Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Cindy Roth as she receives the Frank Miller Civic Achievement Award on May 9th in recognition of her leadership and service as President and CEO of the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce. Cindy Roth's extraordinary dedication and service has greatly enriched our beloved community of Riverside.

Cindy began her service out of high school when she entered a work experience program with then-Senator Bob Presley. She later worked as a receptionist at the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce during her studies at Riverside Community College. When Cindy's mentor former President and Riverside City Councilman Art Pick passed away in 1999, Cindy was selected as President.

Under her leadership, the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce has expanded to become the third largest Chamber in Southern California, comprising 1,300 businesses, civic organizations, educational institutions and individuals. She has also reached out to women business owners and encouraged their involvement with the local community.

In addition to her work with the Chamber, Cindy is deeply involved with the Monday Morning Group of Western Riverside County, the Foundation Board of Trustees for La Sierra University, and the Honorary Commanders of March Field. Her dedication was honored in 2003 as she was named Woman of the Year by Assemblyman John Benoit.

Mr. Speaker, Cindy's talent and leadership exemplify the best of Riverside. Our community is a more prosperous place because of the commitment and dedication of Cindy Roth, and I congratulate her on this prestigious and well-deserved award.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to former Riverside City Councilman Ameal Moore.

Born and raised in the South, Ameal experienced ``separate but equal'' and injustice firsthand. In 1965, his brother Oneal, a Louisiana sheriff, was murdered by the racist vigilante group the Night Riders--a tragedy that in some ways fueled Ameal's activism and desire to create safer communities.

A veteran, Ameal served in the United States Air Force for 8 years. After being honorably discharged, he settled with his family in Riverside, where he worked for the United States Postal Service for over 30 years, eventually becoming the assistant postmaster.

Never one to sit idly by, Ameal was always involved in local organizations. He was the president of Riverside's NAACP chapter and served on the Greater Riverside Urban League. Later, he decided to run for public office and was elected to the Riverside City Council in 1994, becoming one of the first African American city council members in our city's history. During his tenure, Ameal showed unparalleled passion toward improving our community.

Riverside is lucky to have had such a remarkable and dedicated public servant like Ameal Moore. I am incredibly proud that Ameal came to Riverside and that our city is where he fulfilled his dreams. He will be missed.

I want to thank the gentlelady from California for yielding me some time.

I'm going to switch subjects a little as I want to rise today to express my support for the immigration proposal released last week by the bipartisan group of Senators called the Gang of Eight.

While this bill is not perfect and I have serious doubts about several provisions in it, it shows that both sides of the aisle can work together on issues facing our Nation, that Democrats and Republicans can work together.

I am pleased that the proposal provides a pathway to citizenship, a fast track for DREAMers, an increase in the number of high-skilled worker visas and an opportunity for immigrants, who have been deported on noncriminal grounds, to apply for readmittance if they have a spouse or children in the United States.

I do, however, have some concerns regarding the legislation, including the fact that it fails to address binational eligible LGBT families.

More than a dozen countries allow same-sex partner-sponsoring, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and many more.

The United States should be no different.

Keeping these loving families apart is wrong, and it's bad for the economy.

Take the story of southern California residents Brian and Michael. They met in 2005, became engaged next year in Paris and were married during the brief window during which same-sex marriage was legal in California.

Brian, who's been an educator for over 20 years, teaches humanity courses at a magnet school during the day and at Los Angeles Community College at night.

His husband, Michael, came to the United States from Malaysia on a student visa in 2005, and since then has been the perfect example of the kind of immigrant we want to keep here. He has earned a master's degree in nursing and is currently working on a doctorate in the same field.

Michael and Brian have shared their lives for almost 10 years and cannot even travel internationally to see Michael's family because of the visa restrictions placed on them.

What's going to happen to Michael when he completes his education? Are we really going to break up this family? Are we really going to send a well-trained medical professional back?

The debate on reforming our immigration system is not over. I plan on working with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, from both Houses, to ensure that binational LGBT families are given the same opportunities as everyone else.

I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question.

