people. Here in the United States, any disease affecting 200,000 people or fewer is considered rare.

Rare Disease Day is also an opportunity to celebrate the life-saving advances in science and research that continue to transform the diagnosis, treatment, and standard of care for many orphan diseases, thanks in no small part to the advocacy efforts of the medical community, patients and their families, and rare disease organizations.

In my congressional district, I have met with a number of constituents and their families whose lives have been impacted by rare diseases, cystic fibrosis among them.

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease affecting approximately 30,000 children and adults in the United States and is characterized by a reduction in the flow of salt and water across cell membranes, which leads to the buildup of thick, sticky mucus in the lungs. In 1955, with limited therapies available, children with cystic fibrosis were not expected to live long enough to attend elementary school. Today, due to significant improvements in medical treatment and care, people with the disease are living longer, healthier lives. The median predicted age of survival now stands at 38 years.

Today, I have never been more hopeful of the promise science holds for all patients affected by rare diseases; however, there remains much work to be done. On this sixth annual International Rare Disease Day, I join with patients and their families in urging my colleagues to think about what more Congress can do to help bring hope to those suffering from rare diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get away from the abstract here about studies that talk about who's making what. I've got three VA facilities in my district: the Brockton VA Hospital, the Jamaica Plain Veterans Hospital and the West Roxbury Veterans Hospital. I spend a lot of time at the VA. Earlier this week, I had a chance to go through and talk to a lot of my VA folks: the nurses, the docs, the therapists, the nursing assistants, and the orderlies.

Right now, we are trying to deal with the traumatic brain injury and PTSD issue at the VA, which is increasingly pernicious. We've got a lot of folks who are doing a lot of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan coming home, four, five, six tours of duty, and they've got problems. So we're relying on our folks at the VA to take care of our sons and daughters who are coming home, and they're hurting.

Well, I just want to talk about one young woman who is a nursing assistant down in Brockton at the VA. She's a GS-3. That's who we're talking about. We're going to freeze her pay for the 3rd year in a row. And she is trying her hardest to take care of our veterans. She's a GS- 3 under the system. She makes $27,322 a year. That's what that young woman makes. She's a nursing assistant. She's working in a psychiatric ward trying to take care of our sons and daughters who are coming home who need help, and we're freezing her pay by this bill. I'm talking about real people doing real work for brave Americans.

This is a disgrace. This is an absolute disgrace that we're doing this. I thought that maybe after the President's election and the new Congress coming in we'd get by this stuff. It is just disheartening to see this thing go on. This is the 3rd year in a row that this young lady's pay is going to be frozen. Not only that, but we don't have enough folks coming into the VA system because we're keeping the wages down. We can't compete with the private hospitals that are paying a lot more money. The docs at the private hospitals in my district, and I've got a bunch of them, the nurses and the therapists, they're all making a lot more money than the folks at the VA. And we're driving down the wages of these people and not taking care of them.

I don't want to point out the stuff about the pay for Congress. We ought to have our pay frozen. I have voted six times to freeze Congress' pay since I've been here in Congress, and we should do that. We shouldn't do it for a few months, like this bill does. We should freeze it right through the end of the Congress, because we should lead by example. I really believe that. We should freeze congressional pay.

I have a bill here that will do that right through the end of the Congress. I know it doesn't make some of my colleagues happy and their spouses happy, but I think it's something we ought to do. So let's get away from this stuff, beating up Federal employees. Let's try to do the right thing. It's an honorable thing, public service. We ought to

take care of our folks at the VA. Don't freeze their pay.

I ask my friends across the aisle to please join with me in voting against this measure.