Transcripts For CSPAN Public Affairs 20130507

member of the body could have brought forth his amendment. you're correct it was not submitted to the rules committee. it was offered in the committee of jurisdiction on which i also serve. and i argued, you might recall, to the chair yesterday that this bill is a fine candidate for an open rule, given that there's nothing else this body is doing today and we're getting done at 1:30, we might as well allow amendments like mr. bishop's and others to be debated by the house, considered by the full house. i also want to discuss something the gentlelady said, miscarkization of the opponents of this bill somehow saying the private sector is bad or government's good. i haven't heard anybody argue that. the private sector is great. private sector is the chief engine of economic growth. this discussion is about the private sector. it's the other side trying to model policies that they say already exist in the public sector and force the private sector to comply with them. we are not here seeking to try to copy what exists in the public sector and apply it to the private sector. private sector is the primary engine of economic growth. i think we disagree. i hear on the other side that somehow government is bad, i believe and many on my side believe the minimum amount of government is necessary to ensure the success of the private sector. to ensure the rules are followed and there is an open and competitive environment that allows the private sector to thrive and succeed and create jobs for american families. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. i thank the e: managers of this legislation. i think it should be made very clear since we'll have a general debate that i hope to engage in, that the underlying premise of this bill, h.r. 1406, is two simple points. and 140 undermines this point. the fair labor standards act only incentive provides the incentive for employers to adhere to the 40-hour workweek by paying time and a half. 1406 removes that fundamental requirement and allows employers to pay nothing for overtime work at the time the work is performed. i, too, am sensitive to those who want to join with their families and clearly that opportunity is there. but if you allow this bill to go forward, you take the choice out of the hands of the employee and if you are looking at a boilermaker, those in manufacturing, and a boilermaker can have close to 210 overtime hours, making a certain amount per hour, literally if you force them to take comp time and not be paid, you would cause them to lose their time and a half and they would lose almost $6,000 in income. i can tell you with the economic divide between the top 1% and working americans, many people work overtime in order to receive payment. and i think that 1406 goes in the wrong direction. what i would encourage my colleagues to do is to spend some time discussing the budget, passing a budget, ending sequestration, creating opportunities for the private sector to hire more people, and, frankly, the private sector would do well to cut their costs by hiring additional persons. so i oppose the rule and the underlying bill, and, mr. speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent at this time to bring up h.r. 900, which would end sequestration at this time, and begin to put us on the right track to ensure that we end the cuts in air traffic controllers and homeland security and head start, medicare, medicaid, meals on wheels, and begin to get this nation back on track. i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 900. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is retrained not to entertain the request unless cleared by the leadership. ms. jackson lee: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague mrs. hartzler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. hartzler: i rise today in support of the working families flexibility act. this legislation will remove an outdated federal mandate that prohibits private sector workers from been fitting from the personal options of flex time. public sector employees have had flex time option for 30 years and it's time private sector workers have the same opportunity to spend more time with their families or more time engaged in other interests away from the workplace. the state of missouri has allowed flex time for years for a variety of state agencies, like the missouri state water patrol. the lake of owe czars is in my -- ozarks is in my district and the water patrol work long hard days over the sumtory keep order on the lake and ensure the safety of boaters, skiers, and swimmers w a seasonal climate these state workers have taken advantage of working long summer days and saving flex time in the winter months for extended vacations or other seasonal work. these workers enjoy the flexibility and income stability of their jobs and it works out to be beneficial for the employees and the state. this commonsense labor provision makes the water patrol officer a very popular career choice, and encourages the type of competition that has led to continuous quality in the force. the working family flexibility act would modernize outdated regulations to allow private sector workers in missouri's fourth district and elsewhere to voluntarily use paid time off as compensation for the overtime hours they work. it will remove the obstacles standing in the way of working families and will allow working women to better balance their work and family obligations. as a working wife and mother, i understand how important it is to have a schedule that is flexible when children unexpectedly get sick or when high school graduation nears and mothers need extra time to celebrate the child's accomplishments. i support this commonsense legislation that allows flexibility for american workers and gives the power back to the workers and employers who voluntarily work together and find a solution that works best for everyone. again, i urge my colleagues to vote for this pro-family legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. if we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 377, representative delauro's paycheck fairness act. to discuss her bill i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. i rise in opposition to the previous question. defeat of the previous question will allow the gentleman from colorado to amend the rule to provide for consideration of the paycheck fairness act. an act that addresses the persistent problem of unequal pay in our economy and would help to make the bill before us a real boom for workers and families. today women are now half of the nation's work force. they are still only being paid 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men. and this holds true across all occupations and education levels. and for women of color, such disparates are even worse. let's take this body. u.s. congress, the house of representatives, we come from all over the country. we have different educational backgrounds. we have different skill sets and different philosophies, and yet while we are all men and women here, we get paid the same amount of money. that is not true for most women in the united states of america. the only other institution in which there is same job, same pay, men and women, is in the u.s. military. less pay for women means less pay for the entire family. at a time when millions are struggling to enter the middle class to give their children a chance at a better life to achieve the american dream. that's what paycheck fairness is all about. men, women, same job, same pay. 50 years ago congress passed the equal pay act to confront this,s quote, serious and endemic problem of unequal wages in america. president john f. kennedy signed it into law to end, and i quote, the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job. 50 years later it is clear that we have more to do. if this majority really wants to show good faith towards workers and their families and women in this nation, then what they will do, they will join us. they will take the steps that are necessary to end unequal pay, put an end to pay secrecy, strengthen a worker he -- workerers' ability and bring it into other civil rights laws. they will abandon the legislation that will gut the 40-hour workweek. that will allow employers to cut employees' overtime pay in order to save money. america's women, america's families have waited far too long for this institution to act. they are watching us now and i urge this majority to do right by them at last and help us to end unequal pay for women in this nation for good. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i would believe that the comments of my colleague from connecticut would be a little more sincere if she would direct the issue of pay disparate to the white house. the white house -- disparity to the white house. the white house needs to do something about the pay disparity. if we had leaders who led by example, then the white house would straighten out the pay disparity that exists there. also my colleagues don't seem to want to talk about the bill before us today because it is such commonsense legislation. they have no real arguments to an offer about defeating it so they want to distract the american people on to other issues. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my colleague from indiana, mr. stutzman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, life is hard. across indiana moms and dads are working hard to make ends meet. it's anything but easy. the national unemployment rate is 7.5%. more businesses are reducing employees he' hours under the immense pressure and weight of obamacare's red tape. on top of all that, president obama wants $1.2 trillion in new taxes on families and businesses. there is no time card at the dinner table. renting is a 24/7, 365-day job. unfortunately moms and dads in the private sector have to consider missing a day of work when flu season strikes. or when teacher conferences roll around. or when life throws another curveball. the last thing hoosiers in the real economy need is an outdated federal law that makes things harder. under the fair labor standards act of 1938, too many families are forced to make a difficult tradeoff. sit down with your sons' teachers and you can see a thinner paycheck at the end of the week. often mom and dad will take turns after they looked at the budget and calendar. for single parents it's another uphill battle. but while families on main street have to make tough choices, government workers have the flexibility to work overtime to cover these situations. we need to make sure that hoosiers in the everyday world have the same option. here in the house we introduced a simple commonsense solution. our bill gives hoosiers and americans a choice between cash wages and comp time for the overtime hours that they worked. government workers already get this option, so should everyday americans. by fixing an outdated law today, we can give working parents more flexibility tomorrow. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: before further yielding, i want to address this fallacious concept that the gentlelady from north carolina has brought up in previous debate as well as this one that somehow the white house discriminates against women. again that's been proven as untrue. we actually have a young lady who -- on our rules committee staff who worked for the white house and tells us she earned the same amount as men. of course for the same job women get paid the same amount. that's what paycheck fairness is about. it doesn't say if you do a different job you get paid the same amount. it doesn't mean every man and woman is compensated the same. it's for the same job, same pay, the obama administration, every one of their actions in the white house is actions has been consistent with that. we believe it should apply to the private sector because of course not every woman in the country has the privilege of working for the white house. we are talking about american families with real private sector jobs out there not these government jobs the other side keeps alluding to. with that i'll give two minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from colorado for yielding time. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1406. this isn't the first time we've seen anti-worker legislation created as a pro-family solution. but it's embarrassing, that here in 2013 we are considering a bill that would reverse over 70 years of worker protection. the so-called working families flexibility act is out of touch with what real, american working families need. real working families need protection against egregiously long hours and unreasonable management demands. real working families need fair wages paid to them in a timely manner. real working families need predictable schedules with time to care for their families and themselves. and real working families need the ability to take earned eave when they have earned it. and when they need it. this bill does nothing to address those needs. instead it sets up a false choice between time and pay. it incentivizes extensive overtime scheduling yet reducing an employee's control over her daily schedule and provides no guarantee that the time off earned could be actually use the only flexibility provided in this bill is to bosses who would be given the flex to believe the choose to do -- to do whatever they choose without standards, without consideration for the needs of the families of their workers. i urge my colleagues to come together and support policies that would truly support our working families. a real family friendly bill would allow workers to earn paid sick days. it would extend access to job protected leave. it would work to close the gender pay gap. instead, this mother's day all we have to offer our hardworking moms is a disingenuous bill that moves us backwards. our mother december serve bert. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. as my colleague from california knows, i am very fond of her and respect her a great deal. but i want to say that this bill is not a bad bill. this pill does not roll back the rights of workers at all. and if the bill is so bad and what it does is give fairtons people in the private sector, and it gives to the people in the private sector the same rights and privileges that people in the public sector have, then why are my colleagues not trying to roll back those rights for the public sector? it would make sense that all the horrible things they have said about this bill, which apply to the public sector, you would want to protect the public sector. but that's not what my colleagues are doing. they're simply saying, it isn't right to let the private sector employees have the same rights and privileges that public sector employees have. it doesn't make any sense. -- it doesn't make any sense for them to make that argument. it just doesn't make any sense to do that. mr. speaker, the working families flexibility act makes it easier for american workers to juggle the needs of family and the workplace. that's what it accomplishes. and i want to urge the people watching this debate to read the bill. unlike the thousand pages bill that come out that people have to wait until it passes before they understand what's in it, before we understand what's in it, this bill is basically eight pages long. any american can read this bill and understand it. so i would say to you, you doubt what we are saying on our side of the aisle, read the bill. that is the best way for the american public to be informed. mr. speaker, as we consider it, there are some things to keep in mind. first, it in no way undermines long-standing essential worker safeguards or forces workers to give up overtime pay if that's how they choose to be compensated. it simply provides an additional level of flexibility that government workers already enjoy. i don't know how many more ways we can make that point, mr. speaker. but we'll continue to do that. further, the bill does not allow employers to bully employees into picking comp time over cash payment. it provides new, important safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time over cash wages is truly voluntary. employees can change their minds and request overtime cash payment in lieu of unused comp time. for employees represented by labor organization, the labor organization and the employer must first reach an agreement to provide this benefit before the employee can choose to exercise it. for an employee who is not a member of a labor organization the agreement is between an employer and individual employee and must be entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the employee and may not be a condition of employment. the bill does not change the 40-hour work week or how overtime is currently calculated and accrued and does not affect comp time provisions providing -- regarding employees of federal, state, or local governments. mr. speaker, in fiscal year 12, i.r.s. employees accrued 246,450 hours of comp time in lieu of overtime pay. 30,806 full to eight-hour days. employees a at the department 6,387 r acrude 51,097 or full eight-hour days. employees at the department of education accrued 12,408 hours of comp time for 1,551 full eight-hour days. it's clear that federal employees appreciate this flexibility. what is unclear is why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so he will bent on denying private sector employees this same flexibility. what's good for the goose is good for the grander. we hear the word fairness from the other side of the aisle constantly. this bill is fair, mr. speaker. h.r. 1406 simply affords private sector employees the same flexibility that federal, state, and local government employees have enjoyed for over 30 years. it is uncon shon to believe me that our colleagues would vote against this and say, you should be a second class citizen if you work in the private sector. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserve. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: before further yielding, i want to again address this great and sudden desire that my tissue that the gentlelady from north carolina has expressed to make sure that government policies apply to the private sector to try to say somehow what -- the way government employees are treated needs to be the way that every private sector employee is treated. usually it's the private sector that leads the way, not the government, like the gentlelady from north carolina is arguing. in fact, it's even a misinterpretation of what the public sector does. the public sector has civil service protections for its employees. that's something that doesn't exist in the private sector. if we had been able to, under an open rule, which we don't have, because of course somehow this body has to finish up by 2:00 p.m. so everybody can go home but if we were allowed to have an open rule and bring forth amendments on this we would be able to introduced mr. bishop's amendment which would have facilitated the discussion of well if it's good enough for the goose it's good enough for the grander. if the republicans are so keen to apply public sector personnel policy to the private sector, why not apply civil service protections to the private sector? the truth of the matter is, there's a night and tai difference between the types of protections and policies that public sector and private sector employees have. one of the goal of civil various acts was to add a degree of professionalism to public sector jobs to take away the patronage component. by and large it succeeded in that goal to its great credit. it's a very different set of rules we have with regard to the private sector system of again, i think that that is, to a certain degree, a false analogy. and i hope that the information i provided helps correct that in the eyes of those who are listening. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, a colleague of mine, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank congressman polis for the time and rise against the rule and the underlying bill for the more work for less pay act. congress should protect workers' wages and overtime rights not undermine them. "usa today" reported yesterday that stock markets and corporate profits are at breaking records. but workers who rely on paychecks for their income have been running in place. financially speaking, and falling behind, despite productivity increases consistently for the last several years. that mean this is they're working harder for less. adjusting for inflation, an average worker paid $49,650 at the end of 2009 is now making about $5455 less, and that's before taxes and deductions. living standards aren't rising for the middle class, they're falling. yet the profits of standard and poor's 500 companies hit a record in the first quarter. the roaring market is making the richest americans even richer, giving them even more money to spend. bine moynihan of bank of america earns about $12.1 million that's reported in the paper, i'm sure it's more than that. at goldman sachs, their c.e.o., $21 million, and john stump of wells fargo, $22 million. how much more do they need? in the first two years the recovery while average net worth rose for the top 7% of households, it fell for the over 93% according to the pew research center. the reason is clear. corporate america isn't sharing its record earnings with those who are earning them. in fact, higher corporate profits owed partially to the workers success of paying workers less even while workers are working harder and holding down their raises and forcing overtime rather than hiring from the ranks of 12 million who remain unemployee. productivity has been rising at an average of 1.5% a year since the recovery began while employers are squeezing additional work out of each porker. -- worker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional minute. ms. kaptur: even while hire regular mains sluggish. so many americans are out of work that employers can get away with give nothing raises at all. america is supposed to be about opportunity for all, not just the few. we're supposed to be about fair pay for hard work. i ask my colleagues to oppose the republican more work for less pay act and i would urge us to pay fair wages for a fair day's work. all you have to do is go to parts of the country where people's faces are worn, you'll see what's really happening out in the real america. let's oppose this republican bill and the rule. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i assume the gentleman from colorado has additional speakers. but at this time i would like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i have one remaining speaker. with that, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to the majority's working families flexibility act. it troubles me to oppose a bill that is the exact same name of a bill that i've introduced in three previous congresses that provided real workplace flexibility for working men and women. i believe that this bill, the republican bill would be more aptly named more work, less pay act. my bill would have provided employers and employees with protections in discussing flexible work arrangements. unlike the more work less pay act, workers would lose the basic guarantee of fair pay for overtime work and time off from work under the fair labor standards act. it would deprive hardworking people of their earned income and fail to guarantee them the right to use that overtime even for a personal or family emergency. shamefully the u.s. ranks among the least generous in industrialized countries when it comes to family friendly workplace policy like paid family leave and paid sick leave. congress should be focused on increasing the minimum wage, expanding family and medical leave and providing opportunities for real flexible work options. these policies are common sense. true workplace advancement benefits both business and worker interests. instead the republican bill hurts employees. by giving them less pay at a time when their wages are stagnant. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, oppose this rule, and bring up the majority's alternative. and allow the majority to have amendments and alternatives to the rule. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: a little while ago we had a debate about the pay in the white house, i have an article from the daily -- from "the daily caller" i'd like to enter into the record, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: i'll quote briefly from the article. 's -- the article is 1/15/2013, posted by carolyn may. while president obama handily won the women's vote by 11 percentage points in november over republican mitt romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll less than male employees last year. a "daily caller" analysis of the administration's 2012 annual report to congress on white house staff shows while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers as the president touted during his press conference on monday, they also earned about 13% less on average than their male counterparts. the median 2012 salary for female flofse white house was $62,000. for men that number was $71,000. he article ends with a quote from new york democratic representative charlie rangel. he call odd because ma's failure to appoint more women and minorities to high profile positions embarrassing as hell. the questions i've heard are fair, rangel said, january 10, on msnbc. the record does speak for itself. with that, i resever the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i inquire if the gentlelady has further speakers. ms. foxx: i am willing to close after the gentleman from colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: very well, i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all inflating somehow paycheck fairness with commenation -- compensation of women at the white house is comparing apples and/or rangs. nothing that -- and oranges, nothing says that women and men should all be paid the same regardless of what their job is. it simply says equal work, equal pay. there is no evidence in the "daily caller" or anywhere else that the same job in the white house or anywhere in the administration that women are paid less. they are not. even if you have paycheck fairness, again, we passed our law. it becomes the law of the land in the private sector, it doesn't mean every woman gets the same pay as every man. it simply means for the same job men and women get the same pay. it's quite possible there could still be a differential either way. there's not a problem with that. it depends what jobs people have. for the same job, it should be the law of the land as it has been president obama's policy that men and women receive the same pay. mr. speaker, this bill, the more work, less pay bill is yet another attempt to roll back workers' rights under the guise of doing just the opposite. i wish we were here talking about things that would been fit american families. like the paycheck fairness act which i'm sure women receive equal pay for equal work. making sure people don't get fired for their job just because of who they date. none of the boss' business. instead of collaborating with democrats to produce a he compromise bill we can be proud of, instead this house is considering a bill that would weaken overtime and nearly identical to bills that have failed in three prior congresses. there's many measures that we could be taking up to help grow the economy, reduce the deficit, create jobs, invest in the middle class, replace our broken immigration system with one that works. this bill is none of those. i wanted to point out and highlight the work of the democrats on the education and work force committee. he website is democrats. edworkforce.house.gov. they produce add video that shows what this less pay, more work legislation is. mr. speaker, i support giving american workers and families more flexibility. there could be a way to work together, but again this body has not found -- done so. it does just the opposite. instead of having an open rule under which many of us could bring forth amendments to discuss, democratic members offered several sensible amendments which were rejected by the house majority both in the committee of jurisdiction and the rules committee. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. -- ms. delauro's bill, i ask unanimous consent to insert the material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can bring up the paycheck fairness act. i urge a no vote on this he restrictive rule and the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, mr. speaker, we are very proud of this bill. and i can't understand, again, why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so opposed to fairness when fairness applies to the private sector. and i'd like to point out to my colleague that we would have entertained amendments in the rules committee had they been germane or if they had not been withdrawn. as he well knows having -- being a member of the rules committee, the amendments that were introduced by his colleagues were withdrawn before the committee had an opportunity to consider the amendments, or were ruled nongermane. i also assume that based on the comments our colleagues have made across the aisle is that because the rights and privileges that are given to public employees are so horrible that they cannot be extended to the private sector, that they will probably be introducing a bill to withdraw those rights and privileges because they are only hurting public employees and he does not -- and our colleagues don't want to be hurting private sector employees. mr. speaker, house republicans are committed to providing more opportunities for more americans and helping make life work for more families. this legislation is a great step in that direction. the rule before us today provides for consideration of a bill that gives employees across the country the flexibility that they deserve so they can better manage the many daily challenges of family life. whether the employee's a new parent who wishes to stay at home with the newborn, a proud aunt who wishes to attend her nephew's baseball game, or son or daughter who wants to care for an elderly parent, america's private sector employees should be able to determine for themselves what to do with the overtime compensation that they have earned. therefore i urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of >> that news conference live on c-span.org at 3:00 p.m. eastern. the issue is the subject of a floor speech earlier today by california representative jackie speier. >> mr. speaker, thank you. next to me is a mug shot. a mug it's a mug shot of someone who has been charged with sexual assault. this is a mug shot of jeffrey crizin i ask -- krinzinsky, he's a lieutenant colonel in the air force. his job is to work at the pentagon as the chief officer of the sexual assault and prevention office. within the air force. this man is charged with the responsibility of preventing and reporting sexual assaults in the military. in the air force. just this last weekend he was charged with sexually assaulting a woman in a parking lot. the best and the brightest the air force has to offer to run this office, and he's a sexual predator? is that what we are talking about? this is an indictment of the office that is supposed to be the solution for military rape and assault? it's an indictment of our procedures. it's an indictment of everything we have done on this issue. and congress is as culpable as the military in not addressing it, because we have known about this issue for 25 years. and we are big on holding hearings and beating our chests, saying, this has got to stop. the big brass comes up to the hill and they say all the right words. they say we have a zero tolerance. and then our chief prevention officer is charged with a sexual assault. but it doesn't end there. the bad news doesn't end there. the military just released today its sexual assault and prevention office report on how many sexual assaults took place in the military last year. and guess what? the numbers have gone up. by 30%. from 19,000 sexual assaults and rapes in the military based on the last year's figures, to the most recent years' figures of 26,000 rapes and sexual assaults in the military. for all the money we have been throwing at this issue, for all the he prevention and all the rehabilitation and of the training, the numbers keep going up. and now this most recent report 1/3 of ests that 1/3, the women serving in the military reported that they were sexually harassed last year. this is an institution of military good discipline, good order. it is time for us to roll up our sleeves and do something real about this. we have got to stop just kind of nibbling around the edges in an effort to try and fix a broken system. 121 members have joined me as co-authors of legislation that would take the reporting of sexual assault out of the chain of command, keep it in the military, but place it in a separate office, staffed by persons who are experts in investigations, experts in prosecuting these crimes. and until he we do something like this, the numbers of sexual assaults will continue to rise in the military. the number of unrestricted reports will not rise as fast as the number of restricted reports. why do we have restricted reports? why would we say to any member of the military, yes, report this but we will keep it quiet, we will sweep it under the rug? this, my friends, is time for to us do something. it is time for us to say that we are not going to tolerate another scandal. we are not going to tolerate a scandal at the air force base where there were 59 victims and 32 military training instructors who were implicated. we are not going to tolerate that in italy we have a major general who overturned the decision by five military members of a jury who court-martialed a lieutenant colonel and found him guilty, and yet the major general overturned the decision and decided to reinstate this individual. he time, my fri >> second hagel's news conference, 3:00 p.m. eastern live on c-span.org. the u.s. house gaveling back in sometime after 2:00 for procedural votes on the bill dealing with comp time and overtime pay. live coverage here on c-span when they gavel back in. electing a new member of the house today in south carolina in the first district to fill the seat of tim scott, who was appointed to the senate. republican candidate is former south carolina governor, mark sanford. the democrat is elizabeth bush, sister of economy sentry's stephen coal bear -- colbert. it's a dead heat race. details later on c-span. maces, again weapons of war in previous centuries, but now symbols of sovereign authority. charge of security and so much of the administration in the house of lords. we'll see more of him in a short while. the purse with the speech. the duke of norfolk. and the lord great chamberlain, the queen and duke of edinburgh. >> my lord and members of the house of commons. the government program will focus on economic growth, justice, and constitutional reform. >> queen elizabeth delivers her government's priorities for the upcoming year during the state opening of british partly. . a live simultaneous from the bbc wednesday morning at 5:30 eastern on c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span2.org. >> prior to women's house oversight committee hearing on the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, u.s. ambassador to libya nominee, dave jones, testified today on capitol hill saying she'll work closely with the libyan government to bring the perpetrators to justice. ambassador jones, former u.s. ambassador to kuwait, has been nominated by president obama to replace ambassador chris stevens who was killed along with three other americans during the attack on september 11, 2012. we'll show you as much as of this hearing as we can until the house gavels back in sometime fter 2:00 eastern. >> good morning, this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. today we are pleased to welcome two nominees to ambassador and chad, two difficult assignments. the regions run creasing strategic significance for the united states, and i look forward to hearing your views on these critical and interlinked regions. we can never forget ambassador chris stevens and the three other american public servants, tyrone woods, sean smith, and glen daugherty who lost their lives in the attack on the u.s. mission in benghazi last september. we also remember ann whose death in afghanistan just last month reminded us once again the dangers that every diplomat serving abroad faces. the attacks on benghazi raise questions about how we can best ensure those serving in our embassies can do their jobs and reach outside the wire and still keep our people safe and security. i'm committed to doing all we can to ensuring that congress does its part in providing the tools or embassies need to operate as effectively and safely as possible around the world. i look forward to hearing the views of both our nominees on balancing embassy security, the need to reach outside of that wire. that said, we cannot let the events in benghazi overshadow the progress that libya continues to make in fulfilling the promise of the revolution. there is no doubt that progress libya has been messy, the political process is continuing with the elections last sumtory form the general national congress. we have seen the civil society that remains engaged how to best move the country forward, an important ingredient for any democracy. and there is no doubt that the united states enjoys a certain level of popularity in libya that we saw in the aftermath of ambassador steven's death when thousands took to the street against the extremists and in support of the united states. the critical question is how to harness that good will to help the libyan people get a democracy that has a healthy relationship with the united states. still the most vital and difficult question when it comes to libya is one of security. security situation remains precarious. recent car bomb outside the french beemcy in tripoli as well as kidnappings and assassination attempts of public officials by militia groups still operate with impunity are a challenge. the central government is unable to assert its control outside of tripoli and the broader challenge of this army and reintegrating foreign fighters remains. border security is also an issue of critical concern. these issues affect not only libya but the entire region. we have already seen how arms flows coming out of libya have added new weapons to existing conflicts. orders more fuss smuggling routes. too often we adhere to our own bureaucratic boundaries between the near east and north africa on the one hand and sub-saharan africa on the other. this hearing will allow us to cross those artificial barriers, ache the 30-,000 foot -- 30,000-foot view. chad is ripe with challenges. it is among the world's poorest contry, highest maternal more tality rate in the world. life exsmectiancy under 50. and literacy rates around 30%. it's ranked fourth in the most recent failed states index, but has also stood with the french to restore stability and security in mali. the united nations consolidated appeals said chad was, quote, on a steady path to sustainable recovery and destabilization. i hope that is the case. chad is an important diplomatic posting for the united states. so with that background i welcome our nominees, the honorable deborah k. jones of new mexico, nominated to be ambassador to libya, and who will be introduced by our good friend and colleague, senator udall of new mexico. and ambassador james knight who comes to us from serving in baghdad and previously a chief of mission in benen and held other posts mostly in africa in his over two decades in foreign service. i look forward to the testimony of our nominees. with that let me turn to senator corker for his opening statement and turn to senator udall to make an introduction and hear from our nominees. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, welcome our two nominees and their families and senator udall who will introduce them. i thank you for having this hearing in the full committee. i know typically we have these in subcommittees, but the roles you are playing will be very important and therefore it's taking place in the full committee hearing. i just traveled not three months ago or so through northern africa, and to see what's happening with the nose, if you will, of al qaeda that have now splintered off and the effect it will have on north africa and the role it will play as it relates to world stability. certainly speaks of the importance of your two roles. in chad we have a country that is actually helping and working outside of its boundaries to help us with some of these issues, but very weak internally and has problems within the country. in libya we have a situation as we talked about yesterday in the office, a country that almost doesn't have a government, and you can feel it when you are there on the ground and very much militia control throughout the country. and many changes recently that could have a negative effect on the country. we have a special responsibility there because of the role that we played -- role we played in that country. i support the mission. of both of you. i thank you for coming today. i look forward to your testimony. and look forward to hopefully very strong and outstanding service in the region that is very important to our country. thank you both for being here. >> thank you. senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, senator corker, and members of the committee. i very much appreciate the opportunity to introduce ambassador deborah jones. ambassador jones has served with great distinction over a long career in the u.s. state department. she also is a fellow new mexican and we are proud of her accomplishments. her family has lived in both new mexico and arizona since her grandparents moved from mexico's dublant. colonia new mexico is proud to add her to the long list of distinguished ambassadors to have called new mexico home. ambassador jones has dedicated her life to public service, and she has tried to instill those same values in her children. her daughter, isabelle, recently worked as an intern in my office and believe she's here today with us. in 1982 -- >> how did she do? >> of course, ambassador jones will introduce the rest of her family, but i thought i should give special recognition there to isabelle. in 1982 ambassador deborah jonesback .began her career as vice council of the u.s. embassy in buenosar reese, argentina. while her career began in latin america, she soon began to develop her expertise in the middle east. she's no stranger to tough assignments. in the early 1990's she served as the consular section chief in syria. she was the desk officer for the kingdom of jordan from 1995 through 1997. she also was director of the ffice of the arabian peninsula affairs, and iran, bureau of near eastern affairs. she served with distinction in her critical work as chief of mission at the u.s. embassy in kuwait. she speaks arabic, spanish, and french. she has an m.s. in national security strategy from the national war college, and a b.a. in history from brigham young university. following her service as and bam door in kuwait, she's worked as a senior advisor for international affairs at the u.s. naval war college. and a scholar and residence at the middle east institute. ambassador jones will be ready from day one to tackle the numerous challenges facing libya. the libyan people are still struggling to remake their country after years of dess podic leadership. the libyan government has also been under strain to rein in militias, as senator corker talked about. these groups have attempted to use coercion and intimidation to exact legislative changes such as the recently passed political isolation law. and a terror threat still exists today in libya. a threat which has resulted in attacks on civilians and government officials in embassies, including in benghazi. ambassador jones will be our first ambassador since the tragic events at benghazi. as we consider this nomination, it's important to remember the work of chris stevens and all our diplomatic personnel who died while in service to the united states. ambassador stevens and his staff believe strongly that the value of freedom embraced by both libyan and the american people would prevail. ambassador jones if confirmed will be taking on the important foreign policy task of representing the united states in libya. she will be continuing the important diplomatic work begun by ambassador stevens. i have every confidence that she's up to the task to move us forward in libya and in north africa, which has emerged as a region of great importance to our country. and i am thankful for the time she has already spent with me discussing these vital issues. a peaceful and democratic libya is important for regional stability. it is important for the interest of the united states. it is no secret that the gaddafi regime created lasting damage in libya or that the militant groups that have attempted to take advantage of a government and country that is still in transition. ambassador jones will need to work with the libyan government to enhance security and the rule of law. and she will have the important work of balancing access with security at our embassies and consequence lats through -- i know she's going to do that well, and through our discussions i know she's mindful of this important job. she has a keen understanding of the responsibility being given to her by the president if confirmed. mr. chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to introduce ambassador jones, the president has wisely chosen an individual of great experience, expertise, and commitment, and i look forward to supporting such a well qualified candidate. thank you again. >> thank i, senator udall. thank you for all those insights. >> i will excuse myself here but i'm sure that she will do very well without me. >> with that we are happy to invite ambassador jones first to give her testimony, if you recall statements both for ambassador jones and knight will be included in the record. without objection. and we ask to you summarize it for the purposes of being able to have a discussion. we invite you, if you wish, to introduce any of your family members that may be here with you. we recognize that service abroad on behalf of the country also is a sacrifice of family. we appreciate their willingness to engage in that as well. ambassador jones. >> thank you, senator. mr. chairman, ranking member corker, members of the committee, i am grateful and i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and a special thank you to the honorable senator from my home state of new mexico, senator tom udall, for introducing me to this venerable committee. i am grateful to the president and secretary for their confidence and trust in nominating me to serve as ambassador to libya. finally i would like to thank my family for their support and understanding, and especially my lovely daughters, anna, and isabella who are with me today. . they have been great troopers and sports as they've accompanied their parents overseas or sacrificed the commitment. they kept us honest along the way, i assure you, and i am grateful to them. they are great patriots. the euphoria that accompanied he uprising of libya and colonel gaddafi has been replaced by the enormity and the depth of the challenges facing libya's leaders and its people. as we've witnessed throughout the people, democratic transitions are notoriously difficult, political process is organic, not linear, uprising can be fueled by electrons but we know from our often turbulent past that nations are built on the brick and mortar of the painful reconciliation through the political dialogue. libya enjoys several advantages, unlike chad, including a relatively small population and significant oil wealth. however, we should never estimate the effect that more than four decades of colonel gaddafi as you rule had on the country and society, gaddafi deliberately dismantled the institutions, blocked the emergence and quashed any initiative. he relied on a network of corruption that effectively created a vacuum from which libya's brave new leaders must build democratic institutions, consolidate, control over militias, some clearly hijacked by those purposes didn't have anything to do whatsoever to the libyan people and ensure that all libyans are represented and respected by the new government while dispensing with the country's wealth fairly and transparently. the good news is despite these difficult challenges there are courageous and determined libyans, including those who have given up comfortable lives abroad and achieved notable successes. a government that pays salaries and provides goods and services. the july election, as you mentioned, which were remarkably successful and forming libya's first democratic institution in over four decades and libya's oil production which is important to the stability of world oil prices which has reached preconflict levels, largely relying on libyan nationals. the inherent optimism of libyan patriots has fueled these developments which we saw on display when thousands of libyans peacefully honored the second anniversary of the revolution. having said that, very serious challenges remain. first and foremost, the central government authority to strengthen its capacity, to assert sovereign monopoly along the vast and porous borders. weapons, including man pad into conflict zones throughout the broader region must be destauveraged. the integration of the brigade -- militia which was to the is now having a secure, cohesive app rat russ which will defeat volatile and deadly defeat the as and past those that were senselessly and brutally killed. the perpetrators must be brought to justice and ilwork closely to the libyan -- and i will work closely with the libyan government. ultimately, ultimately, lasting security and domestic stability will emerge from an inclusive constitutional process that delineates clear lines of authorities, offers protections to all libyans and a reformed judicial system capable of garnering public confidence and administering a comprehensive national transition justice strategy to deal with past gaddafi abuses and current criminalality. they must accommodate the requirements to secure a security vacuum that otherwise would have been exploited by foreign elements, including al qaeda's affiliates, whose efforts to establish a safe haven must be at the need. in short, libya's national guard requires careful tending during this period. we have had a package of technical assistance during this ten with us and transitionle -- tenous and transitional time. it remains in our strong national interest to fund a limited number of activities of immediate concern to libyan security and larger regional security and to lay the proper foundations for libya's transition to a democratic state. libya's leaders have asserted their willingness to pay their own way and indeed they're tapping their petroleum revenues and assets of the previous regime. as the libyan government evolves and increases its compass its and gains experience, for example, with steps needed to procure and contract, the need for u.s. and other external funding will drop away. implementing these programs now, however, gives us the best opportunity to support and strengthen a libyan government that is fragile but can be a long-term partner of the united states and a stable actor in the region. and among these u.s.-funded activities are programs aimed at preventing weapons proliferation, providing advice on transitional governance issues on concerns such as border security, rule of law, human rights and promoting a vibrant civil society. this seed money will pay substantial dividends if it's wisely husbanded. it's in our national interest, both strategic as well as libya to fulfill a stable and proper democracy and the full integration and participation of all elements of libyan society in all areas with respect to human rights and international norms. historic rivalries between traditional centers of culture and governance can have a conjoined national dynamism and create synergies of opportunity for libya. the development of its full national capacity and sovereignty will enhance our own security and economic well-being through regional security cooperation, the study production of hydrocarbons to have global health and trade with companies to help the development. it challenges notwithstanding, and they are significant, can be an engine for growth supporting the transitions aking place in tunisia and tanzania. given our support of the toppling of gaddafi and our engagement following the restoration of diplomatic relations going back to 2008. i have been very moved and touched by the emails i received from private libyan citizens following the white house announcement of my nomination expressing their deep sorrow over the heinous, despicable attack on ambassador stevens and our fallen colleagues and ensuring me of their hospitality and desire to welcome and cooperate with a new united states ambassador. i am well aware of the unique challenges i will face in the current environment. and if confirmed, i am committed to working closely with this congress in carrying on the excellent work of both gene and chris and their stevens and forging strong ties between students, business communities and women and minorities, leveraging our instruments of national power and all the connections and the tools at my disposal in coordination with our allies and like-minded powers who do share our interest in ensuring a stable libya. our engagement with libya lingers long before the 2011 revolution and includes historic cooperation between world war ii and the cold war as well as our cooperative efforts in developing libya's oil and gas sectors since 1959. last but not least, i am deeply conscious of the responsibility i would have as chief admission for the safety and security of the approximately 4,000 americans residing in libya and for that of those individuals attached to our mission there. as we strive to balance safety considerations with a deep desire to engage and do the work of the american people as expressed by members of this congress and this administration. and in this regard, i'd like to express my deep gratitude to my colleagues in diplomatic security and to our united states marine corps, other armed forces members and other u.s. agency colleagues whose heroic efforts make it us for us to continue our daily work there. honorable members of this committee, it has been my privilege and great honor to have spent 31 years in the service of my country working with nine administrations to champion america's interests and values and expand the reach of freedom through the conduct of diplomacy with nations at war and at peace, most in some sort of political transition, some in poverty and others enjoying great wealth. should you choose to confirm me, it will be my honor and my sworn duty to lead our mission in libya as we meet the challenges of establishing and consolidating the foundations of a strong, prosperous and democratic libya, aligned with the united states in a mutual lieu beneficial relationship. -- mutually beneficial relationship. thank you. i look forward to your consideration. >> thank you. mr. knight. >> thank you. members of the committee, i am deeply honored to appear today as the president's nominee to be the next ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of chad. i thank president obama and secretary kerry for the confidence and trust they have shown by nominating me for this position. if confirmed, i will work with you all to best represent the interests and values of the american people to the government and people of chad. at a moment when chad is becoming a stronger partner for the united states and its allies in a critical region. i am pleased that my -- >> watch this hearing online at c-span.org. the house oversight committee on benghazi tomorrow live c-span311:30 eastern. now live to the house floor for a series of votes. 198, by the yeas and nays. adoption of h.res. 198, if ordered. approval of the journal by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 198 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 22, house resolution 198. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1406, to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 230. the nays are 198. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228. the nays are 199. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 293 and the nays are 131 with one voting present. the journal stands approved. can we have order? he house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous nsent to withdraw mr. mike pompeo of kansas, mr. ruben hinojosa of texas as co-sponsors of h.r. 632 who were mistakenly added to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. petri: mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. he house will come to order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, today is national teacher's appreciation day. there are many factors that contribute towards a quality education, but no one factor is more significant than the teacher. teachers make a difference in the lives of students every day across this great nation. teachers work to open students' minds to ideas, knowledge and dreams and keep american democracy alive by laying the foundation for good citizenship. to quote president kennedy, there's an old saying that the course of civilization is a race between catastrophe and education. in a democracy such as ours, we must make sure that education wins the race. our nation faces many challenges today, including a struggling economy and record unemployment. for these problems and others, the education provided by teachers can be the key to our success. i'm very prishe tif to all the teachers that made such a difference in my life, including the lives of my children, and i urge my colleagues to take time to recognize, acknowledge the impact of teachers in our lives and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. today the environmental working group launched their worth it campaign, highlighting the invaluable role that small and mid-sized farmers play in protecting our environment, contributing to our economy and strengthening our core values. i could not agree more. it's our small and mid-sized farmers who are some of the best stewards of our land. many of those farmers talk to me about climate change. they're worried. they're outside every day seeing the impact changing weather has on their topsoil, crop patterns and water availability. they're the people who -- 3,527 the 3,500 weather records set last year and they're the ones asking congress to help them. i will be introducing the balancing food, farm act to assist farmers better adapt to climate change impact and to continue to support their stewardship efforts by updating the conservation provisions in the farm bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, cara was in the third grade when the school notified hire parents about her difficulty in processing words. her speech pattern was different. it affected every aspect of her life, including her self-esteem. so kara's third grade teacher, mrs. morgan, was determined to help the little girl speak better so the teacher and the pupil worked very hard together on talking. the success of both of them occurred this way. later that little girl who couldn't speak very well woke off the stage in high school as valedictorian. she also obtained her bachelor's degree, her master's degree and today she's an associate professor at baylor university in the department, yes, english. the little girl with word problems is teaching about word patterns. i come from a family of teachers. my mother, my mother-in-law, my wife and my three daughters are teachers by profession. and kara is one of those daughters. so today being teacher's appreciation day we thank mrs. morgan and all of america's teachers for helping our kids be what they want to be. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? the gentlewoman from new hampshire? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. in recent years the federal government has wasted many dollars that serve no purpose. mr. kuster: last year the government accountability office found that the -- ms. kuster: last year the government accountability office found that 28,000 empty bank accounts at an annual cost of $2 million, that's inexcusable. no new hampshire family or business would tolerate that type of waste and neither should the government. that's why today i'm partnering with my republican colleague, representative kevin cramer, to sbow deuce commonsense legislation that would put an end to this wasteful practice. this legislation won't solve our fiscal challenges, but the fact is the federal government shouldn't tolerate any waste no matter how big or small. let's prove to the american people that we're capable passing the clean act. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise today to thank and honor esperanza elizabeth on their long deserved employment at the university of miami. their distinguished careers were marked by impressive contributions to a collection, a special collection called the cuban heritage collection. their commitment to excellence has truly allowed them to shape the lives of many students, academics and historians and in that i count my father, enrique ros, who authored a book and relied upon the original document found in the library's collection. many other authors and historians have also come to rely on these documents. i have great confidence that the library will continue in the positive direction that esperanza has set forth and for their commitment, it will be remembered for many years to come, mr. speaker. as a former florida certified teacher, i know there are few rewards greater than the satisfaction of investing in education and i thank esperanza and lesbia for empowering so many in our communities for the resources and guidance to expand their knowledge. i wish them all the best in this new chapter of their lives. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the entlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: republicans are going to strip american workers from overtime. they say, oh, this is family friendly, and there's certainly flexibility now that people can grant employees leave. this would be an interest-free loan to employees. it's up to them if they give you the comp time, they could wait until the end of the year, pay you the overtime, not having granted you comp time, having had an interest-free loan. many americans are having trouble making ends meet, they're dependent on overtime pay to make ends meet wages are stagnant they need overtime pay to make ends meet, women still earn 70 cents on the dollar compared to men, they need money to help feed their kids but the republicans want to take that away from them, in the guise of being family friendly. happy mother's day from the republicans. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute >> mr. speaker, on november 5, opened fire ssan at fort hood texas, kill 14g, wound 4g2 others. this was clearly an act of terror yet the department of defense and army of class -- and the army classified this case as workplace violence. this is an insult to the brave men and women killed that day. but this isn't about semantics, it's about who we are as americans. by declaring their deaths as injuries as a result of workplace violence, they were denid v.a. health care, counseling and critical health services, and combat-related special compensation. it's also made them ineligible to receive the purple heart. mr. rooney: i can say without hesitation that the army should be ashamed of this level of care it has shown our sole scrers. i joined one republican and one democrat, congressman wolf and congressman fattah, in sending a letter to secretary hagel asking them to change the designation from workplace violence to combat realed. let us send a mess abbling, -- a message, that's who we are as americans, that's how we treat our veterans. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: wogs, the gentleman is recognized for onemy. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. last night there was a historic and important news from the mideast. for the second time the israeli and turkish governments met and feel they're close to having an agreement to renew their diplomatic relations which for three year han existed there could be nothing more important to peace and america's interests than the israeli and turkish governments working together. having that historic relationship mened came about because president obama urged president netanyahu to apologize for the problems with the flotilla. at was a midge step on prime minister net an yahoo use -- netanyahu's part and it was a big step for the turkish leaders to accept it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: wogs, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. celebrate k we public charter schools week. it is important that we continue to create and develop this important educational option. minnesota is a lead for the developing innovative new ways to educate our children, including being the first state to allow charter schools 21 years ago. we are now ranked number one in the country for having charter school friendly laws and developing high quality and independent charter school option. last congress we made significant bipartisan support and progress with the introduction of the bipartisan all-star act and passage of the poem uh put -- empowering paraphernalias through quality charter schools act. i'm building on this propress and success by working to craft additional options that aid in the replication of successful charter schools. america will continue to lead the world in innovation and ideas if our children receive the best education from childhood through graduate school and all by -- and by strengthening charter schools and making sure that the child's zip code does not determine the quality of education they're able to receive is the direction we should go in congress. i yield pack. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the so-called flexibility 's act would amend and subvert the fair labor standards act of 1938 to allow private sector workers to compensate their employees instead of paying them overtime. it gives employers legal cover to force employees to work more and to pay them less. what would improve the lives of working families would be an increase in the minimum wage. what would provide flexible workplaces would be to give adequate leave options under the family medical leave act. flexible workplaces provide competitive living wages for employees. flexible workplaces provide sufficient sick pay leave. h. reform 1406 does nothing to advance any of these proposals. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> this week the house is going to take action on a bill that's going to give american workers mt. private sector the exact same rights that federal government workers have. mr. harris: and that is that if you're going to choose to work extra, you get a choice whether to take overtime pay or to get time off to go to your child's school. you know, in my district we have patriot days. during the school day, elementary schools, where parents would love to have the time to go and spend the day with their child this bill will give the parent the choice. not the a federal law this will give the parent the choice to take that time off as comp time instead of getting overtime. it just gives everyone more choice. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, it gives me a sad opportunity to rise to acknowledge the loss of one of houston's distinguished citizens, not only houston, but recognized in places far away from this great nation. mr. sayid hasan asif, a great leader and the father of a wonderful family, sons, and any extended family members. i am certain this great man has been lost but i offer the words, do not fear, do not grieve but receive the good tidings of paradise. he leaves a wife, he was a father to many, he was a businessman, trained up his family to be able to be sharers of their opportunities that they have. the prosperity that they achieve they did not keep to themselves. he loved many. he stood strong he took care of his family. he brought joy and he was generous. i'm so very pleased that so many got a chance to know him and to know of his generosity and his spirit and to know his reach was not only here in the united statesen but in far away places. i offer to his family my deepest sympathy, my respect and admiration, for having such a great leader in our community who generated businesses and created an economic engine of opportunity wherever he was able to come. now may he rest in peace, and as i indicated for us not to fear or grieve but receive good tidings of paradise which you were promised. may the blessings be upon him and his family. i yield back. the speaker: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute, without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i've just come back from a bipartisan trip to israel. mr. engel: where we met with top officials and really celebrated the alliance between the u.s. and israel. israel obviously is in a very dangerous neighborhood and they were absolutely justified to carry out the bombing strikes in syria where hezbollah terrorists were attempting to get arms from iran. what happens is, iran sends the weapons, the missiles, through syria into lebanon, arm the hezbollah terrorists. no nation would put up with having terrorists prepare to attack them without striking back. i think it's very, very important that we support israel in its quest to rid itself of the scourge of terrorism. peace in the mideast will come about when both sides recognize the other's right to exist. and the problem has been that many of the arab nations do not recognize israel's right to exist as the jewish state and i think that really needs to change. i am glad that president, that our president, president obama, said that he supports israel in doing whatever it needs to do for its own self-defense and i'm pleased that talks are being started with the help of secretary kerry to try to get peace talks online again. again, in my estimation, peace will only happen when the arab nations recognize the jewish state of israel. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. row, is recognized for 6 -- mr. roe, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. the hour we're going to spend with our physician's caucus is going to be on health care today. i'm joined by numerous colleagues here on the house floor from the doctors' caucus, to discuss this extremely important issue. when i was elected four years ago to the house, one of the burning issues was health care reform in this country. and the greatest problem with health care in america was the cost. certainly i could see it every day, i prackfissed -- practiced r 31 years as an obstetrician-join colings in a small town in theast tennessee and i saw where it was becoming harder -- harder and harder for my patients to afford care. so we had a problem with that. and we had a problem with access. we had working people out every day, maybe one was a carpenter, maybe their wife worked at a small store that didn't have health coverage, they made a living that was livable but not enough pay $1,000 or $1,500 a month for health insurance. thirdly we have a liability crisis. i began my practice in 1977. i know this is hard to believe but we would take care of a woman who was pregnant for one year and see her for a six weeks checkup, stay as long as we needed to with her when she was in labor and that cost was $360. and if you had a cesarean section it cost another $100. it was very affordable. even young families could come in and make payments and pay for this the hospital bill was more than that but it wasn't the exorbitant bills we see today. the malpractice premium i first paid, and obstetricians, neurosurgeons and others are very high risk, was about $4,000 a year. five years ago when i retired from my practice to run for congress, the malpractice premiums had ballooned to the mid $70,000. and the patients didn't get any more for that, they didn't get better care, they just got a higher bill system of we can see that number one, cost, well, i remember when we had the debate down here irk stood in the twhofle house when we debated that bill in march of 2010 to vote on it, one of the last people to stand down here, i remember the president's remark, if you like your health insurance you can keep it and your costs are going to go down by $2,500. now three years later, let's see what the reality is. many of us here in the doctors caucus brought decades and i do mean decades, i look around and we'll -- i wish each speaker that steps up would tell how long they practiced medicine, you can see the experience on the floor today, so what happened was the cost has gone up. it didn't go down. and i'm not even sure after this is all implemented that access is actually going to increase because as we discussed during this hour, you'll see that for some people there's more access but for others it may be cut off and i think it was unintended. i don't believe they wrote a bill to actually do that, to actually cut access but the retail of it, it's going to appen. i want to introduce dr. phil gingrey who is in the well. we are both ob-gyn doctors. we are good friends. dr. gingrey, i yield to you. mr. gingrey: i thank him for yielding, my physician colleague and chair of the house g.o.p. doctors caucus, several of whom are here on the floor in the house on this special hour to discuss the impending train wreck that dr. roe referenced. it's, mr. speaker, not just dr. roe's words but those -- almost a direct work from the chairman of the senate finance committee, senator max baucus. i don't know how much years senator baucus has served. he's been chairing that committee for many years. of course, the senator version of obamacare was essentially written by senator max baucus and his senior staff of the senate finance committee. that those 2,700 pages in final bill that we saw president obama sign as his legacy, obamacare, on march 25, three years ago, the senator knew everything that was in that bill and just last week there was a hearing on the senate side, the senate finance committee asked the secretary who is in charge of the rulemaking. you know, after a piece of legislation is passed, mr. speaker, then come the rules. ll, i don't know how high 27 pages -- 2,700 pages stack, but the rules stacked seven feet tall. senator barrasso was doing a special order recently or interview and he's six feet tall and he's standing next to the rules and regulations that came through the department of led and human services, by secretary kathleen sebelius, and seven pete tall. i don't know whether it was 40,000 pages or 400,000 pages but it was a big number. what i'd like to point out to my colleagues before yielding back to my good friend from tennessee so he can yield to some of the other doctors who are members of the house g.o.p. doctors caucus, i want to point out, colleagues, mr. speaker, this poster and i give credit to this poster to representative kevin brady from texas, a senior member of the house ways and means committee. and i was speaking with congressman brady a little earlier this morning and i said, kevin, i'm going to use your poster today because we're doing this special order because of the impending train wreck, the words of senator max baucus, democratic senator of the senate finance committee, not just dr. roe's words, and i was trying to count real quickly how many new bureaucracies, agencies -- not number of people, mind you -- but literally new agencies of the federal government talking about expanding the federal government and taking over 1/6 of our economy which is health care. pretty soon it will be 1/5 and then it will be 1/4 as we continue to go broke, but representative brady told me 159. i didn't have time to count them all. but in the senator, of course, my colleagues, you can see the secretary of health and human services and today it is ms. sebelius. tomorrow could be somebody else. the whole point is it is a train wreck and this law is going to be fully implemented, mr. speaker, on the first day of january, 2014. what is that? here we are may. that's seven months away. and all of these exchanges that you're hearing about, colleagues, many of the states have said we can't do this. we're not going to do this. we're not even close to being set up, and yet people, the general public who doesn't have health insurance can't get it from their employer or can't afford it, whatever reason, they are supposed to be able on october 1, october 1 of this year, 2013, to begin signing up for health insurance through those exchanges. but this is why they can't. this is a train wreck. i mean, these lines are not railroad tracks but they could be. so i thought, colleagues, i'd point this out and you are well aware of it. the gentleman from tennessee is generous with his time. at this time i yield back. mr. roe: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. it reminds me of biochemistry in college and it looked like the sugar cycle. it is incredibly complicated, this bill is. and i think we need to spend more time explaining it to the american people. one of the frustrations, dr. gingrey, that we've had, i read the bill, as many of us had. i went to a hearing the other day on the veterans' affairs committee, which i serve, we spent hours on the effects of the affordable care act on veterans with the medical director of the v.a., the i.r.s., the treasury department's representative, and we walked out of that room i don't think anyone could explain to you the effects of the affordable care act on our veterans. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman would yield back quick. mr. roe: dr. gingrey. mr. gingrey: the i.r.s. is right up here. that's 15,000 new i.r.s. agents make sure that the poor people have purchased health insurance or they're going to get taxed, right? mr. roe: correct. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to yield to a good friend, dr. andy harris of maryland one, dr. harris. mr. harris: i practiced for 28 years before coming to the body here. two years ago. part of the reason is because of what the gentleman from georgia mentions, the train wreck, to use the senator's terms, the train wreck that's coming upon us. and mr. speaker, the people in maryland got a little rude awakening last week when blue cross blue shield care first which is our nonprofit provider in maryland announced their new rates in the individual market on these exchanges that the gentleman from georgia mentioned. now, in maryland we're going to have an exchange october 1. you are not going to be able to buy the insurance on the exchange. that nonprofit insurer announced that their average increase was 25%. 5% increase in the already high cost -- 25% increase in the already high cost of health insurance and it was a small savings and a small number of people to 150% increase for healthy young people. 150% increase in the premium to the people who are supposed to make that decision to do the right thing and buy insurance. so this is the decision someone is going to be faced with coming out of high school or college, getting that first job is, should i buy health insurance? maybe my employer doesn't no longer offers it because of the penalties that are in this bill, the mandates. so their employer may not offer it. their choice is going to be, should i do the right thing and get it? now they're faced with a 150% increase in that cost. and that was supposed to be, as the gentleman from georgia said, and the gentleman from tennessee, we were promised more affordable and it was -- you could keep it if you have it. well, let me tell you something, for that employee who is going to lose it because their employer can no longer afford it, they're not going to have it and in maryland they're not going to be able to afford it. i thank the gentleman from tennessee for keeping this issue in front of the american people because there will be many more surprises like we got in maryland coming across the united states of america in the next few months as this train wreck comes upon us. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. dr. harris, if you could stay there, how could this possibly happen? i have three children. i think it's a good idea to keep our under 26-year-olds on it. there were a lot of things we could have agreed upon, but the thing we didn't explain to people is how did you get this number? why did that happen? ere's why it happened. to make -- young healthy people are going to be subsidizing people who are not healthy and who are older, how does that happen? if actuaries look at it, i'm six times more risky than someone who is my children's age, in their 20's. i have six times the actuarial risk than they have. the bill allows it to be charged 3: 1. dr. harris and i were haffing. i know he has a fine-looking young son. you insure young boys for stupidity. they'll trip and fall and jump off things. illness is not it. we're taking young, healthy men and women, 0 to 25 years of age, -- 20 to 25 years of age, sometimes doubling, tripling their cost, so someone else's could be a little expensive. what about $80, $90 a month for a basic health insurance policy and now it's $300 or they can pay the first year a $95 fine, a $95 fine and they have guaranteed issuance, they cannot be turned away, there can be no pre-existing conditions so they can get the insurance. so what do you think these smart young people are going to do? they're going to figure out pretty quickly they're not going to subsidize that and they are going to be very upset when they look at their first paycheck and see what's happened to them. i yield back to the gentleman. the gentleman will yield to speaker. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee may proceed. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman and i yield to dr. harris. mr. harris: thank you very much for yielding. the gentleman has hit the nail on the head on this one. we want to encourage young folks to do the right thing and buy insurance and in maryland, hour insurance was affordable for the -- our insurance was affordable for the young because we did allow appropriate risks to be priced but the federal government -- and by the way, we also had high-risk pools. anyone with a pre-existing condition in maryland could not be turned away by the high-risk pools that was run by the state of maryland so we didn't have a problem someone not getting insurance in the state of maryland, but the federal government came in and fixed our problem in maryland. now, we didn't have one, but the result is going to be that all that risk that used to be in the high-risk pool which everyone paid a little bit for is now all on the backs of the person, the individual now going into that exchange to buy insurance and, again, mr. speaker, a 150% increase in the cost of that policy for those young people just entering the work force. these are the people who have big student loans if they've gone to college. they have other costs. they have the cost of raising a young family and now thanks to the federal government and to the president's affordable care act, 150% increase in the cost of their insurance. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd now like to yield to my friend and colleague, a new colleague, dr. wenstrup who is from cincinnati, ohio. he also served in iraq for our military and i now yield to dr. enstrup. mr. wenstrup: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i would like to discuss a portion of the affordable care act known as the independent payment advisory board. it's one of the agencies developed here on this chart. i'd like to point out on this chart, right down here is the physician and here is the patient. it seems to me that all we're really trying to do is get the patient to the physician. it behooves me to be able to explain why we need all this in between when we're just trying to get a patient to the physician. and i also would like to point out that i think at the center of our health care in america should be the patient. not the secretary of the health and human services. but let's talk for a minute about the independent payment advisory board. who are they? who are these people? they're actually 15 unelected bureaucrats appointed by the president. to date, as this law is being enacted, no one has been appointed yet. and what do they do? they limit options. they limit care options and they limit access to care. they drive a wedge between the doctor and the patient. and the response -- and they're responsible for denials of pame for certain types of treatment. i tell you this is a wedge we cannot afford if we are to have the best health care in the world, which we have been known to have. i'd like to share with you a little story that i experienced 26 years as a trrk as a surgeon, i had a patient who came in one time and she explained to me she's had a problem for 10 years. for 10 years she's had a problem and had multiple treatments. she explained to me what those were. between cortisone shot, physical therapy, she's had previous x-rays, she had different thins that might put the painful area to rest to paycheck it better but none of it got better. they were all acceptable treatments but for 10 dwhrires failed. i said, your x-ray looks normal, have you ever had an m.r.i.? she said, no. i said i don't want to repeat all the thing that was failed, let's get an m.r.i. and take a look inside. later that afternoon i get a call from the insurance company where i have to speak to a doctor about ordering this m.r.i. and the doctor says to me, why are you ordering the m.r.i.? i explained it, he said, you've only seen her one time so i'm not going to allow it. i'm not going to allow this to be ordered. i said maybe i've only seen her one time, but you haven't seen her at all. you've never seen her. and i said you haven't take then 10-year history that i have taken. and yet you're going to be deciding the care? i said, how can i get this patient to come and see you? the doctor said you can't do that. i said, well what's your specialty? he said, i'm an emergency room doctor. i said, ok, fair enough. you would probably in the emergency room then refer to a specialist which is where she is today. yet you new york your specialty are denying this care. and i went back and explained this to the patient but not until i said to the doctor, i said, i hope this call is being hon tored for quality assurance because i want someone to hear what you said to me today. i went back to the patient and said, you need to talk to your person at your work, your h.r. person, explain to them that you are being denied care and have them make a call to the insurance company. do you know the next day, we got approval for that m. reform i.? i was able to look inside, find out what was wrong, treat this patient and within three week she was better. but the advice from the person who had never seen the patient was, you can't have that m.r.i. and this is what we're dealing with today. and at least in this situation, we had the opportunity to have her work call the insurance company and make a case saying, you need to take care of this patient. but imagine when it's a government agency. what kind of recourse duke we'll have between the doctors and our patients? at least in this case, it was a doctor. the independent payment advisory board will not be made up spirely of doctors. and they will not have people on there from every specialty with knowledge about everything that comes across medically. do we want a third party eciding who gets care? frankly, i don't think anyone should have the ability to determine someone's care unless they have looked the patient in the eye, they have looked and they've discussed the options, and the patient and the doctor decide together. this is a dangerous course that we're on in america. and in america's health care. and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yield, before you leave, dr. wenstrup, this is an issue that's very near and dear to my heart. i have a bill, h.r. 351, which is to repeal the independent payment advisory board. when i read that health care law this was not in the original version, the house version of the bill. this version came from the senate version. the house did not, representative neil from massachusetts wrote a letter to then-speaker pelosi, which i signed in a bipartisan way, to not put this in. it was go over a minute and we'll talk about it in a minute, but there are 15 people. all this board does is determine how medicare dollars are spent. there's a preset budget in medicare and if you spend more than that, this board is charged to give the congress, they have to cut if they don't make different cut, they have to make the one this is board has. that's how it's going to affect care. they come from providers. if you keep cutting providers, you'll lessen access. i'll go through that after you leave. that is exactly what's going to happen. if you don't believe me, read a new england journal of medicine article in june of 2011, this is an article that's not for it or against it, it just analyzes it. they looked at the formula and looked back 25 years. 21 of the 25 previous years this would have cut providers. guess what the congress has been able to do? the congress has been able to override those cuts in the s.d.r., the way doctors are paid through medicare and prevent that los of access. without a 3/5 majority in the senate, we've lost that ability. we've given up our constitutional right for the people to come to us and say, we don't believe this is the way it ought to be going. this is a huge mistake. i believe in that poster of gibberish down there that you're looking at, it's the single worst thing in there because it will ultimately deny access to our senior, i believe that in my heart of heart, i've seen it in tennessee with our tenncare program. which i'll talk about later. i yield back to you if you'd like to make any comments. mr. wenstrup: i'd like to reit prate the importance of decisions being made between doctors and patients. that's what we expect, that's what american december serve in their health care system. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. he pointed out something that's clear from his statement down there, he is and has been a practicing physician. each of us know this, mr. speaker. that health care decisions should be made between a patient and the doctor and that patient's family. it shouldn't be made by insurance companies, shouldn't be made by organizations, a.c.o.'s, the government, ipabs and so forth. when you're in need you see the person, the doctor most capable of taking care of your needs and make a decision based on that between you and that family. we're losing that in this country with the doctor-patient relationship. it is a very, very, very bad thing to happen. i'd like to yield to my good friend john fleming of louisiana, also a veteran, a three-decade family practitioner. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman from tennessee. of course all of us -- all of us here today talking are physicians of different specialties, most of us were actually here in the obamacare debate. we actually began that in 2009. it actually went into law, signed into law march 23, 2010, and the interesting thing is, this law, the affordable care act, which i refer to as the unaffordable care act, but lovingly and affectionately known as obamacare is the fact that what it does is, it adds 15 million more americans onto medicaid which already way underreimburses physicians which means most doctors don't accept that as pame. it adds another 15 million americans to a system that's already stressed and ultimately what's going to happen is you're going to have more americans carrying more cards that entitle them to health care, but it really will entitle them only to a waiting list, just as we see today with canada and greaty i -- and great britain. let's talk a moment about the promises. washington, mr. speaker, has a reputation for making proppings it can't keep and indeed that applies to obamacare. first of all, the president said if you like your plan, you can keep it. well, we know that's not true. we know now that you're going to get whatever plan and mandates that go wit and you'll have to pay the cost that goes with it. obamacare will not add one dime to our deficits. the c.b.o. has now come become to show that the early estimates were way out of line, it's going to add billions of dollars to our deficit and i think that's really an underestimation. quote, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions and federal conscience laws will remain in place. federal conscience laws have been gutted. we know that, for instance, hobby lobby will be fined to the tune of millions of dollars as a result of its willingness to pay for abortifacients, pills that cause abortions, and other things against the conscience of those in management and ownership there president obama said, i will protect medicare, quote-end quote. if he's going to protect medicare why take $716 billion out of medicare to fund obamacare? he says that's savings. well, we could save that kind of money out of medicare over 30 or 40 year, why didn't we do it once? we didn't because we can't without changing it structurally. it will simply be cut tosser vises. obamacare will not raise any of your taxes. mr. speaker, obamacare includes 21 new taxes and they are not just on rich people. about half of them are on the middle class and i'll just give you an example of one very nasty tax that's coming your way, if you're a business owner, there's a tax 3rks.8% on unearned income, including capital gains dividends, rents, royalties and interest, which means that you're going to get hit hard, very hard, and also a device tax on revenues, not on profits, which those who make everything from tongue blades to artificial hearts tell us it will drive them out of this country and to another country and we'll have to buy back those devices, killing thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of american jobs. obamacare will, quote, lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year. mr. speaker, no one has told me their premiums have gone down as a result of obamacare. in fact, in most cases, it's ne up $3,000, that's a net $5,500 change and many of them are expected to double and even triple as a result of obamacare. you can't just keep adding mandates to insurance and expect not to have to pay for them. that's just the simple truth. what about ipab? we heard discussion about the independent payment advisory board and it's really straightforward what they do. they take out of the hand of congress our ability to find more efficient ways and ways to limit costs to medicare patients and in fact it's a 15-member board appointed by the president, not necessarily health care providers, who will have more power than congress itself. it will actually be able to determine what gets paid for, how much it gets paid for, what type of doctors and providers will be paid for services to medicare patients. mr. speaker, that is absolutely the beginning of rationing and long lines. for health care. one other point before i yield back. let me quote something that's already been referred to today in our discussion. senate finance committee champlee max baucus, who helped author obamacare, before a hearing out of frustration asked secretary sebelius, he said, we've got all kinds of problems, aren't you going to help us on this? here's a quote from senator baucus who shortly after this decided to retire. he said, i am very concerned that not enough is being done concerned. i'm very when i'm home, small businesses have no idea what to do. what to expect. they don't know what affordability rules are. which is true. they don't know what penalties may apply. which is true. a lot of people have no idea about all of this. just see a huge train wreck coming down. and you and i have discussed this many times and i don't see any results yet. and we've yet to hear a good answer a reasonable answer from secretary sebelius on how this has come together, where knowing that much of this has to be implemented really by october and finished by the first of january of 2014 and nobody knows what's going to happen, how it's going to happen, business owners today are looking at, should they have 50 employees or less than 50 employees what kind of penalties are they going to have to pay which is not tax deductibling there's nothing but chaos across america among small businesses. even parts of of -- even parts of obamacare have been repeeled of drop the class act, long-term care. which was unworkable and is not going to help fund it. a very onerous 1099 tax reporting requirement has been dropped. little by little, this bill is beginning to fall apart and i'll just say, finally that this train wreck not only is coming down but the wheels are falling off the train. so with that, i would like to yield back to the gentleman and certainly stick around for more discussion. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding and let me reminisce before i yield to my riend from indiana. there was a young medical student in memphis in the late 1960's, my first pediatric rotation watt at st. jude's children's hospital, a remarkable place. -- was at st. jude's children's hospital, a remarkable place. i would go in, start an i.v. dr. fleming, i can still remember seeing some of those kids that wouldn't survive. it was very hard for me emotionally to deal with that. today, fast forward today, almost 90% of those children live today. and they are treated at no cost. their families are sent there at no cost. i've had children of patients of mine who have gone to that wonderful place, and i hope that we don't end up in a middle ages in health care with device taxes and disincentives for new medications. you and i both remember when i graduated from medical school, there were five or six anti-hyper tensive, three or four of them made them sicker than high blood pressure is. now there is a plethora of new medications for you to use. there wasn't a day i went by that i didn't see somebody that needed surgery for a bleeding ulcer. almost every day. it's unheard of now because of the new medications. i just find out today in my own state of tennessee, and i didn't know this, the largest exporter -- the thinking we export in the thing of tennessee is, guess what? medical devices. it will hurt my state dramatically in jobs, as you clearly point out, and i know dr. bucshon in indiana, you are worried about that. you mentioned ipab. if the president hasn't appointed anyone or no one is approved or they don't have a quorum, they don't have eight people confirmed by the senate, guess who makes those decisions at the ipab? one person. that's the secretary. that's who makes all the decisions. not the congress. we have given up this body, with all of us debating and contentious, that's what we're elected to do. we're turning over that power, could be, to one single individual. and secretary sebelius right now, there could be a different name four years from now. i don't want that person, be it democrat or republican -- i ield to the gentleman. mr. fleming: your experience is exactly the same as mine as far as blood cancers, tumors in children, that used to be a death warrant when you and i were in medical school. the vast majority of those children survive and live a happy life today. and yet today we see is some of the oldest chemotherapeutic agents, the patents have run out sometime ago, are in very short supply because the heavy boot of government on the neck of industry that can't produce these at a rate that can meet up with demand. and so it's important that we begin to pull back on this now because we're going to be in the same situation as canada and great britain. we have government-run health care where early diagnosis, early treatment and using the best chemotheir puteig agents shows up -- chemotherapeutic agents shows up. i yield back. mr. roe: i yield to a good iend from indiana, cardiac surgeon, dr. bucshon. mr. bucshon: remember the focus what we're trying to do here is focusing on the patient, what's best for the american people and our patients. it's already been quoted a number of times today, i got a couple other quotes. senator schumer also said, the affordable care act could cause rates to go through the roof. that's exactly what we're seeing in the private health insurance. i won't repeat senator baucus' quote about a train wreck. senator rockefeller also said, so confident, if it is not done right the first time it will just simply get worse. and what i'll focus on the rest of the time of what this means to employers and people that have employee -- employer-provided health insurance and what this law is going to do to employers. and let me focus on first what the city of long beach, california, just came out and said recently. they're going to be limiting most of their 1,600 part-time employees to fewer than 27 hours a week on average. so these are employees that had a 40-hour workweek and now they're being cut to less than 40 hours to comply with the law. and you say why would that happen. because city officials say without cutting payroll hours, new health care benefits would cost up to $2 million more next year and that would trigger layoffs and cutbacks in city services. this is a city in southern california. so this isn't an isolated event. the nation's larmingest movie hereto chain -- largest movie theater chain, operating in 38 states, they will cut many laried workers to go to part time. regal said to comply with the affordable care act, regal had to increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed eligible, 30 hours or above. to manage this budget, all other employees will be scheduled in accord with business needs in a manner that would not negatively impact our health care budget. that means the translation -- translation is everybody is getting cut back to less than 30 hours and they're going to see their income dramatically dropped. there's other examples. the state of virginia, palm beach state college in florida, c.k.e. restaurants and among others. i have an example in my district. we got an email the other day, a constituent said her and 52 other employees at a school district in my district in indiana were recently informed that their hours will be cut to 28 hours a week because the school can't afford to comply with the health care law. municipal government officials are telling me, city government officials are telling me in my district this may hit municipal government, county government, school districts. and this is just people being cut. let's talk about people losing their health insurance. and there's a chart right here that says we were promised that everybody could keep their health insurance. here's what i consider conservative estimates of the number of americans who are going to lose their health insurance. after full implementation of the law. why is that? well, because i've talked to small business owners all the time who have more than 50 employees and i talked to one young man who has been very successful in starting a business and creating jobs and he says not only will i probably not be able to afford it and have to just pay the penalty rather than complying with the law, but i don't know a small business owner that i've spoken to -- this is his words -- that is not going to pay the penalty and not going to jettison their employee-provided health insurance and all of those employees are going to be forced to go these state-based exchanges which aren't set up and will cost more, according to the gentleman from maryland just talked about that about half an hour ago, so people aren't going to be able to afford it. employer provided health insurance will go out the window. i think estimates like this are very conservative, according to people i talked to. mr. roe: if the gentleman will yield? mr. bucshon: i will yield. mr. roe: here's what absolutely amazes me and i'm glad senator baucus mentioned this as a train wreck. i wrote an editorial about this 3 1/2 years ago describing the train wreck about tenncare. what i want to talk about, dr. bucshon, we have people here today, for instance, in medicaid, a system -- what did we do? we expanded a system that was already broken. if you look at surgical outcomes for medicaid patients, they're worse. ,000-something. those outcomes were worse than those that didn't have health insurance coverage. why would we expand a broken system? why didn't we fix that first? i know dr. fleming talked about that at length. mr. bucshon: i practice in southern indiana where i get patients from southern indiana, northern kentucky, southern indiana, every year the illinois medicaid system ran out of money before the end of the year. september, october, just ran out of money. no money for their medicaid population. this is exactly what you're talking about, dr. roe, is a system that's already broke and we're going to expand it and what it's going to do is like dr. fleming said, put a card in your pocket that says you have health insurance but you don't have any access to health care providers except, guess where? through the emergency room. which is one of the biggest problems we're already trying to defeat. i yield back. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. for just a moment, why do our low-income, i've always thought this, why do our lower income patients deserve different care than somebody else? they don't. mr. bucshon: they don't. mr. roe: they deserve the same care that anyone else had and had maybe the president said i'll go to this bill line by line by anybody who wants to, maybe he should have taken that up with us and gone over it with the doctors caucus line by line because we came here in a totally nonpartisan way. this health care should not be a partisan issue. dr. bucshon has taken care of cardiac patients with heart attacks. he don't know whether democrats . republicans care less patients need care. mr. bucshon: we could have agreed on that we could have made advances on health care reform, pre-existing conditions, all of us agree. i have a patient that had hodgkins disease when he was in his 20's. he'd worked his entire life. he's now in his 50's. he needed bypass surgery. never able to get health insurance the whole time because of a pre-existing condition. that's just wrong. i yield. mr. fleming: i just wanted to expand a moment on what you were talking about small businesss is critical. i'm a small business owner myself aside from my medical practice. we employ around 500 employees. any of them are entry level. businesses and business owners across america this very moment is in a state of panic. mr. speaker, businesses across the country at this moment because of obamacare in a state of panic. and the reason is because of what you said, they're calculating if they have more han 50 employees they got to know how much of the punishment or penalty, i really should say, but it's more like punishment, they can absorb to those employees they can't afford to pay for their insurance. and this is having a direct impact on our economy and on job creation. so this is something that's critical going forward, what this is doing to small business which arguably employs about 75% of americans. mr. roe: if the gentleman will yield? mr. fleming: yes. mr. roe: i just spoke to a physician today from massachusetts, and i said what had happened there, and what's not clearly understood by the public unless you're in this line of work you don't, so much as how the payers pay. medicaid, for instance, pays about 60% of the cost of actually providing the care. medicare -- let's say private insurance is a one. medicare would pay about 90%. the people they added in massachusetts played about the same as -- paid about the same as medicaid. what happened is big insurers, big corporations with lots of employees could negotiate a really good price. but small business could not. so when the hospital had some -- had bills to pay, they shifted those costs to private business forcing their premiums up and up and up and up and that's why you're seeing those premiums for small business escalate so you really force them out of business. and we talk about the exchange, and this is what absolutely frustrates me is that the first of october i cannot even tell the people who -- this is a person who works in congress, who is a doctor, who understands health care, i can't even tell the people that work for me here in the washington office and my office back in the district in tennessee what their health care premiums are going to be or how they're going to get their health insurance coverage and that's 90 days from now i can't tell them. you manage other businesses around. i tell them this, i bet it will cost them a lot more money. i yield back to dr. bucshon. mr. bucshon: on things we can agree on, many of us agree on hildren up to age 25 or 26. a lot of us agree we need to look at ways to expand the aed for -- affordability of health care. this was supposed to bring down the cost, there's a lot of things that could be done to bring down the cost. there's a lot of things we could have agreed on, dr. roe if we would have just worked together and not put in what i would consider a near government takeover of the entire system. as a practicing physician for 15 years, count my residency it's more than that, i think imagine if you're out there a physician, today, and you have to look a patient in the eye and tell them, i'm sorry, the ipab told me that this is not statistically something that we can provide because based on statistics calculated in washington, d.c., it's not cost effective for the medicare system to provide that service any more. this is going to happen. i hope we all wake up in america and realize it will happen this happens in other countries that have government insurance. the canadian system could not exist if it didn't sit next to the united states. it's two-tiered. people come to the united states if they have money to get north carolina a timely manner. same thing in england. if you have money uric get private health insurance. if you don't you wait. for months. so this is bad for patients, bad for business, there are things we could have done, it's a shame that we didn't and we weren't consulted and with that, i want to thank the gentleman from tennessee for this hour to talk about this and i yield back. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it is ultimately about the patients we take care of. it's not about systems and organizations and insurance it's about people. that's the frustrating part to me, people are going to be harmed by this. dr. fleming mentioned small business, i was in north carolina last tuesday a week ago today, holding a hearing that i hope we have time to go through maybe a little later, of small businesses and how this is going to affect them. it's really eye-opening to see businesses that have done everything exactly right. mr. horn is someone i want to talk about in a minute, who provided health insurance, he self-insured, did everything rightful it shouldn't have cost him a nickel yet it's going to cost his business thousands of dollars. we'll go into that. at this point i want to yield time to my good friend, g.d. thompson of pennsylvania, part of our health caucus and health care administrator. mr. thompson: thank you. i thank my good friend from tennessee. what an important topic. there's -- i, as cuff, dr. row, have been out in the community, throughout my congressional district, sitting with both individuals and families and businesses, a lot of small businesses. all indications are at the very best, you know, costs are going up. there's smo questions people have, what is -- most is unknown but what is known is very negative. a negative impact on individuals and families and businesses. i have to say that everything i've seen and so -- i'll be careful here because i'm with a bunch of physicians. even a former therapist and rehab services manager and manager in hospitals i know not to diagnose. but i can't resist. i got to diagnose, obamacare is terminal. it is. it is going to fail under the crushing weight of its own flawed design. all evidence points to that. i'm not going to replow the fields that you all have with what democratic snaferts are admitting, acknowledging, going public. but many of us with health concerns, i'm glad proponents of the law are speaking the truth on it. this past week, on may 3, "investors business daily" talked about how retailers are slashing hours. retailers are cutting hours at a rate not seen in three decades a sudden shift that can only be explained by the onset of obamacare's employer mandates. they haven't been far off the mark when it comes to predicting the harm this law would impose on the economy. in this week's report from "investors business daily" is just the latest in a long list of failed promises in the affordable care act. when i think about the amount of regulations that came out under hipaa, those of us working in health care saw that, the cost it added to care now multiply by over a hundred that, it's hipaa on steroids. what that will do to crush the availability of affordable health care. the president's so-called affordable care action is important for individuals, families and businesses. i had the opportunity and privilege of working almost 30 years in health care, serving people facing life-changing disease and disability. i always follow four principals. they've guide my health care here that whatever they did, change this to -- changes to health care should decrease cost, increase access and make sure america remains a place of quality and innovation and it should be the patient who makes decisions in consultation with their physician. i've seen all four of those principles, when i read that bill, it stood out to me that the planning wadge of the affordable care act would violate those principles and we have seen nothing but evidence mounting that that is occurring today. in terms of costs, we've seen what happens to premiums this american people know that they see what those premium costs are. they're coming to them. beyond what their budgets can sustain much more than what they were paying prior to the signing of that bill. the fact is, more than a dozen taxes, i don't