Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Equity in Social Security Act of 2010.'' This bill is designed to eliminate the discriminatory policy of the Social Security Administration that prevents same-sex couples from receiving the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

Social Security provides spousal, survivor, and death benefits to married heterosexual couples in their later years. Same sex couples are not eligible to receive these benefits because the federal government does not recognize their marriages or civil unions.

These same-sex couples pay into Social Security while working just the same as every other American, but in their time of need, the government treats them differently. Gay couples receive 18 percent less in Social Security benefits than heterosexual couples while lesbian couples receive 31 percent less than heterosexuals. It is no wonder that these groups are also more likely to live in poverty in their old age than heterosexuals.

All Americans should receive a Social Security benefit based on their contribution to the program, not their sexual orientation. That is why my legislation would allow couples in relationships that have been recognized by their state of residence, whether a domestic partnership, civil union or marriage itself, to receive the same benefits from Social Security as heterosexual married couples.

Let me be clear about this effort today. This is meant in no way to distract from the effort to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. That is the ultimate goal in the movement for marriage equality. My bill is not about marriage--it is about economic fairness. This legislation is meant to provide assistance to elderly individuals who have not been treated fairly by their government.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, today, joined by Representatives Walter Jones and Mark Critz, I introduce the Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion Act, or the ENFORCE Act. This legislation is critical to improving our ability to enforce trade laws.

This bill is about protecting American businesses and the workers that keep those businesses thriving.

Unfortunately, under current law, too many foreign producers flout our trade laws. Too many ship mislabeled goods to the U.S. to avoid paying legally imposed anti-dumping or countervailing duties. And they do this with impunity, rarely paying a price for their crimes.

Many of these fraudsters even have websites advertising how, for a fee, they can help you avoid paying the duties legally owed the United States. In November, my colleague Senator Wyden of Oregon, published a useful report identifying 12 such Chinese companies.

Most of these companies' evasion schemes involve illegal transshipment through a third country and falsified country-of-origin certificates for Chinese products destined for the United States and other export markets.

This dishonest conduct robs the American people and our federal coffers of money rightly owed. But perhaps more importantly, it gives these deceitful actors an advantage over American businesses. It has forced hundreds of businesses, in my district and others, to permanently close their doors.

Too many businesses like Michel's Furniture in Lynwood, California, in my own district, have shut their doors because through duty evasion, foreign products receive an unfair and illegal price advantage over our homegrown, American products.

That is why I am proud to introduce the bi-partisan ENFORCE Act.

The ENFORCE Act strengthens the ability of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, CBP, to combat duty evasion by foreign manufacturers. For the first time, domestic producers will have the opportunity to formally petition CBP to investigate possible anti- dumping and countervailing duty evasions.

The ENFORCE Act requires CBP to initiate an investigation and to make timely preliminary and final determinations as to whether an importer engaged (or is engaging) in evasion. No longer will domestic producers wait helplessly by, hoping that CBP will act to vindicate their rights. The bill requires CBP to act and then publicly report on its findings within prescribed timeframes.

Finally, foreign violators will be held accountable for the damage they do to American businesses, workers, and our economy as a whole.

American businesses and workers can compete and win against products from anywhere in the world--if we have a level playing field.

The ENFORCE Act will help create that level playing field, supporting U.S. businesses and their employees.

I urge my colleagues to support this bi-partisan, pro-business, pro- American bill.

of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support S. 3036, the National Alzheimer's Project Act. This bill would provide critical federal support and coordination to overcome the growing Alzheimer's crisis.

Today, the effects of Alzheimer's disease are devastating. An estimated 5.3 million people are living with the disease. We must act decisively, or the devastation of Alzheimer's disease will grow far worse. Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, and is the fastest growing of the 10 leading causes of death. In 2010, Medicare and Medicaid will spend $122 billion caring for people with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.

The National Alzheimer's Project Act would establish an inter-agency advisory council to address the government's efforts on Alzheimer's research, care, institutional services, and home and community-based programs. It would also increase awareness, support, and outreach for those confronted with Alzheimer's disease and for their families to help better equip our nation to face this disease.

To decrease health disparities, this bill will work to ensure the inclusion of ethnic and racial populations who are at higher risk for Alzheimer's or who are less likely to receive care in clinical, research, and service programs.