When I came to the Congress 4 months ago, I didn't really anticipate that we would be arguing over legislation that was passed 3 years ago. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle think it's 2010. They are spending all of their time debating bills from years past.

ObamaCare was passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the President. That means it's the law. That didn't stop conservatives. They have tried to amend, gut, defund, investigate, and sue ObamaCare into oblivion. And they failed because Americans support progress and reform.

But ObamaCare seems to be on their messaging calendar this week, so we're stuck with it until Friday. But what happened to last week's Republican message or to even last month's messaging?

Just ask yourself: Isn't it odd that the Republicans aren't saying that we need to pass a budget anymore?

Earlier this year, the House majority was going on and on about the need to pass a budget. For months, my colleagues asked: Why hasn't the Senate passed a budget? Why hasn't the Senate passed a budget?

Guess what? The Senate passed a budget.

So why is the House majority refusing to go to conference?

I'm sure Senator Reid gets some amusement from calling Speaker Boehner's bluff and watching the Republican caucus squirm, but this back-and-forth is a waste of time.

Let's get past debates from 3 years ago and get on with our work. Our time is precious. The House should appoint conferees and pass a final budget and get on with addressing the real crisis our Nation faces-- jobs.

Thank you. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. I will be speaking today on equal pay. Today I signed the discharge petition to bring the Paycheck Fairness Act to the floor to ensure that women across the country receive equal pay for equal work.

This week, on Tuesday, we recognized Equal Pay Day, which is the symbolic day that marks the time it takes for women's earnings to equal men's earnings from the previous year. Thanks to the 23 percent wage gap, it takes an extra 3 months for women in America to catch up. The wage gap persists at all levels of education and exists across occupations.

In my home State of California, the typical woman, working full-time, year-round, is paid, on average, only 84 cents to every dollar her male counterparts make. In my home district the pay discrepancy is even worse. Women living in the Inland Empire make 81 cents to every dollar, and many are the sole breadwinners in their households. This isn't just an insult to women who work hard at their jobs every day, it hurts families and children.

In my district, the wage gap amounts to an average loss of $8,900 that could be used to pay for rent, groceries, and child care. This is unacceptable.

When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law, he criticized the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job. Fifty years later, this unconscionable practice is alive and well, which is why we have a duty to our mothers, sisters, and daughters to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act in this Congress.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Well, I believe chained CPI is bad for veterans and it's bad for our seniors, but let me focus on the seniors for a moment.

The chained CPI, explained in a very simple way, is a way that the government would ostensibly index Social Security COLAS, cost-of-living increases. Said very simply, under chained CPI, seniors would be paid less over time.

The assumption is that seniors would be able to substitute less costly items for the current items they might currently buy. But, you know, seniors really use health care a lot more than the rest of us, and that's the largest burden that they're facing, trying to pay for their health care costs, prescription drugs.

I think it's a false premise to say that seniors will be able to find less costly substitutions. More and more of their income would be going to that.

I believe that many people call Social Security, Medicare, entitlements. I call them sacred promises that we made to our seniors. I don't believe that we should break those promises. We must keep those promises.

People have earned these benefits over a lifetime. They planned their lives around them, and we simply can't go back on what we've promised our parents and grandparents.

Thank you, sir.

I thank the gentlelady from my own home State of California for yielding time.

Madam Chair, this bill is something that Democrats could support if proper environmental review were not made a problem. I really believe this Congress needs to get back to getting serious about discussing how we're going to put our country back to work.

The national unemployment rate is 7.6 percent, and in my own district it's nearly 11 percent. The Congress should be focused on putting Americans back to work. Democrats have a plan. It's called Make It In America. This plan, put together by Mr. Hoyer from Maryland, addresses the most pressing crisis that our Nation faces, the jobs crisis, and it will put Americans back to work. It has four main points:

Number one, adopt and pursue a national manufacturing strategy;

Number two, promote the export of American goods;

Number three, encourage manufacturers to bring jobs and innovation back to America;

Number four, train and secure a 21st century workforce.

We have the tools at our disposal to do these things.

