Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on December 28, emergency unemployment benefits for Americans were cut off; and since then, 2 million Americans have lost their essential lifeline and have been missing their rent payments, missing their mortgage payments, trying to keep the house warm and put

food on the table. Congress has failed to act.

What is particularly concerning to me is some of the rhetoric that I hear would imply that those unemployed Americans are seeking benefits because they don't want to work. And, in fact, yesterday, I read a quote from the Budget Committee chairman--and I will try to get this correct--saying that, in America, there is a culture in our inner cities of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.

That is not the problem. The problem is a lack of opportunity. So I will take the chairman at his word that he was intending to say: so, therefore, we need to fully fund after-school programs, we need to fully fund pre-K programs, and we need to fully fund summer youth employment so that those young people do have a chance to experience the benefit and value of work, and that we provide a safety net to make sure that when they are not working, they don't lose their house, their car, and their family.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

Whereas on March 5, 2014, during a hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa gave a statement and then posed ten questions to former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner, who stated that she was invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to testify;

Whereas the committee's ranking member, Representative Elijah E. Cummings, clearly sought recognition to take his turn for questions under committee and House rules;

Whereas Chairman Issa then unilaterally adjourned the hearing and refused to allow him to make any statement or ask any questions;

Whereas Ranking Member Cummings protested immediately, stating: ``Mr. Chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. You just cannot----''

Mr. Speaker, may I proceed?

Mr. Speaker, the Members have removed their iPads. May I proceed?

For the purposes of display, this is what the Members have been holding.

May I proceed?

Whereas Ranking Member Cummings protested immediately, stating: ``Mr. Chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. You just cannot do this. This is, we are better than that as a country, we are better than that as a committee.'';

Whereas Chairman Issa then returned and allowed Ranking Member Cummings to begin his statement, but when it became clear that Chairman Issa did not want to hear what Ranking Member Cummings was saying, turned off Ranking Member Cummings' microphone, ordered Republican staff to ``close it down,'' and repeatedly signaled to end the hearing with his hand across his neck;

Whereas Ranking Member Cummings objected again, stating: ``You cannot have a one-sided investigation. There is absolutely something wrong with that.'';

Whereas Chairman Issa made a statement of his own and posed questions during the hearing, but refused to allow other members of the committee, and in particular, the ranking member, who had sought recognition, to make statements under the 5-minute rule in violation of House rule XI;

Whereas Chairman Issa instructed the microphones be turned off and adjourned the hearing without a vote or a unanimous consent agreement in violation of rule XVI because he did not want to permit Ranking Member Cummings to speak;

Whereas Chairman Issa's abusive behavior on March 5 is part of a continuing pattern in which he has routinely excluded members of the committee from investigative meetings, has turned off Members' microphones while they were questioning a witness, attempted to prevent witnesses from answering questions, and has provided information to the press before sharing it with committee members;

Whereas on July 18, 2003, former Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas, asked the United States Capitol Police to remove minority members of the committee from the library where they were having a discussion about a pending committee

markup, and subsequently came to the well of the U.S. House of Representatives to publicly apologize for his belligerent behavior;

Whereas Chairman Issa has violated clause 1 of rule XXIII of the Code of Official Conduct which states that ``A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House'': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives strongly condemns the offensive and disrespectful manner in which Chairman Darrell E. Issa conducted the hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on March 5, 2014, and requires that he come to the well of the House to issue a public apology to Members of the House.

That concludes the reading of the resolution.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I signed a discharge petition in an effort to force an up-or-down vote on legislation that I have cosponsored, and that is H.R. 1010, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which would increase the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 over the period of the next few years, giving up to 25 million Americans a well-deserved pay raise.

Many Americans who work at the minimum wage live in poverty; and I know that there are some in this body, particularly on the other side, who fundamentally don't even believe that there ought to be a minimum wage. That is a minority view.

Republicans and Democrats across the country believe that not only should we have a minimum wage, but that it ought to be increased. A recent poll showed that 71 percent of Americans favor an increase in the minimum wage.

So for those who believe that there ought to be a wage that is a living wage, it has to be a wage that does not put people in poverty. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition, and let's have a vote to give Americans the raise that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the Genesee District Library as they celebrate their 12th Annual Black History Month Brunch on Saturday, February 8th in Flint, Michigan.

Formed in 2002, this Black History Month Brunch has become a staple in our community, and is regarded as one of Genesee County's signature events. A portion of the proceeds raised will go to support the Genesee District Library's Summer Reading Program.