Legislation that advances a cure for Alzheimer's disease is near and dear to my heart because of my father and the millions of others like him who live every day with this disease.

I urge my colleagues to support such a critical piece of legislation. It's a monumental step forward in our battle against Alzheimer's and other dementias.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this reckless legislation. There is no question that I strongly support some of the items in this bill. Unemployed Americans desperately need their benefits extended, and I proudly have voted to do so every time I have had the chance. This bill also contains tax cuts for hard-working American families, tax cuts I voted for 2 weeks ago on this very floor.

But this bill holds these good policies hostage to a giant handout to those who need help the least. It is political bullying at its very worst, an affront to working American families waged by Republicans whose irresponsible decisions got us into this mess in the first place.

This bill contains a radical change to the inheritance tax that will concentrate wealth and power in even fewer hands than it is now. In a country that prides itself on being a meritocracy, not an aristocracy, such a giveaway is irrational. It completely neuters our ability to invest in people and infrastructure.

This bill contains tax breaks for those who will make more than $250,000 a year, breaks that our country can ill-afford when teachers are being laid off and libraries are being closed, when those who have been unemployed for the longest are losing their safety net, and young men and women are still being asked to serve and die in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The payroll tax cut is another bad idea. Not only does it make Social Security less secure, many public servants, including California teachers, won't see any tax cut at all.

Overall, this bill adds nearly $1 trillion to the deficit, while doing very, very little to create jobs, spur economic growth, or invest in America's future.

Because I am committed to creating jobs, making retirement secure, and investing in this country, I cannot in good conscience support this bill. Compromise is one thing, surrender is another, and I will not surrender in my fight to ensure that America remains the land of opportunity for all.

I rise in strong support of repealing the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy.

We have lived with the damaging effects of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' for 17 years. It harms our military readiness and reduces the recruiting pool for our military. This is why Secretary of Defense Gates, Admiral Mike Mullen, and a majority of service members support its repeal.

This policy is both counterproductive and morally wrong.

At a time when our armed forces need qualified, dedicated men and women in uniform, we shouldn't be forcing them out just because they are gay or lesbian.

Gay and lesbian men and women have served--and currently serve--our country with honor and distinction. They have laid to rest the ignorant belief that a love for one's country is somehow based on who you love.

I am proud to stand with them and support the brave gay and lesbian service members who ask for nothing more than a chance to serve their country without hiding who they are.

I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation that strengthens our military and our country and fulfills the promise of America as a place where all citizens, not just the politically popular ones, have equal rights.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce ``The American Microturbine Manufacturing and Clean Energy Deployment Act of 2010.''

This legislation will help Congress continue to address two of our nation's primary needs: creating jobs and promoting clean, reliable energy. My bill would raise the investment tax credit for microturbines from 10 percent to 30 percent, putting it on par with other clean energy innovations. This simple and low-cost change in our tax code will lead to many clean energy jobs, increase deployment of clean energy technologies, reduce harmful CO2 emissions, and increase American exports.

Microturbines are small, ultra low emission gas turbines that produce usable efficient thermal energy and clean electrical power. They are primarily used in commercial, light industrial, and multi-family residential building but have a wide range of applications, including renewable power, hybrid electric buses, trucks, and cars.

Over 90 percent of the world's microturbines are manufactured right here in the United States by American workers. However, most of these systems are exported because our own incentive structure has failed to encourage domestic adoption. My bill would strengthen a homegrown, domestic industry that will create good jobs while giving us cleaner air.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unable to be present in the Capitol for votes on Monday, November 29, 2010.

However, had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

``Yea'' on H.R. 5877 to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 655 Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, as the ``Lance Corporal Alexander Scott Arredondo, United States Marine Corps Post Office Building.''

``Yea'' on H. Res. 771, supporting the goals and ideals of a National Mesothelioma Awareness Day.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unable to be present in the Capitol for all votes on Thursday, November 18, 2010. However, had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``yea'' on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass S. 3774, Extending the deadline for Social Services Block Grant expenditures of supplemental funds appropriated following disasters occurring in 2008; ``yea'' on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H. Con. Res. 329, Recognizing the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975; ``yea'' on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H. Res. 1677, Condemning the Burmese regime's undemocratic upcoming elections on November 7, 2010.

