Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote number 672 on H.R. 2706, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``nay'' when I should have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Pallone and Mr. Shimkus for their hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields program, H.R. 3017, a highly successful program by all accounts.

In the past two Congresses, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment has evaluated the program

in multiple hearings. What we have learned each time is that the program continues operating, as it has since its creation, very efficiently and successfully.

Data provided by the EPA shows that, since its inception, the brownfields program has leveraged more than 122,800 jobs and over $23.6 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding. For every dollar of brownfields funding--Federal funding--more than 16 other public and private dollars are leveraged on a national level, and more than eight jobs are leveraged for every $100,000 of EPA brownfields funds expended.

It is undeniable that this program is working as it should and that communities across the Nation are benefiting from the investment of the Federal dollars in this program.

The changes made to the program in this bill before the House today will improve it and increase the flexibility with which communities will be able to utilize the program.

Although I support the bill, I am puzzled by this body's reluctance to increase the funding for a very successful program for the brownfields. This program's successes have been continually hindered by insufficient funds, as you have heard from other speakers.

By the EPA's own estimates, over the past 5 years, funding deficiencies have caused 1,676 viable proposals to go unfunded. These sites are not only sitting idle and unproductive, but we are missing out on the return on the investment that these sites could realize. In fact, had these proposals received funding, it is estimated those grants would have leveraged approximately 54,680 jobs and over $10.3 billion in public and private financing.

This begs the question: Why aren't we investing more in the redevelopment of brownfields space?

If this is the success rate of an underfunded program, imagine the potential economic impact and potential for job creation that could come from fully funding the program.

Nevertheless, the program received bipartisan support, and I am pleased to support the legislation to reauthorize the program and improve its success.

I also plan to continue working on the issue of ensuring that local governments maintain their existing obligation to exercise care in preventing potential exposure of our citizens to hazardous substances found on brownfields sites.

In reconciling the differences between H.R. 3017 and H.R. 1758--the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's reported brownfields reauthorization bill--a provision in H.R. 1758 requiring communities to maintain an appropriate level of care in association with the liability protections was dropped from the bill.

I will continue to push for the restoration of this protection, and will continue to move through Congress. Again, I support the program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the Republican tax bill, which is a giveaway to corporations and the richest 1 percent, and a tax hike on working class Americans and their children.

It is unconscionable, as it cripples the State and local tax deductions. Thirty percent of my residents will lose these deductions, averaging $17,000 per family, according to the IRS, which will devastate housing affordability in my district and disadvantage California taxpayers, compared to other States.

It cruelly eliminates the medical expense tax deduction worth over $10,000. This is a direct blow to seniors and families in my district who have long-term medical needs, as well as families with children who have severe disabilities.

The House bill is terrible, but the Senate wants to include a repeal of the Affordable Care Act in their bill, making it even more painful for working families. This would kick millions of Americans off their health insurance plan, spike premiums, and undermine our entire healthcare system.

It also abolishes the tax-exempt status of private activity bonds used by San Gabriel Valley cities, water agencies, and transportation agencies to provide low-cost financing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the League of California Cities, the California Department of Finance, the California State Treasurer, and the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership in opposition to H.R. 1.

League of California Cities, CSAC, CALED, CSBA,

California Association of Realtors,

November 9, 2017.

For Immediate Release.

Coalition of Local Governments, Economic Development Leaders, Schools

and Realtors Urge California Congressional Delegation to Reject Tax

Reforms that Harm Taxpayers, Homeowners and the Economy

California Would be one of the States to Lose the Most from Proposed

Reforms

Sacramento.--The associations representing California's

local governments, economic development leaders, schools and

realtors urge the California congressional delegation to

protect the State and Local Tax deduction and a key economic

development tool at risk under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in

its current form.

The SALT deduction makes the cost of living more affordable

in states like California. Eliminating the deduction for

state and local income taxes and capping the local property

tax deduction at $10,000 would hurt hard-working California

families and only add to the housing affordability crisis in

the state by eliminating a key incentive for homeownership.

In 2015, 6.1 million California taxpayers claimed the SALT

deduction with the average deduction at around $18,000.