The legislation that I have introduced that is a part of the Make It In America plan is called the Jobs Skills for America's Students Act. It encourages partnerships between employers and educational institutions. Employers who participate are able to receive a $2,000 tax credit per student participating in a qualified technical training and skills program, with a total credit amount cap of $10,000 per year.

Many of America's fastest growing industries, industries that will benefit from the Make It In America plan, like advanced manufacturing and clean energy, require a highly skilled workforce. These industries struggle to find workers who possess the technical training that they require. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that 600,000 manufacturing jobs remain unfilled due to a lack of qualified candidates. Just today, we learned from the Department of Labor that there are 3.9 million job openings in America, the most in almost 5 years. Many of these jobs are unfilled because of the lack of training.

The Job Skills for America's Students Act partners key industries with community colleges and other programs to offer students the opportunity to obtain the training they need to thrive in the field of their choice. To grow our middle class and create a workforce for the future, we must close the skills gap and we must make training affordable and effective.

I urge my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats to pass each piece of the Make It In America legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen.

I rise to address the so-called Path to Prosperity that this body is now debating.

I'm struck by the beltway media bubble that calls this plan bold and its creator, Mr. Ryan, a serious policymaker who isn't afraid to make the tough decisions. My Republican colleagues call this proposal brave and necessary, but I could not disagree more. I don't believe it's brave to break the promises we made to our seniors. I think it's dangerous. I don't believe it's necessary to cut funding for police, firefighters, and programs for low-income citizens. I think that's foolish. I don't believe that it's wise to provide tax credits for private jets and luxury yachts.

My colleague, Mr. Ryan, seems to be living in an alternate reality. He thinks that we can fund the Federal Government at 19 percent of GDP with an aging population whose health care costs are at 18 percent of GDP. Even conservative idol President Reagan funded the Federal Government at 22 percent of GDP when there was no retiring baby boom generation and health care costs only amounted to 1 percent of GDP. Would Mr. Ryan accuse President Reagan's administration of ``wild government spending?'' I don't think so.

The GOP budget boils down to three steps: phase one, cut spending; phase two, I'm not sure what their plans are; phase three, prosperity.

There's a gaping hole in Mr. Ryan's logic. His thinking is incomplete. How is cutting funding for infrastructure, education, and health care a Path to Prosperity?

Mr. Chairman, a century of evidence shows that austerity will not lead to prosperity. Democrats offer alternative proposals that deal with the real crisis in America--the jobs crisis.

A plan to reach full employment is the true path to prosperity. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Ryan budget.

Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute today to Dr. Dina Stallings, a professor of forensics at Riverside Community College, beloved by her students and whose passing my community mourns deeply. This Sunday, my community will join together to celebrate her life, which was devoted to teaching the art of persuasive speaking.

Dr. Stallings achieved national recognition during her 26-year career at RCC directing the Forensics and Debate Program. She was the first woman to be named a full professor at RCC. In the 1960s and 1970s, she coached teams that won national competitions.

After retiring, Dr. Stallings continued a deep involvement with Friends of Forensics, a group she founded to promote speaking activities for students from kindergarten through 12th grade.

Mr. Speaker, we count ourselves fortunate to have had Dr. Stallings as a leader in our community. Her commitment to faith, family, and forensics has left a profound impact on the Inland Empire and our Nation. As Dr. Stallings said herself, you measure yourself by the service you give to others.

Let us measure up to her legacy in both our service to America and our democratic discourse.

I'd like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for yielding the time this evening.

Earlier today, I was joined by 22 of my fellow freshman Democrats in sending a letter to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) requesting specifics for his 2014 budget.

As freshman Members, we had hoped Mr. Ryan's budget provided areas where both parties, Democrats and Republicans, could find common ground. Instead, what was presented was a document that was vague. How can we begin to negotiate when we don't even know what we're negotiating? And where Mr. Ryan is specific, it's in areas that he knows that Democrats won't agree.

Ezra Klein of The Washington Post described Mr. Ryan's so-called ``Path to Prosperity'' in the following ways:

He cuts deep into spending on health care for the poor and

some combination of education, infrastructure, research,

public safety and low-income families. The Affordable Care

Act's Medicare cuts remain, but the military is spared, as is

Social Security. There's a vague individual tax reform plan

that leaves only two brackets--10 percent and 25 percent--and

will require either huge, deficit busting tax cuts or

increasing taxes on poor and middle class households, as well

as a vague corporate tax reform plan that lowers the rate

from 35 to 25 percent.

