Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished lady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As one who represents many Federal employees, with the Social Security Administration smack dab in the middle of my district, with many of my constituents getting up at 4 o'clock in the morning, catching the train over here from Howard County and Baltimore County to work for the Federal Government, a group of people, many of whom are being subjected now to furloughs, have been subjected to pay freezes, in some instances have been placed in a position where they have to pay more toward their pensions and get less, a group of people who in many instances I run into them at the gas station, at the Pancake House, or wherever I may see them, who are very much concerned about a word that has become a significant word in this House, ``uncertainty.'' I strongly oppose H.R. 249, a measure that would require the Federal Government to fire--to fire--Federal employees who have an outstanding tax debt. The legislation is unwarranted, unnecessary and, in fact, counterproductive. I believe that Federal employees, like all Americans, should pay their taxes, and I don't think that there's one single Member of this Congress that feels otherwise. We all believe that Federal employees and all folks who owe taxes ought to pay them. Federal workers hold the public trust and should be held to a high standard of conduct. The fact is that Federal employees have met and exceeded that standard. The legislation is unwarranted because the tax delinquency rate for Federal employees is less than half that of the general public. In 2011, the tax delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2 percent. In the same year, the tax delinquency rate for Federal workers was only 3.62 percent. Now, let me make it clear: I would suggest that it would be best--and wonderful--if that percentage was zero, but it's not. But again, the general delinquency rate, 8.2 percent; Federal workers, 3.62 percent. The legislation is unnecessary because the IRS and other executive agencies already have procedures in place to recover back taxes from Federal employees. Through the Federal Payment and Levy Program, the IRS can impose a continuous levy on Federal salaries and annuities up to 15 percent until the debt is paid. Agencies also have the authority to take disciplinary action against employees for delinquent tax debts, which may include removal, if necessary. The legislation is counterproductive because it would make it more difficult to collect unpaid taxes from Federal employees by requiring their termination and eliminating the ability to impose levies on their salaries. On another note, I just left, about 3 hours ago, a job fair that I sponsored in my district where 9,000 unemployed people showed up. In talking to some of the various agencies, they said, Congressman Cummings, we're glad that the State of Maryland is now dealing with child support issues a little bit differently because we used to take everybody's license. We would make it almost impossible for them to make money so that they could pay the child support. They said now we're beginning to turn some of those laws around because, again, we want to be effective and efficient in collecting the money. Here, if a person has no job, how are they going to pay their taxes? I am also concerned that this legislation is being rushed to the floor today to apparently make a political point. During committee debate over the legislation, questions were raised. To his credit, the chairman agreed that we would try to get some responses from the IRS about the rules and procedures regarding debt collection, options for resolving delinquencies, payment options, tax delinquencies of IRS employees, and other issues. The chairman promised to obtain the answers to these questions from the IRS and to work with Democrats before the bill was brought to the floor. Now, I have absolutely no doubt that the IRS failed to do what they were supposed to do; they did not give us the information. But there was a reason that we wanted that information. We wanted the information so that we could base our decisions on sound facts. If we are placing people in a position where they will lose their way of feeding their family and having a roof over their head and taking care of their kids, it would be nice to have information. I tell my staff all the time: Give me the information so that I can make a decent decision. We don't have that information, and that is unfortunate. Hopefully, at some point, we will get it from the IRS. Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the chairman. He did his part. He submitted his letter, I know he did, but we still have not heard from the IRS. So on April 4, 2013, I joined with Chairman Issa in sending that letter to the IRS, requesting specific information that the committee members agreed was necessary to fairly and fully evaluate the need for this legislation. Again, without this information, it is unclear whether various scenarios under which taxpayer disputes of tax debt would be exempted under the bill. For example, it is unclear whether an appeal from a collection due process hearing, litigation proceedings in U.S. Tax Court, or hearings under the IRS' Collection Appeals Program would trigger an exemption. Contrary to the chairman's assurances, the Republican leadership has insisted on bringing this bill to the floor without the benefit of this information and without resolving the many concerns raised during the committee debate. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill. Again, we need information, but more importantly, there is something that the chairman said that I think we need to be clear on. I want to see, again, a situation where everybody pays every dime that they are supposed to pay, but I don't think that people get fired if they're not Federal employees when they have a tax delinquency. So when we're talking about fairness, again, we're talking about the Federal employee, and then we're talking about everybody else. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield that 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Having no further requests for time, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote in favor of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank Congressman Chaffetz and Congresswoman Speier for introducing this very, very important piece of legislation. And I rise in strong support of H.R. 882, the Contracting and Tax Accountability Act. This bill is very similar to legislation passed by the House in the 110th Congress, and I supported it then, and I surely support it now. The bill enjoys bipartisan support. It is noncontroversial. Last month it was considered by the Oversight Committee and passed unanimously. GAO has reported that government contractors owed more than $5 billion in unpaid Federal taxes in 2004 and 2005. Unpaid tax, taxes owed by contractors, included payroll taxes as well as corporate income taxes. GAO has also found that some contractors with unpaid tax debts are repeat offenders that have failed to pay their taxes over many years, including, in one case, for almost 20 years. H.R. 882 would allow the Federal Government to ensure that contractors seeking to do business with the Federal Government have paid their taxes before they can receive a Federal contract. The Federal Acquisition Regulation was revised in 2008 to require contractors to certify that they do not owe a delinquent tax debt to the Federal Government. The bill builds on that requirement by providing Federal agencies the means to verify contractors' claims. The legislation will also ensure that responsible contractors no longer have to compete with tax delinquents. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation in order to preserve the fairness in the contracting process. I also take a moment to salute our chairman, Mr. Issa, for making sure that this bill reached the floor. And so with that, we will now be able to address some of these deadbeat contractors. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Washington, D.C. (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. We have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. Over the past 3 years, nearly 6 million new jobs have been added to the American economy, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 7.7 percent. Although this is real progress from where we were during the financial crisis inherited by President Obama, we can do far more to boost economic growth and continue to create jobs. The American people deserve a budget that supports economic growth, responsibly reduces long-term deficits, and ensures equal opportunity for all. Chairman Ryan's recent budget does not satisfy any of these goals. Instead, it will slow economic growth, increase the unemployment rate, cut critical investments in our Nation's future, and harm our seniors, all while protecting the interests of the wealthiest Americans. The Ryan budget would lower the top tax rate for the rich while hitting middle-class families with thousands of dollars in additional taxes every year. Nearly 30 million middle-income Americans would lose their health insurance because of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and tens of millions of the poorest would lose coverage because of Ryan's plan to gut Medicaid. We can do better. It would destroy the commitments we've made to our Nation's seniors by turning Medicare into a voucher program. It would shift the rising costs of health care onto those very Americans who have already suffered deep financial shocks in the recent fiscal crisis. Many of them have lost their homes, lost their health insurance, lost their jobs, lost equity in their homes, lost their savings, and now the Ryan budget would break another promise to them. In a fairly cynical move, the Ryan budget would repeal those provisions of the Affordable Care Act that would expand access to care, while keeping in place all the revenue generated by the act. The Ryan budget also guts investments in science, education, infrastructure--all critical to job creation and economic growth, as well as to the future of our children. If you don't believe it, go talk to the doctors at NIH, the ones who worry about whether they'll be able to complete the research that they're doing. One that I talked to just a few days ago was telling me just a few years ago there were certain types of cancers that were deadly, and now because of the research at NIH, they're chronic. I don't know how you put a price tag on somebody's life. This budget would reduce non-defense discretionary spending, including core social services that middle-class families rely on, by an additional $700 billion over the next 10 years below the senseless cuts already