I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Camp and Representatives Ryan and Murphy for their leadership on this important bill, which I strongly support.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about protecting one thing, the American economy. We must give American businesses a fair opportunity to sell their goods abroad and challenge underpriced Chinese imports.

This bill does that. It gives us stronger tools to address currency manipulation and protect American businesses. We can compete and win against any nation in the world if we're all playing by the same rules. China isn't.

Opponents say that this bill will start a trade war. I say we are already in a trade war and China is using cannons, and we are standing here shooting BB pellets.

Some say ``Let's wait.'' I say we have waited long enough.

When China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, promises were made. We have held up our end of the bargain. China has not.

It has manipulated its currency, condoned intellectual property theft, and looked the other way while its businesses advertise schemes to avoid paying us the duties that we are owed.

For nearly 10 years, the prior administration failed to address the currency problem. Meanwhile, unfair Chinese imports caused small businesses across the country to close their doors, including one in my own district, Michels Furniture Store in Lynwood, California.

For nearly 10 years, our go-slow approach allowed China's job-killing mercantilist currency policy to flourish. The time for waiting is over.

Given the unemployment rate in this country and the economic pain that families feel in my district, shame on us if we fail to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``IDA Protection Act of 2010.'' This bill will help the Individual Development Account program weather a tough economic climate, so it can continue to help lower income Americans to go to college, buy a home, or start a small business.

IDA accounts are designed to help low income individuals pull themselves out of poverty and learn how to manage their family's finances. Through a partnership between local government, non-profits, and businesses, each dollar someone saves in an IDA account is matched at a one or even two to one ratio.

To participate in this program, an individual must agree to take classes on financial literacy and agree to use the proceeds to buy a home, start a small business, or pay college tuition. Since the program's inception in 1999, more than 86,000 people have opened IDAs, many of them opening bank accounts for the first time. These individuals have sacrificed to save and thus, increased the standard of living for their family.

Unfortunately, the recent recession has threatened the future of this important program. Congress annually appropriates $24 million for IDA Accounts, and local non-profits must find private sector matches in order to receive a portion of these federal funds. Since Wall Street's meltdown shook our economy, the usual corporate partners have not maintained their traditional level of IDA donations, and as a result much of this $24 million for this year remains unspent.

This bill would create a bridge for the IDA program to better times. It more than doubles

the program's funding in 2011 and 2012 and waives the private match requirement during those two years. Private participation in the IDA program is important, and this bill is meant in no way to incentivize private business to take its money elsewhere.

The sad reality though, is that private donors just aren't coming through right now. A number of states have eliminated or cut their IDA programs in response to this financial crisis. In California, the United Way of Los Angeles was recently forced to shutter its successful IDA program, and if Congress does not act now, more closures are sure to follow.

Giving these low-income families a chance to pull themselves out of poverty will benefit us all. Their businesses will employ our neighbors; their children will be our doctors and lawyers. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Preventing Social Security Fraud Act of 2010.'' This bill will reduce the Social Security Disability backlog by punishing insurance companies that force policyholders to fraudulently apply for disability benefits.

The initial application backlog for Social Security Disability will be more than 1 million applicants by October. The disability hearing backlog sits at an average of 446 days with 718,000 people waiting for a hearing.

Despite these staggering numbers, a handful of bad actors in the insurance industry force individuals who are capable of working to apply for disability benefits, and when denied, forces them to appeal the decision again and again.

These companies do this because it benefits them financially. Each application in the disability process lower's the company's cash reserve requirement. The companies also know that if one of their policyholders happens to hit the jackpot and receive Social Security benefits, then the insurer can lower its monthly payout to the policyholder by that amount.

Nevermind that these individual policyholders must certify under threat of fine or imprisonment when applying for benefits that their claim is legitimate. The policyholder is forced to take all the risk, while the insurer wins either way.

The legislation I am introducing today requires insurers to certify to the Social Security Administration that a claim is legitimate when it forces a policyholder to apply for Social Security Disability. It is important that we protect the right of all Americans to apply for these benefits and appeal legitimate claims.

This bill in no way threatens that system. For those who apply for disability on their own, nothing changes. For those who are forced by their insurers, I merely ask that the insurer take the same oath required of their policyholder and stand by the claim.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, imagine a very tall corporate office building, and a man is working inside sitting at his desk dressed in a suit and tie. He is talking on the phone while working from his computer and sipping a latte.