care with you tax in the end. there's only one person who ays the tax as a consumer. it has redefined full-time employment to 30 hours. today we have record unemployment and underemployment. how many more americans will be push spood underemployment. i know it's an unintended consequence. but if you're underemployed how do you afford what costs those increased premiums have? mr. roe: i want to put an asterisk -- mr. fleming: i want to put an asterisk to your comment about employment, we met with an economist at "u.s. news & world report" and he says much of the, quote, growth of jobs reports you've seen, is people re-entering the job market but getting par -- part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs, in some cases getting a sec or third part-time job. we're actually seeing inflation of the actual number so obamacare, and i would argue obamanomics in general is taking us -- is taking us not only to an underemployed society but an unemployed society and much of it is from obamacare. i yield back. mr. thompson: i couldn't agree with the gentleman more. we hear about unemployment numbers but underemployment is a -- is a terrible story in itself. and as more folks, and this has the un-- unfortunately puts the wrong types of pressure on the business community to actually have people work and part-time which is now anything under 30 hours, working two and three job, trying to make ends meet, the access i said was second principle and the affordable care act, obamacare has violated access from many different perspectives. look at the announcement the past two weeks with the pre-existing condition fund. this was one of two target groups under which this piece of legislation was shoved down the throats of this the american people and that fund is depleet. was so poorly designed that now the president appears to have no intentions of doing anything with it so it's leaving all the folks with pre-existing conditions, i think all of us would agree, our vision of what we to in health care, that is a group that we want to find a way for them to purchase affordable health insurance. just because you're born with or develop a disease, shouldn't keep you from care. obamacare is failing. the other one i would say is the expansion of medicaid. dr. bucshon did a nice job of capturing. just because we're going to put somewhere between 18 million and 50 million americans on medical assistance and they're all going to get this nice card that says they get medical assistance, they'll have it in their wallet or pocketbook, but the reality is most physicians won't accept a patient on medical assistance. just because you have coverage doesn't mean you have access. the folks that wrote this bill clearly were clueless about the approach we need to take. there are other things out there we should be doing. those are things we can agree on. finally, quality and inknow varkse the excise tax is, it's going to stymy innovation that we've - stymy innovation enthe gentlewoman is recognized here in this country. and the independent payment advisory board where you have a group that will make decisions about which procedures are approved by medicare. after the balanced budget act of 1997, i was asked to serve on a technical expert panel to review payment for medicare this independent payment advisory board is going to determine and give a blessing yes for that procedure, no for that one. that's not patient choice. that's being dictated to but bureaucrat whors unelected and therefore unaccountable. a lot of people have been inl pacted. one woman lived her whole life planning her retime, smart lady, she laid her plan out, work forward company and part of her plan is health care, that she was, what was going to be affordable. she had her company plan and invested and it was announced with this at employer is going to switch over and put them into the exchange with the retirees. this woman spent most of her adult life taking care of a brother and sister less fortunate in life and needed somebody a family member, to step up and be there. this woman's retirement plan is totally been crushed by a obamacare. she's concerned now. not only because she's -- she's a smart lady and went to get an timent of -- estimate of what it would cost for health care in retirement, completely unaffordable. does she choose health care or does she choose to be there for her brother and sister who have come to rely on her? there's many of those stories and i yield back to dr. roe. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as we infinish i want to go over a couple of things. one of the things the secretary stated is she needed to use some money in the prevention fund, one of the things she was going to use to help implement the exchanges. and we've had prevention fund use for massage therapy, kick boxing, kayaking, pickleball, i didn't know what this was, it's tennis, badminton and ping-pong, i could foe on and on. it's ridiculous. it should have been spent on health care. that's what this bill was supposed to be about. t me finish by saying that we've got one hour here, lots more to talk about. we barely scratched the surface. it's a complicated issue. democrats and republicans should have gotten together in a bipartisan way to work out a health care plan that does the principles that are pointed out here today. to leave health care decisions in the hands of doctors, patients and those patient's families. with that, i i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi is recognize -- is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority eader. the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. once again we're back here on the floor of the house of representatives to talk about what i believe is the most pressing problem here in the united states. that's jobs. americans want to work, americans are capable of working. and it ought to be our job, one, here on the floor of the house of representatives, to talk about how we can create jobs. we just heard more than, well, about one hour of discussion from our good friends on the republican side, the doctor caucus, about huh to -- about how to destroy the affordable health care act. for 36 times the republicans have put up legislation that would essentially gut, amend or destroy the affordable health care act which has the proppings and the probability of providing health insurance for 50-plus million americans that are today uninsured. why would you want to deny those people health insurance? i can see no reason for it. i notice that they also did not spend any time at all talking about their effort to destroy medicare. medicare, a promise made to seniors by the american people that when they reach 65 years of age, they would have a guaranteed health insurance program. . yet for the last two years and four months the republicans have continually put up legislation that would end medicare as we know it and turn medicare over to the insurance companies. one of the last statements made here on the floor by one of our colleagues was, the decisions on medical services ought to be in the hands of the physician and the patient. i agree. i was also -- the insurance -- i was also the insurance commissioner in california, state-wide elected position, for eight years, and i can assure you that under the private health insurance programs, it is the insurance companies that are making the decisions about what medical care will be given to individuals. that is wrong, we did our best in california to stop that, but in you turn medicare over to the private insurance companies, as the republicans want to do with their voucher plan, then it will be the insurance companies that will decide what medical services will be available, if at all, to seniors. i'd like to put that aside and go back to the issue that i really wanted to talk about, but there's some things that you just cannot let go. things that are said on the floor that need to be at least discussed in their fullness. let's talk about jobs. let's talk about the fact that over the last 30 years we have seen the middle class in america held down. the middle class in america has made very, very little economic progress over the last 30 years. we're going to discuss that in some detail and specifically what we can do here with public policy, with proposals that have been put forth by the democratic caucus in the house and our colleagues in the senate. solid proposals to put americans back to work and to rebuild the american dream. so that every american has the opportunity to put their foot on the wrung of the ladder and climb just as high as they could do so. but before we get to those wrungs on the economic ladder, i'd like to have a more full discussion about what has happened to the middle class over the last 30 years. joining me in that discussion is the representative from south carolina, the honorable jim clyburn. jim, if you'll join us, i nouveau some things you'd like to discuss and i -- i know you have some things you'd like to discuss and you have your own chart there. mr. clyburn: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. mr. speaker, i want to commend my colleague, congressman garamendi, for his leadership on this very important issue. just a few minutes ago we received some breaking news. the stock market just closed and for the first time in the history of this great country the dow jones industrial average . osed over 15,000 -- 15,056. the standard & poors also closed 1,625. ord, so much for a socialist president. now, during my 20 years of service in this body, i have often reflected upon my experiences, growing up in a church parsonage in a little town of sumpter, south carolina. early on i internalized an old michael 6: ripture, 8. to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly. today in this great country we are experiencing an injustice that continues to get worse. one which i believe demands our attention. indisputable evidence continues to show that income inequality has worsened over the last 30 years. the congressional budget office released a report back in october, 2000, -- october, 2011, on the distribution of household ncome between 1979 and 2011. you might remember a report came out just a few days before the so-called supercommittee held its first public hearing. i served on that special panel and i raised concerns for the c.b.o. director about the ever-widening gap between america's rich and poor. this chart from that c.b.o. report shows that over the past havears, the wealthiest 1% enjoyed income growth of more than 275%. hile the lowest 20% have experienced only 18% growth. working families across the country have seen their wages stagnate and decline, as earnings for the top or the wealthiest continue to soar. in fact, earnings for the top 1% during the current economic , but y have risen 11.2% eclined for the other 99% by .4%. i'm going to repeat that. of 9% have seen a decline .4%, that is a negative. while the upper 1%, a positive growth of 11.2%. now, my friends across the aisle will talk about the american dream and the ability of every american to work their way up to the top. but the numerous studies have shown that there is less economic mobility in america than most people think. the fact is that if you work and takey by the rules responsibility, it is currently harder to get ahead in america than in many parts of the world. let me cite an example. 30 years ago c.e.o.'s made an average of 42 times as much as rank and file workers. 42 times as much. today, a newly released report confirms that last year c.e.o.'s of the biggest companies in the united states made 354 times hat the average worker made. 354 times. that is the widest pay gap in the world. do most americans believe that c.e.o.'s work 354 times harder than their average employees? here's another example. over the last 45 years, average income for the 90% of americans went up just $59. almost no change at all. that's over 45 years. an increase of $59. for the average 10%, upper 10%, 16 age incomes rose roughly -- $166,000. for the top 1%, average income .ose $628,000 of the 1%, the average incomes rose $18.3 million. the numbers are so staggering it's almost difficult to comprehend. so if we convert the dollars to distances, the vast majority of americans, 90%, saw their average number increase by one inch. 168 feet. went up he top 1%, 888 feet. nd the top 1% of the 1%, their numbers -- incomes rose by almost five miles relative to that one inch. we are recovering from one of the greatest economic recessions in american history. as i said in the beginning, the dow jones industrial average just a few minutes ago closed for the first time in history over 15,000. the stock markets are setting record highs. but working families continue to struggle. wages have stayed low and unemployment is still too high. it does not have to be that way. and it should not be that way. this congress can and must take direct action to restore a just economic system for working people. we need to raise the minimum wage. we need to boost pell grants, head start and other support for public education. we need to invest in innovation and infrastructure, to create jobs now. and force a broad-based economic growth and prosperity. and we need to pass a budget that reflects the values of working americans. it is time to do it justly, it is time to refocus on the american dream, on building ladders of opportunities, on restoring fairness in our tax code and on creating good, high-quality jobs so that every american who wants a job can find a job. i call on speaker boehner to appoint budget conferees as soon as possible so that we can get to work on a budget that puts america back to work. i thank you, my colleague from california, and i yield back. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. clyburn. for your excellent exposition of the problem faced by the middle class, by the working families of america. the fact that over the last 40 years they've seen virtually no progress in their economic status while those very, very few at the very top have seen extraordinary wealth. it's also a shifting of wealth. and some say that this discussion is a discussion of class warfare. i wouldn't call it warfare but i will tell you this, that the middle class of america is clearly losing, while those very, very few at the top are clearly winning and the reason is the policies of the united states are pushing the wealth to the top and literally taking the wealth from the working men and women. we need to change those policies and our discussion here is very, very much about that. thank you for your excellent discussion. i now see that our colleague from washington, d.c., eleanor holmes norton, is here. thank you for joining us. mr. clyburn, if you'd like to stick around, we'll engage in conversation. i think you have other meetings to head to. mr. clyburn: thank you very much. i appreciate the time. ms. norton: i want to thank the gentleman from south carolina, e of our leaders and my good friend from california for his leadership on -- his actual weekly leadership on this issue. both of my colleagues have discussed what are long-term declines in the middle class. much of it owing over the last decade to the policies of this congress and the federal government. the last thing you would expect congress would do in the face of recovery that is still in the throes of the beginning is anything to hurt it. i wanted to come to the floor to discuss the early warning signs we are seeing so that we can do something about it now. if you looked at the -- well, indicate -- sket let me indicate the best statistics i've seen in a long time and why we are stepping on hese statistics with each day. the april jobs report unexpectedly showed 165,000 workers added to payrolls. that was terrific news. what it tells you is that the private sector is making jobs and trying its best. because those jobs were not created in the public sector, those jobs were created in spite of the public sector, in spite of the fact that the congress is furloughing people, cutting jobs to the states, cutting programs to the states and thus jobs. the april jobs report you might say, means maybe it's going to be all right after all. early signs are absolutely not. april reported the first two months of the sequester. four months to go. and already we see horrific news. each day a kind of rolling disaster on jobs and the economy. deep cynicism spread the week before last throughout the american people as they saw congress vote to relax the sequester on the controllers just as congress was about to take a week-long recess. deep cynicism because nothing had been done for the american people, for their jobs, for their programs. but the skies had been cleared. actually there was a good reason for that and that reason was, of course, that the controllers who were only doing their jobs, about 10% of them had to be furloughed each week. therefore, with less people, there were slowdowns, that was already beginning to have a catastrophic effect on the economy. that's why, i think, yes, congress and even the administration, moved to orrect that. sequester of--- sequester-driven flight delays were placing thousands of american jobs at risk if that had gone, just one sector had gone, the full sequester, that would have been $9 billion, one sector alone, on the economy. all right. one sector. one sector and only one sector. have we shown we understand what our bottom line responsibility is. whether you come here you think to reduce the deficit or whether you come here as a mber of congress, you think, to add revenue to grow an economy, both sides should agree that the best way and perhaps the only way to do that is to create jobs. people with jobs pay into the economy. rather than requiring us to spend and add to the deficit. yet when the sequester began and the administration warned of its effect on jobs and the economy, howls came from my good friends on the republican side that the claims of the administration were overblown, that they were exaggerated, that the president was crying wolf, not to mention those of us on the democratic side. here with the early signs and i bring some examples to the oor, this evening, because there's still time to correct it. i bring it to the floor to ask the appropriators to do what the president has done in his budget. and correct the mistake of the sequester recognizing that neither democrats or republicans anticipated that the sequester would ever happen system of neither side has to take credit or blame if we change it, since neither side wanted it. but look at the early effects and let's look at some of the effects that flow directly from what congress has done. 250 workers at the hanniford uclear reservation laid off. the contractor that repair ours u.s. naval ships, continental maritime, laid off 185 employees. 