required under the sequester. And his plan, Mr. Ryan's plan, repeats past attacks on Federal employees by cutting the workforce by 10 percent over the next decade and requiring Federal workers to contribute an additional $132 billion to their retirement plans. To justify these proposals, the majority continues to argue that policies that support austerity, such as sequestration, will solve our fiscal problems and magically create prosperity for all. In fact, these stale theories will do nothing but harm hardworking Americans and our seniors, and that is why the American people resoundingly rejected this theory just this past November, not very long ago. Last week, the Joint Economic Committee convened a hearing to examine constructive measures to stabilize our economy and decrease our long- term Federal debt. Testifying before our committee was Alice Rivlin, very well respected, who served as the founding Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Federal Reserve Vice Chair. She explained that discretionary spending is not a driver of future deficits and that cutting discretionary spending would not slow projected increases in future Federal spending. Instead, Ms. Rivlin expressed concern that additional cuts at this time would have a restraining effect--those were her words--on our economic recovery, threatening to trigger a new recession. We can do better than that. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke has warned many times over the past few years that pursuing deep cuts in the short-term will slow the rate of economic growth, bring down revenues, and actually lead to less deficit reduction overall. I didn't say that, Chairman Bernanke said that. Certainly, I agree that Congress must act to put our fiscal house in order, but we must do this in a balanced manner that increases economic stability and certainty in the marketplace. To ensure economic growth, these policies must include a mixture of appropriate revenue increases and targeted spending cuts. I don't think there's one Member of Congress that disagrees that we must cut spending, but we also must address our fiscal issues in a balanced way. And when we cut, we must cut as if we were the most skilled heart surgeon performing the most delicate operation on a critical patient so that the patient does not die. To that end, Democrats have put forward a balanced approach to cut spending responsibly, increase revenues and create jobs, like Congressman Van Hollen's plan and Senator Murray's plan, which achieve new significant savings by eliminating tax loopholes and cutting wasteful spending.

Mr. CUMMINGS. At the same time, they continue critical investments in infrastructure, education, job training, innovation, all of which will help to strengthen long-term economic growth. The fastest and most effective way to stabilize the economy and reduce deficits is to put Americans back to work. That is why we need to strengthen the fiscal policies that will support growth, rather than adopting policies that will destroy jobs. Finally, the only path forward is for Democrats and Republicans to work together to draft a reasonable budget that offers hope and prosperity for all Americans, rather than tax cuts for the rich and crumbs to the rest. I urge my colleagues to reject the Ryan budget so that we can craft a budget that works for all Americans.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. It's my honor. I want to, first of all, thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank you for calling this Special Order. As I was listening to you talk, particularly when you talked about Pell Grants and women, I could not help but think about something that you and I hear over and over and over again as we serve together on the Joint Economic Committee. We hear that the less education a person has the more recessionary periods affect them negatively. In other words, if you have a little education, less than a high school education, your chances of being put out of a job or of not having a job are great. If you have a college education, you have a better chance of retaining a job. You talked a moment ago about women, and women with regard to Pell Grants. Just the other night, I was at Howard University's annual dinner where they were trying to raise money for students to get scholarships. The president of the university got up and said something that was very interesting. He said, We are now having to let young people go who have averages above 3.2 because they don't have the money. I can guarantee you most of those folks were women. He said, when they did the research and looked at young people who had left school years ago and when they just kind of tracked them, they noticed that only about 25 percent ever even returned to school. What you're talking about is the quality of life for women. So, when you look at the Ryan budget cutting Pell Grants and cutting those things that women are so concerned about--their children and how they're going to be able to raise them, to nurture them, to give them a head start--those things are being cut as if somebody is just going through a forest, cutting down trees with a hatchet. I think that we have to stand up for women. We have to make sure that we let the Nation know what is being done in this budget and make it clear that we're not going to stand for it. I just want to thank the gentlelady for her presentation tonight and for bringing us together with regard to this very, very important issue. Keep in mind that he is talking about doing away with the Affordable Care Act. So much of the Affordable Care Act goes to keeping people well--keeping women well, keeping their children well, keeping their families well. It allows them to have affordable and accessible insurance, which is something that women are most concerned about, and being able to pay comparable rates that men would be paying. I mean, he comes in, and he wants to just do away with the Affordable Care Act and create and give us this budget that really makes no sense.