Now imagine a very small home in a quiet neighborhood, and a woman is working inside, wearing sneakers and comfortable clothes. She is straining to lift up an elderly man almost twice her size trying to help him put on his t-shirt to get ready for lunch.

Is the work the corporate man is doing more important than the home- worker? More valued? Better paid?

I am here to say that all work has dignity.

I am here to say that our nation's laws should respect the work we all do.

Yet, even in America, some workers are paid less than the minimum wage.

Even in America, some are denied overtime pay.

Even in America, some people do not have health insurance or other benefits, and their wages are so low that they need to turn to food stamps to make ends meet.

I am introducing legislation today to show that in America, all work does have dignity.

I am introducing legislation that will say, ``Regardless of the work you do, if you do it well, you should be compensated enough to take care of your family and put food on the table.''

This legislation is meant to provide equity to those we trust enough to let in our homes and care for our loved ones. Home care workers are the linchpin of our nation's long-term care system, providing essential care and daily living services to more than 13 million Americans.

However, they are among the worst-paying jobs in America--mostly because of Department of Labor regulations that exclude them from federal minimum wage and overtime protections.

In 1975, after Congress had revised the Fair Labor Standards Act to include previously excluded domestic service workers, the Department of Labor issued rules that exempted home care aides from the federal overtime and minimum wage protections.

The Clinton Administration's Department of Labor issued proposed rules to correct this injustice, but the Bush Administration withdrew those proposals.

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, tasked with the tough job of trying to fix eight years of neglect and anti-worker policies at the Department of Labor, has committed to remedy this injustice by including it on her regulatory agenda. And I commend those efforts.

But I believe that workers not only need the right regulations, but they also need the right law. I want to make sure that any administration--whether it is this one, or one to come, can never tell any worker they are ``less than.''

The Direct Care Workforce Empowerment Act would do three things: ensure that home care workers receive the federal minimum wage and overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act; improve federal and state data collection and oversight with respect to the direct care workforce; and establish a grant program to help states improve direct care worker recruitment, retention, and training.

Yesterday, someone asked me why this was so important to me. Home care touches all of us--most of us in this room know someone who has required the assistance of a home care worker.

They help their patients with daily living, enabling them to stay in their homes and maintain independence. As the daughter of a father living with Alzheimer's--I know just how important home care workers are.

Yet, every year, home care aides land on Forbes magazine's list of the ``25 worst-paying jobs in America.'' The mean annual wages put them behind parking lot attendants.

Once hired, they leave in droves; turnover rates run 50 to 80 percent a year.

Rights earned decades ago by similar workers continue to be denied to these hardworking healthcare providers. Yet, even healthcare reform signed into law this year failed to protect these workers, even though their jobs directly relate to quality of care.

People with disabilities, seniors, and anyone needing home care on a permanent or temporary basis deserves caring, decently trained, and well-paid workers caring for them.

Direct-care workers constitute one of the largest and fastest-growing workforces in the country, playing a vital role in job creation and economic growth, particularly in low-income communities.

These workers help their clients bathe, dress, eat, and negotiate a host of other daily tasks. They are a lifeline for those they serve, as well as for families struggling to provide quality care.

If labor conditions are not improved, the demand for more workers may prove difficult to meet and the quality of care may decline. Those who work in the industry will become less and less able to meet basic living expenses for themselves and their families.

Let's make things right for workers--no matter whether they sit behind a desk or care for someone in a home.

Our working Americans--care givers and care receivers--deserve this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Jones Act.

Enacted after World War I, the Jones Act ensures that America's domestic commerce is carried by U.S. vessels built and repaired in U.S. shipyards, and crewed and owned by U.S. citizens.

The Jones Act ensures a ready merchant marine fleet in time of war. And it prevents our economy from being dominated by foreign interests who don't pay American taxes, hire American workers, or even follow American health, safety, and environmental laws.

I would expect all patriotic Americans to support the Jones Act. In the past we have, but recently some in this body have tried to blame the Jones Act for BP's failure to clean up its own mess. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no evidence that the Jones Act has interfered with the cleanup in any way.

We are in a recession. It's time to work together to expand American manufacturing and create jobs, not play partisan games. I urge my colleagues to stop posturing and start supporting American families by supporting the Jones Act.