The SALT deduction has been an integral component of the

federal tax code since its creation in 1913 and was one of

the six deductions allowed under the original tax code.

Eliminating or capping federal deductibility for state and

local property, sales and income taxes would represent double

taxation and would upset the carefully balanced fiscal

federalism that has existed since the permanent creation of

the federal income tax over 100 years ago.

Tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds (PABs) are an important

tool for state and local governments to help finance major

public projects, including transportation and water

infrastructure, affordable housing construction, schools--all

of which are essential for job growth, healthy economies,

safe communities and the nation's economy Eliminating PABs'

tax-exempt status would drive up the costs of borrowing for

these projects by 25-25 percent and be a disincentive to

spurring private sector investment in our communities.

Given the impact on California families and our economy, we

respectfully urge the California congressional delegation to

oppose eliminating or capping the SALT deduction or removing

the exemption on PABs as part of any tax reform proposal.

Quotes from coalition leaders

Carolyn Coleman, Executive Director, League of California

Cities: ``Hard working California tax payers and our

communities would be harmed by the current proposal. We hope

that California's congressional delegation hears this message

and takes swift action to reject any proposals that would

cause people to pay taxes on their income twice, would

destabilize key incentives for homeownership and increase

borrowing costs for state and local governments to finance

projects that benefit our communities.

Matt Cate, Executive Director, California State Association

of Counties: ``California Counties are increasingly concerned

with several provisions in the House tax reform package. The

narrowing of the SALT deduction alone would impact county

resources and their ability to meet the service needs of the

public. The additional changes to infrastructure financing

tools, including the taxable status of Private Activity Bonds

(PABs) and the ability to advance refund municipal bonds,

will fundamentally harm the way counties do business on

behalf of our residents.''

Gurbax Sahota, President and CEO, California Association

for Local Economic Development: ``The current tax proposal

eliminates Private Activity Bonds--eliminating an important

economic development financing tool California uses to fund

manufacturing expansion, health care facilities, affordable

housing, schools, nonprofits, and other economic development

projects. Combined with a repeal of advance refunding bonds,

this will absolutely impact our ability to attract investment

to future projects like these, as well as our ability to

create and retain jobs in these areas. These provisions are

bad for California and our residents.''

Vernon M. Billy, CEO and Executive Director, California

School Boards Association: ``We urge the California

delegation to act on behalf of the taxpayers in California

who would be hurt by the elimination of the SALT deduction,

including the talented school employees who work in our

schools educating and training students. Eliminating the

deduction has the same impact as raising property, income and

sales taxes in every congressional district in our state. By

effectively raising property taxes, the deduction also makes

local school bonds more expensive, complicating our efforts

to build and repair schools and provide students with the

resources needed for a high-quality 21st century education.''

Steve White, President, California Association of REALTORS:

``The move by Congress to eliminate state and local tax

deductions essentially levies a double tax on California,

this and other attacks on real estate tax incentives removes

the tax benefits for people to buy homes and raises taxes on

hundreds of thousands of Californians. Homeownership has and

continues to be the best way for families to grow wealth and

increase the middle class. Congress should look at ways to

incentivize and increase homeownership rates, not increase

taxes on families wanting to buy a home.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 106th National Day of the Republic of China (Taiwan). I would like to wish the people of Taiwan and Taiwanese Americans a very Happy Double Ten Day.

Taiwan is an extraordinary friend of the United States and continuing this strong relationship is important. Taiwanese companies employ more than 12,000 workers in the United States with a total worker compensation of almost a billion dollars. Taiwan also serves as a strong example of democracy in Asia, and provides the U.S. with an ally to further promote peace and stability in the region.

The state of California has deep and growing ties with Taiwan. More than 800 Taiwanese companies have offices or investments in the state. California exports $7.46 billion worth of goods to Taiwan, serving as its 7th largest export market in the world. The majority of the Taiwanese-American community is concentrated in Los Angeles County, and many have gone on to settle in the San Gabriel Valley providing our local communities with new traditions, employment opportunities and economic growth.

With continued commitment to this important relationship, I would like to again wish Taiwan a Happy Double Ten Day.