During this special Black History Month Brunch, the Genesee District Library will honor Carolyn Nash, Retired Executive Director, Genesee District Library; Louis Hawkins, Community Relation Administrator, HealthPlus of Michigan; Lawrence E. Moon, Owner, Lawrence E. Moon Funeral Home; and Bruce Bradley, CEO/Founder, Tapology, all for their unwavering commitment and significant contribution to our community. The event will also feature a performance from four-time Grammy Award and Academy Award winning vocalist, Regina Belle.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Genesee District Library for providing this opportunity for the community to join hands, recognize, and celebrate the contribution of local African Americans. This event captures the essence of Black History Month, and inspires residents to celebrate all year long.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the House of Representatives for passing my amendment yesterday, which will help preserve access to the National Forest System lands for snowmobiles in Michigan and across the Nation, the same access that has long been granted for responsible snowmobilers.

In Michigan, snowmobiling has long been an important part of our State's heritage. Half of my home State's 6,300 miles of snowmobile trails are on public land. Each year, families in my district head into the woods to partake in this winter recreational activity.

Snowmobiling supports our economy, particularly in northern Michigan. Each year, snowmobiling pumps over $200 million into my State's economy, supporting thousands and thousands of jobs. Nationally, it is even greater: $26 billion in economic activity annually, and over 100,000 jobs directly related to the snowmobile industry and the over 225,000 miles of groomed trails that people ride on.

My amendment supports these jobs, promotes conservation, and ensures snowmobilers that they will be able to continue to enjoy our incredible winters while preserving the natural beauty of our national forests.

Madam Speaker, today, this House will consider H.R. 7, which is an unprecedented assault on women's health care.

This law would mean that millions of American women who would like to purchase their health insurance with their own money cannot purchase comprehensive health insurance, insurance which is their legal right because this House of Representatives and, Madam Speaker, I would note, a House of Representatives, particularly on the majority side, that is dominated by men, tell them they cannot do so.

What is even more cynical, however, is that those who are promoting this and have said this know that it will not become law. It is a messaging bill.

It is intended to send a message to whom?

And just what is that message?

So while we are debating that, the House is not taking up unemployment insurance extension, which is not a messaging bill. It is heat in the home, it is keeping the lights on, it is paying the mortgage, it is putting food on the table for the children of the people in those homes.

That is not a messaging bill. That is the work that we were sent here to do.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican assault on women's health care rights.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits that protect 49,965 workers in Michigan.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I am here to express my disappointment that we are not bringing up H.R. 3824, a bill that would extend for 3 months emergency unemployment compensation. It causes me to think of what the American people would expect of us here in Congress if we were facing a national emergency of some type that resulted in the immediate loss of basic support for the basic needs of 1.3 million Americans.

What would we do, especially if that national emergency somehow caused every week 72,000 additional Americans to lose the basic help that they need to provide rent, to provide heat, put food on the table--to take care of the basic human necessities? We would act. Sure, as the gentleman pointed out, we would discuss ways to prevent future national emergencies that would cause this sort of problem. We would find ways to prevent those sorts of things from happening.

The gentleman referred to job training, economic development programs like job training. We would do those things for sure. But in the meantime, we would--and today we should--act to restore those benefits.

Thank you, Mr. Polis, for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question, as my colleague said, so that we can immediately take up the question of the extension of emergency unemployment to millions of Americans who have lost their job and who are seeking to find their next opportunity to contribute to our economy and to support their families.

I am part of the freshman class. We just began our second year in Congress. Something about the 2012 class that I think defines us is that we believe that we were sent here by the electorate of 2012 not to posture, but to get things done, to take action, to solve problems. That is why myself and the rest of the Democratic freshman class yesterday sent a letter to Speaker Boehner asking that he immediately bring up an extension to the unemployment compensation for so many Americans.

Let's be clear about something, though. Unlike what I have heard from so many on the other side, being unemployed is not a choice; it is not a lifestyle to be sought. It is a condition that is often unanticipated, and it is one that nobody in my district that I know of who is unemployed would ever seek to try to maintain.

I can only speak for the people I represent, but I suspect this is true of my colleagues. Folks that we represent back home that are out of work would gladly, today, trade unemployment compensation for a job that puts them to work and gives them the dignity of work and the ability to meet their obligations to their family and their community. It is about survival. It is about making your rent payment. It is about being able to pay your car payment, to put food on the table for your kids. It is about being able to keep the house warm. It is not a lifestyle to be sought.