Madam Speaker, ``I worked for 20 years taking care of people--making sure they had a warm bath or a hot meal--so they could have a decent life at home. Isn't that work important? By the wages, you wouldn't think we do an important job, but home care workers help people stay at home, close to their families. In some cases, we are their family.''

So said Evelyn Coke, an American heroine who passed away one year ago, on July 9, 2009.

The fact that she died a champion for humanity is not surprising; those who knew Ms. Coke witnessed her strength and compassion for the men and women she cared for. As a home care worker, Ms. Coke struggled for more than 20 years to make ends meet, often working 70 hours a week for a mere seven dollars an hour. Despite her dedication, she was denied full compensation, including time-and-a-half for overtime.

Ms. Coke was among the more than two million workers, including many new Americans like her, who assist elders and people living with disabilities with activities of daily living such as getting in and out of bed, dressing and undressing, cooking and eating, toileting and bathing. Without people like Ms. Coke, many of our family members and friends would be unable to enjoy the autonomy and quality of life that we all hold dear.

Sadly, this essential workforce is excluded from the basic protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. These poor working conditions hinder recruitment and retention which, in turn, negatively affect the quality of care that millions of Americans receive. Ms. Coke saw that in order to protect her family and the people she cared for, she had to stand up for change.

Driven by her belief that home care workers deserve the basic labor protections enjoyed by most American workers, Ms. Coke sued her employer for back wages. Unfortunately, in 2007, the Supreme Court denied her any compensation when it overturned the lower court's ruling. The Supreme Court held the Department of Labor's interpretation of ``companionship'' was reasonable and affirmed the exclusion of home care workers from minimum wage and overtime protections.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Secretary of Labor had broad policy-making authority over the scope of ``companionship'' and could change its interpretation at any time. Given the anniversary that recently passed, I want to take this opportunity to stand up for workers and say: It is long past time to make that change.

There are several reasons why we must extend wage and overtime protections to home care workers: to help rebuild our vanishing middle class; to protect home care workers from exploitation; and, most importantly, to ensure that elders and individuals living with disabilities receive the highest quality of care.

Home care is one of the fastest growing workforces in our country, and we cannot afford to ignore the injustice facing these workers any longer. Last year, I led an effort, together with thirty-six of my congressional colleagues, to send a letter to U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, urging her to make this issue a top priority for the Department.

In honor of the anniversary of Ms. Coke's passing, I make that request again.

Though Ms. Coke is no longer with us, we can still make things right for the millions of other workers like her. Please join me in this effort to make fair labor standards a reality for all Americans, including home care workers. It's the only way that we truly honor the legacy of Evelyn Coke.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Responsible Estate Tax Act.'' This bill would provide a progressive rate structure for the Estate Tax rising from a rate of 45 percent for individual estates worth $3.5 million or more to a rate of 65 percent for estates over $500 million.

This year for the first time since 1916, the heirs to multi-million and billion dollar fortunes are able to receive their entire inheritance free of federal taxes, costing at least $14.8 billion, that's billion with a ``B,'' in lost revenue in 2010 alone. If we do not act before the end of the year, the Estate Tax will return next year at a rate of 55 percent for individual estates worth more than $1 million. Most members of this body agree that neither of those structures is ideal and this legislation is an effort to find common ground on an issue that has been a source of much controversy in recent decades.

The Estate Tax was originally instituted to ensure that the very wealthiest families, those who have benefited from the greatness of the American economy, contribute back to that system so that others have a chance to succeed as well. The Responsible Estate Tax Act fits this mission by exempting over 99.7 percent of Americans from paying any estate tax whatsoever, while ensuring that the wealthiest Americans in our country pay their fair share.

At a time when unemployment benefits, Medicaid assistance and small business incentives are being delayed in this body because of their cost, it is unconscionable to let $15 billion go tax free to the wealthiest handful of Americans. In this nation, we agree that everyone should earn his or her wealth, status, and privilege. We don't believe in an aristocracy which hoards wealth and leaves the rest of us to fight over crumbs. This proposal maintains our consensus and ensures America remains the land of opportunity.

This bill is a companion to Senate legislation authored by Senators Sanders, Harkin, and Whitehouse and I want to commend them for their hard work and leadership on this issue.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.