After reading Mr. Ryan's budget, I find this document bears a striking resemblance to the tactics used by the Romney campaign: Promise massive tax cuts but don't provide any specifics on how to pay for them. This is surprising since Mr. Ryan is considered a ``serious'' policy maker.

My colleagues who joined me today don't expect to agree with everything in Mr. Ryan's budget. But as we detailed in our letter today, we hope to find areas of common ground so that our country can move forward. Only then can we begin to tackle the fiscal challenges facing our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans say the darnedest things. I'd like to read a statement from a 2005 letter from the Republican Governors Association outlining its priorities for TANF reauthorization:

As Governors, we believe the following provisions . . . are

integral to State programs and support their inclusion and

protection as the bill moves forward through regular order.

The [2005] Senate bill provides States with the flexibility

to manage their TANF programs. . . . Increased waiver

authority . . . and the ability to coordinate State programs

are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare

to work.

The letter was signed by Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Rick Perry, and many more.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House debates banning the very waivers that Republican leaders from across the country have already expressed their support for. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to listen to Republican Governors and allow States to find new and creative models to move people from welfare to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the so-called ``Path to Prosperity'' that was released today by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

As a freshman Member of Congress, I was hoping to look at the Republican budget with a fresh set of eyes and focus on areas where both parties, Democrats and Republicans, can agree. Too often Congress focuses on what divides us and not what unites us. But looking at the gentleman from Wisconsin's proposal, all he's given us are

vague bullet points that fail to say much.

Mr. Ryan says he'd like to eliminate loopholes. Great. Democrats would love to do that, too. But how can we do so when Mr. Ryan won't even specify which deductions or credits he'd eliminate?

I'd like to close the carried interest loophole and end tax breaks for private jets and luxury yachts, but what set of loopholes does Mr. Ryan want to close? It's a mystery. What tax breaks would Mr. Ryan like to cut? The home mortgage interest deduction? The child tax credit?

Let me stop you right there, Mr. Ryan, because cutting those programs will hurt the middle class residents of my district, and I will not support such cuts.

This is not a path to prosperity. For the middle class, it's a trip to nowhere.

Mr. Ryan says he is a serious policymaker, but looking at this proposal, I'm not sure what he's serious about.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a joke. It is only a few sentences, and all it does is ask the President to include in his budget a simple equation that divides the projected deficit by the number of taxpayers. It doesn't take a bill to do this; it just takes a calculator.

If the House Republican Conference wants us to do a math problem for the American people, I can save everyone some time and money. $845 billion, which is the estimated deficit projected by the CBO, divided by 158 million, which is the number of taxpayers, equals $5,300. Done.

Can't they do this arithmetic problem on their own? Why are we wasting taxpayers' money to operate this institution as we speak when we can solve this very simple math problem by just doing it. This is all an exercise in political theater.

I shouldn't have to come to the floor to do this. Any of my Republican friends could have called me, and I would have gladly walked them through that simple equation.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in California's 41st District face an unemployment rate of 11 percent--higher than the national average. They need leadership from Congress to help them find jobs, not gimmicks disguised as legislation.

Our Founders didn't envision Congress assigning math homework. This is not elementary school. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about numbers, I would be happy to.

Zero, Mr. Speaker: that's the number of jobs this bill creates. Zero: the number or jobs bills the House Republican leadership has brought to the floor in the last 2 months. 750,000: the number of potential job losses if the Republicans refuse to stop the sequester.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of George Tetsuo Aratani, a philanthropist and business executive who was a champion for Japanese Americans.

Mr. Aratani was born and raised in California and, along with 122,000 other Japanese Americans, was forced into internment camps during World War II. Never letting a poor situation get the best of him, Mr. Aratani used his bilingual skills to serve his country in the Army Military Intelligence Service. Following the war, he started two successful businesses--Mikasa tableware and Kenwood electronics--and enjoyed a wonderful life with his family.