I think the notion that somehow people who are unemployed want to be there is condescending and offensive.

I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this previous question so that we can immediately take up the work that the American people are asking us to take up.

And that is to make sure that 1.3 million Americans have a chance to support their families until they can find meaningful work. Eleven million people since 2008 have been saved from poverty because of unemployment compensation. That unemployment extension was supported by the vast majority of Members of this House, signed by President Bush, with no strings attached.

What is different about 2014 than what was experienced in 2008? Nothing, except that we have the same obligation to those same Americans to make sure that they don't go broke, that they don't lose their house, that they don't lose their car, that they don't lose their family, as a result of the lack of basic decency.

I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee) for her leadership and her stewardship of this important obligation that we are here to commemorate.

Mr. Speaker, it was 50 years ago today that President Johnson stood at that podium right in front of us. I can still conjure the images of that speech. Of course, these are images of black and white recordings of President Johnson standing there. It reminds me of the special obligation that we are called to and that he articulated so well half a century ago. I was 5 years old when he gave that speech. But like many I know here, I was sort of a precocious kid, and I was really, really interested in our government and in politics, and I followed it from a very young age--even that tender age of 5.

I remember as a kid in the 1960s and early 1970s going through school thinking that the great struggles--the civil rights struggle, the women's rights movement, this war on poverty--were the big fights of our generation. In some ways, I almost felt at that point in time a moment had passed me by never imagining that when the time came so many years later and I would have an opportunity to serve in Congress that we are actually still fighting those same fights, that we are still engaged in that same struggle.

Fifty years later, after President Johnson's speech, in the wealthiest society ever imagined, we are still fighting this war on poverty. In fact, we are seeing recently growing disparity, growing inequality in our society. We have not eradicated poverty. In fact, we haven't yet gotten to the point where we can say we are close.

We do continue that battle. The battle over unemployment insurance, for example, is a part of that same fight. Some in this body would choose to continue their crusade to cut that important program. We have to remind ourselves that just since 2008, 11 million Americans have been saved from poverty because they were able to have that unemployment insurance available to keep them whole until they could find new meaningful, rewarding work.

So instead of cutting these important programs--Head Start, our nutrition programs, the programs that actually change the trajectory of the lives of those who are struggling to find their way in our society--we ought to be doubling those investments, we ought to be making sure that no American ever has to wonder if they will fall below that common floor of decency that we all would agree should be part of any civilized society.

We should have a minimum wage in this country that guarantees that people who work full time don't live in poverty. Fifty years later, we have got a lot of work to do.

I heard the other day--I will close by saying this--I heard the other day a Member of the other body make a comment that perhaps we ought to simply acknowledge that in this Nation we have lost the war on poverty, when 50 years ago a quarter of our society was living in poverty and today that number is 16 percent. While we know we have a long way to go, we know that these programs actually do work. We have to ask ourselves what kind of country, what kind of society do we

want to be? I think if we answer the question right we will live up to the challenge that President Johnson laid down 50 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this Republican-controlled Congress has been one of the least productive Congresses in modern times. Recently, the Speaker of the House actually said, ``We've done our work.'' This year we passed only 56 bills. That is sad and that is wrong. And this month, we are in session here on this floor for only 8 days.

Important issues continue to pile up, unresolved and unanswered. And yet tomorrow, we are getting ready to leave for the rest of the year, even as the Senate will continue to work on behalf of the American people. The list of what we have not done is much longer than what we have passed. We need to stay here and get the work of the American people done.

We haven't taken up a jobs and infrastructure bill. We could do that next week.

We have not passed a long-term budget deal that tackles the big issues that we face.

We have not voted on comprehensive immigration reform, despite the fact that a majority would support immigration reform. All we need to do is bring it to the floor. We could do that next week.

We haven't done our work to extend unemployment compensation for 1.3 million Americans who will lose their benefits on December 28, yet we are going to leave this body having failed to act to protect the livelihood of 1.3 million Americans. That is just wrong.

We haven't considered raising the minimum wage, despite the economic

boon that it would be to give millions of working class people more purchasing power, supporting business, and supporting economic growth.

And we have a bipartisan farm bill. Sure it has got some problems. I don't know how everybody would vote on it, but it ought to come to the floor of the House for a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. We could do that next week.

The list goes on. Unfortunately, it is completely fair to characterize this Republican-led House as a do-nothing Congress. Sometimes, though, it seems as though the things we have actually done have only made things worse.