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today to ask every Member of the House to join our bipartisan efforts to combat firearms trafficking and cosponsor H.R. 452, the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act. Earlier this year, I was honored to join colleagues on both sides of the aisle to introduce this commonsense proposal to make firearms trafficking a Federal crime for the first time and to impose stiff new penalties on straw purchasers. Since then, the number of cosponsors has swelled, adding both Republicans and Democrats. It has also gained bipartisan support in the Senate. Our bill has been endorsed by law enforcement officials across the country, and it does not affect the rights of any law-abiding gun owner. The only people that would be against this bill would be straw purchasers and those who are forbidden legally from possessing a gun. Just yesterday, we held a bipartisan forum, as my colleague has just mentioned, to hear the accounts of first responders who have been the victims of gun violence resulting from straw purchases or other trafficking incidents. I want to reiterate what has been said by Mr. Thompson about Ted Scardino. He was a brave firefighter from New York who suffered multiple gunshot wounds and saw two of his colleagues gunned down on Christmas Eve when they were responding to a fire. Mike Chiapperini and Tomasz Kaczowka were those colleagues who are now no longer with us. Here is Tomasz. He was just a 19-year-old who had just joined the volunteer fire department. It turned out that the fire was set by a convicted felon, William Spengler. He previously served 17 years in prison for killing his grandmother with a hammer. Spengler ambushed these first responders and sprayed them with bullets. Despite his criminal record, Spengler walked into a gun store, alongside a straw purchaser, to obtain guns to be used to kill these brave men. As Mr. Scardino said yesterday, he supports our bipartisan legislation because he wants to keep guns out of the hands of deranged killers, create a deterrent to providing guns to dangerous criminals, and prevent more tragic deaths like these. After working on this legislation for several years, Mrs. Maloney and I have never been more hopeful that we can pass it with significant bipartisan support. I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Mr. Thompson, just very briefly, one of the things that has been said over and over again--and we hear it from the NRA--is that we ought to deal with the laws that we already have. Well, right now, there's a phenomenal loophole with the laws that we already have. Law enforcement, by the way, brought this to the attention of our committee, and they didn't ask for a trafficking law--they begged for it. Because as was testified to yesterday in the hearing, those who want to commit some kind of crimes, they're always looking for what they call a hustle; they're looking for something to make their money off of. Witnesses told us yesterday--as a matter of fact, the head of the San Francisco police said that it has become easier to deal in guns and more lucrative than to deal in drugs. So a lot of folks that would normally be going to deal in drugs are now dealing in guns. Why? Because there is no dedicated trafficking law, and this is what our bill will do. It also will increase those penalties for straw purchasers. I want to thank the gentleman, by the way, for your hard work. You've done an outstanding job in bringing Members of the House together to forge ahead with regard to legislation to address these issues, and I want to thank you.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the harmful spending cuts that will threaten our economy and a range of vital services for children, seniors, small businesses, and our men and women in uniform. I've just come from a hearing in the Coast Guard Subcommittee, where we learned that in fiscal year 2011, our already underfunded Coast Guard failed to meet one-fourth of its non-homeland security mission targets and more than half of its homeland security mission targets. The Coast Guard's ability to protect our homeland and ensure the safety of life at sea will not improve when millions of dollars are cut from the budget. Sequestration will also reduce our mobility in the skies. If we do not act by Friday, the vast majority of the FAA's 47,000 employees will face extensive furloughs. This will result in longer delays and disruptions at airports, canceled flights, and impeded commerce. With only 3 days left, our House Republicans must act now to allow a vote on the Democrats' balanced proposal to avert these damaging and indiscriminate spending cuts. We cannot afford to wait a moment longer.