Though he achieved great commercial success, he will always be remembered for his upstanding citizenship in his community. Mr. Aratani and his wife, Sakaye, established the first endowed chair in the country to study the injustice of the Japanese American internment and the efforts to rectify it. In addition, the Aratanis gave millions in support of the Japanese American National Museum, UCLA's Departments of Asian American and East Asian Studies, the Japanese American Cultural & Community Center, Keiro Senior HealthCare, and countless Asian American candidates.

I look to Mr. Aratani as an inspiration for all as he truly lived the American Dream.

I'd like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding some time to me this evening.

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of talk from my friends on the other side of the aisle about whose idea the sequester was, instead of actually working to stop this from happening.

Make no mistake. If the House Republican leadership really wanted to

stop the sequester from taking effect, they could do so. It's the House Republican leadership that is sitting back and letting the sequester go through.

My friends on the other side of the aisle seem to forget how we arrived here. In 2011, it was the Democrats who wanted a clean raise of the debt ceiling, which had been the process for decades, under Republican and Democratic Presidents. But the extreme wing of the Republican Conference demanded cuts, and chose to hold the American economy hostage.

What we got was the Budget Control Act of 2011, which Speaker Boehner said was 98 percent of what he wanted. And here we are, a year and a half later, Mr. Speaker, up to the eleventh hour again, dealing with another manufactured crisis instead of talking about jobs and how to improve the economy.

But again, we must deal with the soap opera that is the House of Representatives. Every time the House of Representatives wants to pass some meaningful legislation, we're forced to go through this pattern where our citizens are put through weeks of drama on pins and needles wondering what will happen. But then what happens is the governing majority finally comes together to pass legislation with substance, legislation that is sensible.

But who is this governing majority that passes meaningful legislation?

It's made up nearly of the entire Democratic Caucus, and a handful of moderate, sensible Republicans. When we faced the fiscal cliff, which nearly every credible economist said would be disastrous for our economy, it took a commonsense governing majority of 172 Democrats and 85 Republicans to come together to save the economy from ruin.

On the vote to provide aid to victims of Superstorm Sandy, after weeks and weeks of delay, with leaders of their own party up in arms, finally the governing majority emerged with 192 Democrats and only 49 Republicans. I understood the need to help the victims of Superstorm Sandy. I'm from California, where earthquakes and other natural disasters are a reality, as are tornados in the Midwest and hurricanes in Florida. Most Americans understand that it is a basic function of the Federal Government to provide aid to victims of natural disasters; but still the Republican caucus was divided, and it took reasonable people to come together to help those in need.

And just last night, we got word again that the governing majority is needed in order to pass some real legislation as we take up the Violence Against Women Act. The reality is, to pass anything with substance, Speaker Boehner needs the Democrats.

So when the House of Representatives takes up the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act, what will the governing majority look like? Go to Twitter and tell me what you think the vote will look like with the hash tag Boehner Needs Dems.

Mr. Boehner, the governing majority has done its job with the fiscal cliff, with aid to Sandy victims, and I'm willing to bet that the governing majority will do its job once again with the sequester and the Violence Against Women Act.

Speaker Boehner, when you're ready to get serious, we, the governing majority, are here to help.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce myself to my new colleagues, some of whom I've not had the chance to meet since joining this distinguished body.

I've served as a high school teacher for 23 years, and I believe the diverse community of the 41st District sent me here because they believe fervently that education is the key to achieving the American Dream. They see a teacher as an emblem of hope.

As a community college trustee for 22 years, I've gained an understanding of the critical role our Nation's community colleges play in workforce training and providing a pathway toward college degrees for middle class families. We must prepare our young people to be the innovators, scientists, and engineers that will keep our economic future strong and secure.

And I'm proud that the people of my district chose to press boldly into the future and make me the first openly gay person of color to serve in the House. As the grandson of an Issei gardener and an Issei small farmer, I stand in the well of this House as the expression of three generations of striving and as a testament to the endurance of the American Dream.

Our Nation's best days are still ahead, and there are many more dreams to be made.