In March, we allowed the harmful across-the-board sequester cuts to go into effect. Nobody here tried to stop them. On our side, we tried to stop them. Nobody did anything on the other side. Those draconian cuts went into effect, slowed economic growth, and cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their jobs.

In October, the gridlock and dysfunction shut down the Federal Government for 2 weeks--the first such shutdown in two decades. That cost this economy $24 billion. We can't let that happen in the future.

I am only a freshman, just finishing my first year in Congress, but I can tell you one thing I know: this is no way to run this government. We have got to get back to legislating, doing the work of the American people, the way the Framers of this government intended it to be done.

We can just kind of go back. Some of you might remember ``Schoolhouse Rock,'' how a bill becomes a law. The House passes a bill, the Senate does its work, passes a bill, we go to conference, we work out the differences, and send that on to the President for his signature or for a veto. That is the way we legislate.

Yet, we continue to lurch from crisis to crisis and not let the will of the American people be manifest in the laws that we write. My constituents, and all Americans, deserve a Congress that is serious about the work of the American people and ready to get to work to grow our economy, to support manufacturing, to strengthen the middle class.

I am ready to work in a bipartisan fashion. I think most of us are here to take on these big problems that our country faces. Now is not the time for more dithering or delay. Now is certainly not the time for a vacation.

Look, I would love to be able to go home and spend the next couple of weeks with my family. You know, we spend a lot of time away from home. But the folks that we represent expect us to get our work done.

So I, Mr. Speaker, am one who is willing to just stay here. Let's come back to work on Monday, and let's stay here until we get this important work done.

Let's take the Make It In America agenda to support American manufacturing; let's bring it to the floor. You don't want to vote for it, don't vote for it. But we ought to consider these important pieces of legislation that are important to our economy and not leave town without taking up the important work that we are charged with doing.

I represent Flint, Saginaw, Bay City, older industrial cities that helped build the manufacturing base of our economy. They depend on the Congress to do the work that we were sent here to do. We shouldn't go home. We should stay here and finish our work.

Mr. Speaker, it was just about a year ago right now that I and 84 other new Members of Congress arrived in Washington to begin our orientation in the process of joining this body; and both Democrats and Republicans of that class of 2012, though we come from different perspectives and different districts, we received a pretty strong message from the electorate in 2012. It was the same message that I think many of us heard when we were back home last week for our Thanksgiving break. The message was: set aside the hyper-partisanship and get about the business of attending to the work of the American people.

So now as we face yet another set of self-inflicted wounds, political deadlines that have been set, we hear some rumblings that we may not do what we committed to do just a few weeks ago, and that is, put together a real budget that is a reflection of the values, the interests, and the needs of the American people.

We have already gone through one government shutdown just this last year which cost the American economy $24 billion. We cannot afford to let that happen again, and we cannot afford another short-term deal that does not provide the stability and the certainty that the private sector needs in order to make the kinds of investments that will put the American people back to work and get our economy moving again.

I am glad that there finally was agreement to go to conference on a budget, and many of us took that agreement at face value. We took the Members who agreed to that and the leadership at their word that it would be an effort to put together a budget that is a reflection of the needs and values of the American people, a budget that will invest in our kids, that will give them the skills they need in order to compete, that will invest in infrastructure, that will help industry deliver products to market and grow the economy, that will invest in manufacturing by passing the Make It In America plan, a plan of some 40 bills that would reinvigorate our manufacturing sector in this country.

And we can do it without slashing important programs simply by being more rational in terms of how we manage our budget. Cut the big tax loopholes for Big Oil and corporations that pay virtually no taxes in this country; and for sure, Mr. Speaker, end this mindless sequester, a scheme that was designed to be so bad that it would force the two parties together around a more rational approach to making decisions for the American people.

But instead of that, it has now been embraced by some in Congress not as something to be avoided but as the starting point for the next round of cuts to the essential programs that we need in order to drive investment and grow our economy. We just cannot afford to continue down this path.

According to the CBO, sequestration is already costing us jobs. Up to 1.6 million Americans are out of work or will be out of work because of these mindless cuts. And we are further cutting our safety net-- programs like SNAP, unemployment, those things that we need in order to make sure that we have a floor of decency below which no American should ever be allowed to fall in the world's biggest, most powerful democracy and economy. It is unacceptable.

These cuts also hurt our future by slashing key investments in research at the NIH, trying to crack the code and solve some of the most difficult problems that we have in the diseases that so many Americans are struggling with. Yet we set aside that investment in the name of partisan politics.