Mr. Chair, I was absent during roll call votes No. 553 through 555 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on the Grijalva of Arizona Substitute Amendment No. 1, aye on the Scott of Virginia Substitute Amendment No. 2, and no on the McClintock of California Substitute Amendment No. 3.

Amendment No. 4 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Yarmuth

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during roll call votes No. 556 through 557 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on the Yarmuth of Kentucky Substitute Amendment No. 4, and no on final passage of the Budget Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record letters of support for the DREAM Act from several California colleges and universities, and the County of Los Angeles:

September 8, 2017.

Re Immigration Reform for Undocumented Students.

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Napolitano: On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney

General Jeff Sessions announced that the administration

planned to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

(DACA) program. This program provides immigrant students

brought to the United States as minors the opportunity to

enroll in a college or university and seek authorization to

work without fear of deportation. To date, nearly 800,000

students have applied for DACA status, with nearly one-

third--223,000--calling California home. These students are

currently pursuing academic and vocational pathways that

position them for future success; the termination of the DACA

program threatens these students, their families, our

institutions, and our communities. Accordingly, we implore

Congress to act swiftly to create a permanent solution for

these students.

At minimum, we urge the passage of H.R. 496, the ``Bar

Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy'' or

BRIDGE Act, sponsored by Reps. Coffman (R-CO) and Gutierrez

(D-IL). This bipartisan bill would codify the DACA program,

allowing students registered under DACA to continue their

studies and/or maintain the ability to work with a new,

protected status for a period of up to three years. It would

also safeguard the privacy of their personal information

except in cases of national security or criminal

investigation.

More so, we encourage you to adopt a more comprehensive

measure, such as H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act of 2017, sponsored

by Reps. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Roybal-Allard (D-CA). This

bipartisan bill would create a pathway to permanent legal

status for students and military service personnel who call

the United States home. In doing so, this more comprehensive

measure would communicate that students' and veterans'

efforts to work hard, protect our nation, graduate from

college, and find meaningful and gainful employment, would

give them a permanent opportunity to provide financially for

their families, to engage in community and civic life, and,

ultimately, to achieve the American dream.

Though a politically complex issue, we entreat you to act

now. An Economist/YouGov poll taken September 3-5, 2017,

reveals widespread bipartisan support for the DACA program.

Nearly 60% of all registered voters supported or strongly

supported DACA, including 53% among Republicans and 70% among

Democrats. In addition, more than 55% of voters under age 29

and older than age 65 support this program. It enjoyed favor

across race, ethnicity, and income levels. In addition,

education leaders of private and public institutions across

the state have pledged near-universal support for students in

the DACA program, and faith communities are overwhelmingly

supportive of immigration reform measures that offer

protection to DACA/DREAMer students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in calling for a vote on H.R. 3440, the clean Dream Act, a bipartisan, bicameral bill with 200 cosponsors in the House.

It builds upon the great success of DACA, which opened the door for nearly 800,000 DREAMers who had come forward, passed background checks, and have been granted permission to live and work legally in America without fear of deportation.

They kept their promise to the Nation they know and love, and our government must honor its commitment to protect them. The faith community and business leaders are imploring Congress to pass the Dream Act. Polling shows that the American people strongly believe and support the DREAMers. Eighty-six percent of Americans support a right to residency for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children, according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud nation of many immigrants from around the world, the Dream Act honors our history and our heritage. I thank my Republican colleagues who have signed on, and I urge all others to join us. It is the right thing to do for our young people, especially our country. Support H.R. 3440, the Dream Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to honor the life of Jose Guadalupe Ramos, a beloved Vietnam veteran, Purple Heart recipient and veterans' advocate who passed away on September 3, 2017.

Mr. Ramos was born on September 17, 1948, in East Los Angeles, California. He attended Garfield High School and enlisted in the Army in 1965.

Mr. Ramos served bravely in Vietnam from 1967 to 68, where he was an Army medic exposed to the horrors of war while caring for fellow soldiers wounded on the battlefield. He himself was awarded the Purple Heart after being shot in the leg.