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also take this moment to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for making this happen. And I thank Representatives Horsford and Jeffries for leading this. It is quite encouraging--and I know that our chairman, Marcia Fudge, agrees with me--when we see our new Members come to the forefront and lead. That's why our constituents sent us here. I just want you to know that we are very, very, very proud of you, as we are of our other new Member, Mr. Payne, who just spoke. We are certainly glad that you are here and leading. We all know our Nation's disgraceful history in this area of voting rights. I've often said that if we did not have the Voting Rights Act, these past few years have taught us that we would have to invent it. For decades and decades, racist and exclusionary voting practices kept minorities from accessing the ballot box. I'm reminded of my great-great-grandfather, Mr. Scipio Rhame. In the South Carolina of 1868, he overcame tremendous hardships and life-threatening dangers just to register to vote, only a few years after he had come out of slavery. Sadly, this country has witnessed very slow progress toward equality in voting. The reality is that in the year 2013, we are still fighting for the right to vote for all Americans. In election after election, discriminatory voting laws and exclusionary practices still surface. This past election cycle, we saw a new wave of efforts to suppress the vote. We saw racially motivated efforts to cut back on early voting. We saw physical destruction of voter registration forms. Across the country, we saw eligible voters prevented from casting their ballots because of long lines, inaccurate voter records, and poorly trained poll workers. As the ranking member on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I launched an investigation last year into the actions of True the Vote, a Tea Party organization that claims to promote ``voter integrity'' efforts. In fact, True the Vote sought to make it harder for Americans to vote. They challenged the registration of thousands of legitimate voters across the country before Election Day, and they deployed volunteers across the country to challenge access to the polls for legitimate voters. Efforts by groups like True the Vote disproportionately affect minority communities, and they are just one small example of the practices that still seek to suppress the vote in our country. The Voting Rights Act is often cited as the most effective civil rights law in our history. Section 5 has been one of the most powerful tools in the act because it combats discriminatory attempts to marginalize voters before they can take root. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, he said this: There were those who said smaller and more gradual measures should be tried. But they had been tried. For years and years they had been tried, and tried, and tried, and they had failed, and failed, and failed. And the time for failure is gone. So, in closing, I hope the Supreme Court Justices remember these words as they consider this most recent challenge to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Today, in the year 2013, section 5 remains as critical as ever to protecting the right to vote in the United States of America.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You're absolutely right. Thank you.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, a fellow Marylander, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend, the chairman of our committee, has several times talked about loyal opposition. I am not the loyal opposition. I am someone who believes in what I'm talking about, and I'm not standing here opposing legislation just to be opposing it because I'm a Democrat. We have to put a human face on all of this. I live in an area in Baltimore where a lot of these employees who are making $40,000, $45,000 or less take the early bus, and they are the ones who believe in what they do. The Social Security Administration is smack dab in the middle of my district. I think about the people who make $100,000 or more, but we have to remember who those employees are. Many of them we see every day. These are employees who are highly skilled professionals, and I think Mr. Wolf and Mr. LoBiondo talked about them. These are folks, such as doctors on staff at the Department of Veterans Affairs, who treat our wounded warriors. They're the lawyers at the Department of Justice and at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and we've heard their testimony before our committee. These are folks who deal with some very, very complex issues, and almost any law firm would be willing to pay them far more than what they are earning to work for the agencies for which they work. These are the folks who investigate and prosecute complex fraud and criminal cases. These are some of the most famous scientists in the world and air traffic controllers who help navigate our planes. Just a few months ago, the ranking member and the chairman of the committee and I went to an awards ceremony at which Federal employees, who contribute so much to our society and who could earn far more than what they're earning, were getting awards for doing some very magnificent and awesome things. I want to just spend some time on this one issue. It's not so much again that Federal employees don't mind sacrificing. They don't mind sacrificing. The question is will others sacrifice, too, those who are making far more money than they're making. But yet and still they're asked over and over and over again to pay more and more and more. And so this is a very deep-felt situation with most of the people who have spoken--all of them. And as I listened to Mr. LoBiondo and I listened to Mr. Wolf, what they were basically doing was making a case and reminding us that Federal employees go into the business of being our Federal employees because they want to make a difference. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 273. Given the many critical challenges our Nation faces, I and many of my colleagues hope that the 113th Congress would bring a new era of shared purpose that would enable us to work together to grow the Nation's economy, create jobs, and invest in our country's future. There are only 5 legislative days, Mr. Speaker, left before the across-the-board cuts required by sequestration will take effect. Rather than seeking solutions to the urgent challenges we face, our Republican friends are wasting 2 days simply renewing their attacks on middle class, hardworking Federal employees. H.R. 273 has one purpose: it would extend the current freeze on Federal employees' pay for a third consecutive year. Mr. Speaker, Federal workers--the same Federal workers who care for our veterans, the same ones that clean our offices, the same ones that find cures to devastating diseases at NIH, the same ones that secure our borders, the same ones that regulate our drug supply--have already contributed more than $100 billion towards reducing the deficit and funding unemployment benefits for millions of American workers. No other group of Americans has contributed more to reducing the deficit. No other group has contributed more to ensuring our government remains strong. No other group has worked harder to ensure we're securing our Nation from threats. No other group has worked harder to provide the services on which our fellow citizens depend. If H.R. 273 becomes law, the same middle class, hardworking workers would be required to contribute another $11 billion towards deficit reduction, for a staggering total of nearly $115 billion. These are the same workers who have had their pay frozen for years. And these are the same workers who are now facing the very real threat of furloughs and layoffs if Congress fails to resolve sequestration by March 1. It's estimated that 1 million employees will suffer furlough days. The administration estimates that the arbitrary across-the-board budget cuts for Federal agencies that would be required under sequestration will result in the furlough of, again, a million employees. We are at a tipping point in our Nation. The American people have reelected President Obama and voted in favor of policies that will support continued growth, create new and expanded job opportunities, and ensure the safety and health of our great Nation. However, here in the House, the voters are not being heard, and we continue to waste time considering measures that will only make our fellow Americans less financially secure, less secure in their health care, less secure in their children's education, and less secure in their jobs. One of the arguments that we consistently hear is that we need certainty. People need to know exactly what is going to happen in their lives. We've heard that argument over and over and over again. Yet when it comes to Federal employees, we leave them in the lurch, not knowing how much the next paycheck will be. At the same time, House Republicans have refused to consider asking the richest among us to contribute a dime more. And that's one of the most painful things about this entire thing. A lot of times when I'm interviewing people to come to our staff, a lot of them tell me, Congressman, we don't mind not taking paychecks from the private sector because we want to do good for the public sector. And they say that they want to simply feed their souls. They want to do something significant. They want to affect broad groups of people. But yet this is what they get. We could have spent today considering a proposal to eliminate tax breaks used by oil and gas companies and hedge fund managers. We could have spent today considering a limit to itemized deductions for the wealthiest Americans. Instead, House Republicans continue to return to the same hardworking middle class American workers over and over and over again. The problem is that these repeated cuts will impair the ability of the government to carry out its mission and service to the American people. Social Security is located in my district, and I have seen and talked to our Social Security employees, as they are my neighbors. And they tell me that they have seen cut after cut with regard to employees. And now you've got people who once had three people doing a job, now there's one. And the cuts continue. They don't mind working, they don't mind sacrifices. But they said that if you're going to make us sacrifice, then let's have some equal sacrificing from people who can afford the cuts. As President Obama has emphasized, ``our economy succeeds and our economy grows when everybody's getting a fair shot and everybody's getting a fair shake.'' I urge my colleagues to move beyond this partisan agenda of denigrating our Nation's public servants and join together to address the real issues Americans elected us to solve. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.