418 contract workers laid off army depot in pennsylvania. nor foge -- northrup grumman informing system in lawton, oklahoma, lays off or anticipates laying off 270 workers. i'm not trying to call the roll, i'm trying to give the les because what sequester does to jobs in the military sector no less. u.s. army garrison rock island arsenal, 175 employees laid off. these are not furloughs, these employees are gone. that's how we get, i say to my good friend from california, to the c.b.o. figure of the los of 750,000 jobs. imagine, this congress doing anything to cause, to be the direct cause of the loss of jobs, when we should be trying with all our might to be to the create jobs after the great recession. the examples abound. you will find them. with every small business in your district feeling the effects by laying off people or refusing to fill vacancies. you will find it never sector of the country. military bases. are now going on a four-week chedule for schools. workers at missile testing fields are being fire department. we have the functional equivalent of the meat inspectors' exception to the sequester. remember they were the one sector because we were afraid that rancid meat was appear all over the country and you have to have meat inspectors to inspect? well, now the dairy farmers are act that they can't get stose production information about milk and are anticipating higher prices on milk. look at how that afingts a farmer who employees an the milk the consumer. that's how it's passed through, that's how it's passed on. you expect some of these examples from a depression or even the recession that we are just coming out of. but who would have expected that hospitals are now reporting that medical schools anticipate not taking on as many residents, not with the sequester and the amount of money that come to hospitals from the federal government they say that means fewer residency spots and fewer doctors in various communities since residents tend to stay in the communities where they are. i've come to the floor when we're discussing this afternoon jobs precisely because the sequester cuts to jobs in the public sector and private sector speaks to whether we're going to make it in america, keeping what we have, much less making in america and growing hat we need to have. the sequester itself is exempted from cuts in the congress and those are public safety, public safety cuts. even at the federal level. u.s. attorneys throughout the country are cutting. we never would have allowed that to happen before. after boston, i have asked the federal police forces just to come and have a conversation with me, the capitol police, the federal protective service. the park police. none of them are exempt. to the extent they are not doing furloughs it's because they are requiring people to work in tours of duty that no should fety officer have to work if he means to keep us safe. i say to my good friend, mr. garamendi, who i am so grateful for keeping us focused on jobs when every other day we're alking about something else, i'm -- i'm grateful because these dumb cuts are above all cruel cuts. i haven't begun to mention eir effect on the domestic programmers in very needy. the 70,000 children. who will be off of head start. he 600,000 off of the w.i.c. program, women infants and children. that's the program for the most vulnerable children who will lose basic nutrition assistance. i was so concerned that we weren't paying any attention to this that it was only crisis by crisis after the controllers matter came to the floor the very day we left that i myself came to the floor and said, look, with the controllers, you're only moving money around. that's what we did with some appropriations. if we had a budget meeting or even a meeting of any kind on both sides of the aisle we probably could come to a compromise where some of what it would take to get they've sequester might mean doing what we did with the controllers, moving from one program area to another. but other ways to relieve the effect they was sequester would surely -- doing the kind of budget we meant to do in the first place. you want to do something with respect to matters that can only be fixed by some addition of funds. as, by the way, i think will be done in the next appropriations. to be sure, sequester cuts go over but they'll go a full year and you will see some funds added just because it will be too heartless, too impossible, .o otherwise begin to justify i come to have this conversation with my good friend who foe faux cuses, i think, us correctly on the long term. it's forgetting to think about the long-term when we see things like the sequester cuts a gnawing to have effect on the middle class so that by the time we get to the point where we must do something about it, we will have a very steep hill to climb. that's what mr. clyburn was talking about when he talked about what is now an impossibly large income gap of the kind we have not seen in my lifetime. of the kind we are making as we speak. so i yield for the moment back to my friend. mr. garamendi: i thank you so very, very much for bringing to all of our attention the extraordinary impact that the sequestration is having on american families. jobs are being lost. real jobs are disappearing. and americans, working men and women, are feeling their paychecks being significantly reduced. sequestration, another word for sequestration is austerity budgets. shortly after the great recession began in 2008, there was a debate about should the governments of the world, the united states, europe, china, other -- and japan. should they take a policy of actively engaging in the economy to boost demand, which would be a keynesian model of increasing the purchasing power within the economy, or should there be a reducks in government spending because of the deficits, people lost their jobs as tax revenues declined. that was discussed here on the floor of the house with the decision being made to engage the government in increasing demand. the stimulus bill came forth. and it really worked. it really had an effect. hundreds of thousands of jobs were created, the decline was stopped and slowly in 2009 and 2010 the american economy began to recover. now europe made a different decision. in europe, they made a decision not to stimulate the economy, but rather to go into austerity. to reduce the budgets of the governments. the result in europe has been perfectly clear. they have headed into a deep, deep recession yet again. they never came out of it. and so the entire european economy has been continuing to decline over these years. austerity has gained in europe a very, very bad name. in fact, magazines, conservative magazines such as "the economist" magazine have been for the last two years say, no more austerity, you have to stimulate the economy. and now we now see policies in europe that are turning around and looking to the stimulation of the economy as we did here. china did exactly the opposite of europe. they followed the american model, or we followed their, depending on how you want to look at this, and they put into place a very heavy stimulus program almost all of it in infrastructure creating enormous demand and growth in china. unfortunately, here in the united states, our initial effort at stimulus was cut short. it was cut short by the 2010 election. . and we had a new congress. and the american government since that moment has been involved in an austerity program . the sequestration is but one of the austerity programs that have been foisted upon the american public by our colleagues on the republican side of the aisle. we've had fiscal cliff after fiscal cliff and every time we come up against that cliff we've seen a reduction in the role of the federal government in so many ways and you so clearly pointed out, dozens of ways in which the federal government is cking away from previously important tasks. tasks such as, well, flight controllers, airline flight controllers. now we passed a bill to deal with that. but nevertheless we took money out of the construction of airports and the upgrading of air traffic systems to keep the air traffic controllers going. so the austerity continued even in the airline sector. we've seen it in my district, i've got maybe more than 1,000 miles of flood levees. the army corps of engineers, $250 million reduction in their ability to upgrade and to deal with the levees and to prevent flooding. on and on. i won't go through all the list. but those are the continuing austerity measures that have been forced upon us. it can't continue. it cannot continue. our task is to create jobs. our task is to put americans back to work. our task is to make sure that this incredible income disparity ends and that we find ways to rebuild the american middle class. ms. norton: if the gentleman would yield. this has been a very important, it seems to me, explanation the , very clear made as to how we got where we got. and particularly his description of the difference between the european model and the american model. with the european model out there you would think that that's all the lesson we would need because this is one of our closest allies and what it did to europe it will almost certainly do to us. what i don't understand, mr. garamendi, is why my good friends, our good friends on the other side would believe that you could get something for nothing. many of them believe in the economy of the private sector. well, the first thing the private sector does is to invest . once it invests it hopes to yield from that investment. the kind of -- the approach you're speaking about says that if you do nothing, if you, the federal government, steps back and contributes nothing to the recovery, then recovery will happen. well, let me tell you why i think that's impossible. the economy is of a piece up. can't pull an important piece out and exact the whole to remain whole -- and expect the whole to remain whole. particularly here when we have a demand, consumer-driven economy. what that means is anything we do in the federal government is really meant to get people out there spending so that other people can make jobs. well, the last thing you want to have happen, if you want to make so that le have jobs they're spending, so that other people have jobs, is to cut back yourself on jobs that you're responsible for. the sequester does that with the furloughs. imagine what will happen in those counties across the united states. three million federal workers, when those workers who feed their economies go on furloughs. that's the equivalent of a job cut. they have got to cut back spending, that cuts back, that works its way through the entire economy. what we're doing is dampening demand because we're sending the signal to the private sector that we are cutting the programs that made jobs. you can look at head start as a program for kids, if you want to. but i bet the thousands of teachers and other workers look at it as a jobs program. so if 70,000 of them are gone, imagine how many workers are gone. it's almost as if our colleagues don't understand the way the economy works. that you could take one sector of it that's very important, the federal sector, damp it down, and expect the rest to keep growing. and the operative work -- word, my friend, is growth. what we're doing now is -- what we were doing is almost dumping for growth because we had no balanced approach that allowed some revenue to fuel growth. what we're doing now is keeping growth from happening because we are deliberately cutting jobs which we need and which in turn feed the economy. people with jobs buy goodes and services -- goods and services. people who make goods and provide services will look to see if anybody is cutting jobs. if i have an auto plant in my county, sorry, if i run a department store in my county and the auto plant there lays off people, i cut back on inventory. mr. garamendi: exactly. ms. norton: because that's how the economy works. the sequester is working that way, i say to my friend. and we can do something about it. there are four months left in this sequester. before it becomes more of a rolling disaster with some of the examples i have given as emblematic of the disaster before us, we could, all of us, decide let's just do a budget. a budget that i'm sure i will disagree with in many ways, in other words not a budget i would want. because my good friends on the other side would want the things they would want. they would want some cuts, i would want to add some revenue, i don't know, to w.i.c., women, infant and children. but together at least we would have stopped the sequester and , the d the catastrophic catastrophic move to drive down jobs as if we were creating a new recession of our own. mr. garamendi: we certainly will create a new recession. we know the 750,000 americans will be unemployed, lose their jobs by the end of this fiscal year, that would be the first of october. as a result of sequestration. it's not that we haven't tried to do a different proposal. our budget proposal is one that would maintain the reduction but push it forward so that it doesn't immediately dampen the american economy. the president has made a similar proposal. but we've had no action. right now we are calling on our colleagues and speaker boehner to appoint a conference committee so that we can actually do a budget. please, let's get that budget going, let's get this thing out of the way of america's job growth. ms. norton: you remember how our colleague said for three or four years now that the senate refused to do a budget and if they would just do a budget then maybe the kind of meetings we'd all been calling for would happen and we could work ogether? they did a budget and still we get no action so that we can sit down and try to work this thing out. mr. garamendi: that's exactly the problem. we need to get this sequestration out of the way of america's growth. there are many things that we can do. i'd like to remind everybody that the president more than two years ago put forth an american jobs proposal. an american jobs act. and in that proposal, which has never been taken up by the leaders of the house of representatives, those who are in control of the house now, our colleagues here on the right side of the aisle have never taken it up. so what was in it? there was a $50 billion immediate investment in infrastructure. well, what is infrastructure? infrastructure are highways, roads, streets, sanitation facilities, water facilities, airports, flood levinees, the kinds of things that -- levees, the kinds of things upon which the economy can grow and be built. it is the foundation of the economy. they brushed it aside. won't even consider one of the most basic things that any economy, any government must do, to make sure the foundation is in place. the president had also proposed and it's part of our make it in america, proposed an educational program, to make sure that our students are ready for the jobs that are part of the american economy today. and to retrain american workers. a proposal that i have is that our tax dollars be spent on american-made equipment. oh, my. how strange would that be? but yet we go out and buy chinese steel to build the new san francisco-oakland bay bridge. no, we don't buy american-made steel and give americans the jobs. we turn those jobs over to china. wind turbines, solar panels, all of the new energy systems, our tax money supports those systems. shouldn't we be buying american-made equipment with your tax money? i believe we should. that's my legislation. the democratic agenda, the make it in america agenda is about 30 different bills dealing with rebuilding the great american manufacturing sector. and i know that if we were to carry these policies forward, if they were to become law, we would see a resurgence in the american manufacturing sector. and the reason that that is so important is this. mr. clyburn spoke to this earlier when he was here. i got a little different display. this is what's happened to the american middle class. and beyond. i'm going to use the football analogy here. i played football back at the university of california a few years ago. actually many years ago. so i'm going use the football analogy. the bottom 99% of americans, 99% of every family, 99% of all of the workers, men and women in america have since 1966 seen a net increase in their take-home pay of $59. this is in constant dollars. the top 10%, the top 10% have $ n their income grow by 116,071 over that period. 1966 to 2011. the top 1%, the top 1%, remember the 99% thing? well, this is the top 1%, have $628, eir income grow by 817. ow the very, very tippy top, that is the .1%, we're talking the super wealthy billionaires here, mitt romney wouldn't fit into this category, they have $en their income grow by over 18 million annually. so what we're seeing in the american economy is a skewing of the wealth in this economy. literally the wealth in the economy is flowing to the very top so that the wage increases are not among the men and women that work every day, that put in their 40 hours a week or more, but rather it's flowing to those at the top. this is the result of economic policies that are put in place here in the congress. tax policies, educational policies, other kinds of policies that laid the foundation for this extraordinary inequality. this has never been seen in america. during the gilded age, in the 19th century, this kind of wealth disparity was not in existence. during the roaring 1920's this type of wealth inequality was not seen. -- seen in the american economy. only now in the last 20, 30 years have we seen policies put in place that have created the st inequality ever in modern american history. what does that mean? what does that mean to the average american family? it means that both mom and pop are working, it means that they cannot afford to send their children to school and added on top of that, the great recession thestripped the wealth from 90%. . the wealth was stripped mostly in the housing market collapse. what can we do? what we can do is to rebuild the american manufacturing sector, because this is where the middle class had decent wages. we're not talking about

Related Keywords

Syria ,Connecticut ,United States ,Mexico ,Arizona ,Massachusetts ,Libya ,Spain ,Edinburgh ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Miami ,Florida ,Canada ,Japan ,Missouri ,Afghanistan ,Indiana ,Virginia ,Georgia ,Tripoli ,Tarabulus ,Oregon ,Cincinnati ,Ohio ,Tunisia ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Mali ,Maryland ,France ,Louisiana ,Baylor University ,Texas ,Chad ,Turkey ,China ,Minnesota ,Tanzania ,California ,New Mexico ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,South Carolina ,South Korea ,Cuba ,New York ,New Hampshire ,North Carolina ,Iran ,Kentucky ,Boston ,Illinois ,Wisconsin ,Lebanon ,Jordan ,Oklahoma ,Tennessee ,Baghdad ,Israel ,Colorado ,Houston ,Pennsylvania ,Rock Island ,Kansas ,Italy ,Kuwait ,Americans ,America ,New Mexican ,Turkish ,French ,British ,Israeli ,Han ,American ,Canadian ,Chosen ,Chinese ,Libyans ,Britain ,Spanish ,Libyan ,Cuban ,Tim Scott ,Phil Gingrey ,Dave Jones ,Andy Harris ,Kathleen Sebelius ,Enrique Ros ,Elizabeth Bush ,James Knight ,Charlie Rangel ,Jackie Speier ,Chris Stevens ,Max Baucus ,Mike Pompeo ,C Eleanor Holmes Norton ,Kevin Brady ,Deborah Jones ,Jim Clyburn ,Al Qaeda ,Ruben Hinojosa ,Sean Smith ,Jackson Lee ,Sayid Hasan Asif ,Deborah K Jones ,John Fleming ,John F Kennedy ,Glen Daugherty ,Sheila Jackson Lee ,Queen Elizabeth ,Kevin Cramer ,