When Mr. Ramos returned from Vietnam, he and his fellow veterans were ignored by an American public disillusioned with the Vietnam War. The trauma they witnessed abroad was exacerbated by the disrespect and insults made against Vietnam veterans at the time. Even while suffering from his own mental and physical wounds, Mr. Ramos continued to care for others by working in emergency rooms in Los Angeles County hospitals.

Mr. Ramos' compassion for helping others did not end there. He had a desire to heal the mental wounds that his fellow Vietnam veterans still lived with when they were not given a proper welcome home. Mr. Ramos led an effort to get local, state, and federal governments to honor these heroes with a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.'' He convinced the State of California to recognize March 30th as Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day. His efforts were a part of getting 38 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Congress to observe Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.

Mr. Ramos carried this message across the United States by biking multiple times from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. to build support for recognition of a Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day. He also biked through

Vietnam with veterans from both sides of the conflict to promote healing and peace.

I was blessed to have known Mr. Ramos, and to have worked with him in our community and during his visits to Washington to help Vietnam veterans get the recognition, respect and care that they deserve.

Mr. Ramos alleviated the suffering of his fellow soldiers wounded on the field of battle, he alleviated the suffering of his fellow Angelenos in the emergency rooms of Southern California, and he alleviated the suffering in the hearts and minds of veterans who bore invisible wounds from Vietnam and their return to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Jose Ramos for his courage, character and commitment to supporting his fellow veterans. We extend our deepest sympathies to Mr. Ramos' family and friends for their loss. He was a model citizen and a hero for our community, our state and our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Sayra, from California, who is pursuing her MBA.

Mr. Chair I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3354-- ``Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act, 2018''. I am particularly concerned with Section 134 of Division H which prohibits states from setting meal break, rest break, and wage standards to protect truck drivers.

On July 9, 2014, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that trucking operators in California must abide by California labor law and allow for a 30-minute meal break after 5 hours of work and a 10-minute rest break after 4 hours of work. This meal and rest break standard is very reasonable when you consider that truck drivers can be subject to 14 hours of on-duty time. Section 134 overturns the Circuit Court's decision and prohibits California from addressing truck driving safety with these regulations.

Section 134 goes further than just overturning California's laws, it also preempts laws in 21 states and territories that guarantee meal and rest breaks. These states include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Guam, and Puerto Rico States should be allowed to set meal and rest break standards as they see fit for the health and safety of their workers.

Section 134 is additionally harmful because it attacks the wages of truck drivers. Section 134 allows trucking companies to pay truck drivers on a per load basis even if their routes are delayed for no fault of their own. This is a major problem is Southern California where truck drivers are delayed by overcrowding at the ports, by traffic on our freeways, and by delays at warehouses. A truck driver in Southern California can set out to haul 5 loads per day but only end up hauling 2 loads. California sets standards to make sure that truck drivers make at least the minimum wage and are paid for sick time. Section 134 would overturn state based wage laws and allow trucking companies to pay drivers less than the minimum wage.

Section 134 should have no place in this appropriations bill because this is a legislative rider in the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The Transportation Committee debated this provision during consideration of the Fast Act and it was wisely rejected by the FAST Act Conference Committee.

Mr. Chair, Section 134 is opposed by the State of California, the Teamsters, truck safety groups, and the Owner-Operated Independent Truck Drivers which represent over 90 percent of the companies in the trucking industry.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose section 134 and urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 436, No. 437, and No. 438 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H.R. 481--Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3180) Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2018. I would have also voted ``yea'' on H.R. 3180--Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. I would have also voted ``yea'' on S. 114--Department of Veterans Affairs Bonus Transparency Act.

personal explanation

Mr. Chair, I was absent during roll call votes No. 416 through No. 425 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Perry Amendment. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Griffith Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Takano Amendment. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the King (IA) Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Castor Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Norcross Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Esty Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Garamendi Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Pingree Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Jackson Lee Amendment

Mr. Chair, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 426 through No. 429 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3219. I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 478--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3219--``Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018.'' I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Blackburn Amendment. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Perry amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 430 through No. 435 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Souzzi Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Boyle Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Nadler Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Cartwright Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Democratic Motion to Recommitt H.R. 3219. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Final Passage of H.R. 3219--``Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018.''