We have got to get back to work. We have got to get back to the work that we were sent here to do because I think the 85 of us that came in last year at this time are not really that much different than the rest of the Members of this House. We were all sent here with that charge to get the business of the American people done. But somewhere along the way, partisanship has overcome democracy. We need to set aside this hyper-partisanship, get back to the business that we were sent here to do, and do the work of the American people.

Pass a budget. I am calling on my colleagues to do that and to not be drawn into what could be another partisan squabble for political purposes.

Mr. Chair, I would first like to commend the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for working together on this bipartisan legislation. The collaboration between Chairman Schuster, Ranking Member Rahall and the rest of the committee demonstrates that we can work together to invest in our nation's infrastructure to make the U.S. more competitive and grow the economy. The backlog of unfinished water infrastructure projects and maintenance is hindering economic recovery and hurting small businesses by slowing trade. This bill helps address the backlog by updating critical infrastructure to allow goods to move more efficiently across our nation's waterways, ports and coasts.

However, like most pieces of legislation, this bill is not perfect. Although this bill makes some critical improvements to current law, I continue to be concerned with changes in environmental assessments and public comment periods in the U.S. Army Corps' project approval process. That is why I supported Rep. Peter DeFazio's (OR-04) amendment requiring the Army Corps to decrease their backlog of water infrastructure improvements to under $20 billion before the modified environmental assessment process can go into effect. There are currently over $40 billion in projects that have been authorized under the current approval process, but they lack sufficient appropriations to actually complete them. While I understand the need to improve the Army Corps' project approval process, it would be helpful to start addressing the lack of appropriated funds for previously authorized projects.

Although Rep. DeFazio's amendment failed, I still supported this legislation because it makes many important improvements to the Great Lakes water infrastructure that will improve transportation and trade as well as protect against invasive species. I will continue to fight for policies that help the Army Corps decrease its backlog of construction and maintenance projects and protect our precious natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, this week, unfortunately, food stamps will be cut by $5 billion. We expected that. What is worse is that even deeper cuts could follow.

Conferees start negotiating a farm bill this week, and billions of dollars in cuts--in fact, $40 billion--have been proposed by Republicans in the House, which is 10 times the number of cuts passed in the bipartisan bill in the Senate.

Since I have been here in Congress, I have talked to dozens of people in my district who have come up to me and said, Thank you for fighting to preserve the food stamp program. I have never told anybody, they say, but I received food stamps at one point in my life, so thank you for fighting.

I am afraid that many Members of Congress simply don't know what it is like to be poor in America. These are real people--real human beings. The cuts that we contemplate here are not numbers on a piece of paper but are cuts that would literally take food out of the mouths of people who are hungry.

This is wrong. It cannot stand. I urge my colleagues to fight to preserve this important program.

Mr. Speaker, while typically I would address the House on much more serious subjects, today it is a slightly lighter subject that I am here to address. Much to my regret, I am here standing before you to congratulate my dear friend and classmate from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and his Boston Red Sox on their American League Championship Series win over my beloved Detroit Tigers. And in accordance with our agreement, today I am wearing the gentleman's rather unsightly Boston Red Sox tie, which is painful to say the least.

Although the Tigers did not make it to the World Series this year, I do want to say how proud I am of our players, of our team, of our State, and specifically of Jim Leyland, who, after two World Series, four American League Championship Series, and 8 years as our manager, announced his retirement this week.

Jim, I am sure I speak for all Michiganders and all baseball fans in saying that we are proud to have you retire as a Detroit Tiger.

To Michigan, and specifically to Detroit, the Tigers have always meant more than just baseball. Year after year, their perseverance and grit, even through really tough times for both the team and for the city, that perseverance has been emblematic of the determination and resilience of Detroiters and Michiganders. Tigers baseball has provided hope and instilled a sense of pride in a city and State that has surely seen its share of difficulties. Their performance and their wins have certainly not erased the challenges that we face, but it has given the community and our State a lift.

Like the team, Detroit and Michigan have always had hope for the next season. I love my Detroit Tigers and appreciate all they mean to the great State of Michigan.

And to Jim Leyland and our amazing team, bless you, boys.

So, today, regrettably but sincerely, I salute my colleague from Massachusetts and his winning team, the Boston Red Sox. I had hoped for a different outcome, but, nonetheless, a win is a win.

Joe, congratulations to you and to the Red Sox.