Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 34, a bill that would strike most of the internet privacy guarantees protecting the American people today.

I have grave concerns with this effort. Our agenda here should be working on behalf of our constituents to protect their privacy and give them, not their service providers, data security. Instead, this effort would eviscerate any real online privacy protections and would limit data security.

Some of my colleagues have claimed that this commonsense rule has created challenges for consumers. I have found just the opposite. My office has been inundated with calls demanding that Congress protect their privacy and data security by opposing S.J. Res. 34. To everyone who has called, I hear you and I stand with you in opposing this harmful and misguided effort.

Back at home in New York's capital region, I have been hearing from many people who are frightened by the thought that S.J. Res. 34 will become law and the last shred of their online privacy will be lost forever.

They know how much information their internet service provider has mined from their search and browsing history, including financial, medical, and other very personal and sensitive details. They rightly believe that they should have a say in when that information can be bought and when it can be sold.

They understand that gutting these privacy protections would mean that internet service providers could sell their private information without their permission. It means their private internet browsing and search history, the text of their emails, and their mobile app usage can all be sold without their permission.

They have a right to control what they search for, their financial information, their health insurance, and information about their children. They have a right to protect their Social Security numbers and the contents of their emails. These rights are enshrined in our Constitution.

Privacy rules also require providers to use reasonable measures to protect consumers' personal information, a clear and commonsense standard that all who do business online should be required to uphold.

Finally, internet service providers must notify customers if hackers breach the system and may have access to their private data. With hackers from Russia and elsewhere running rampant across the net, this is a critical provision for our American families.

This is not too much to ask. The American people deserve to know that their data will be protected and that they will be notified if their data is compromised.

Mr. Speaker, a resounding ``no'' to TrumpCare, President Trump's broken promise to our great America. There is no disputing the devastation this bill will cause for America's working families.

TrumpCare will rip health insurance away from 24 million people.

It will raise costs for consumers and lower standards of care, with premiums rising and deductibles increasing by an average of $1,500.

TrumpCare will eliminate required mental health and addiction benefits, jeopardizing recovery for millions of Americans in the midst of this opioid epidemic.

It imposes a crushing new age tax on seniors and those approaching retirement, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars.

TrumpCare steals from Medicare, and it cuts Medicaid by $839 billion, mercilessly putting children, the elderly, the disabled, and our most vulnerable at risk.

It does all this to give a $1 trillion tax cut to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations.

The American people overwhelmingly reject this bill.

Defeat TrumpCare. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, our first duty here is to the American people. I rise to call on my colleagues to fulfill that duty and reject TrumpCare.

President Trump made big promises on health care during his campaign. TrumpCare proves those promises were empty. He promised a plan that would cover everyone. TrumpCare would cover even fewer people than were covered before the Affordable Care Act.

He promised better coverage. TrumpCare guts basic healthcare standards. Many TrumpCare plans won't be worth the paper they are printed on.

He promised cheaper coverage. TrumpCare breaks that promise, driving up premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs for everyone. It also hits our Nation's seniors with a devastating age tax or perhaps a senior tax that will literally price many seniors out of the healthcare market.

Mr. Speaker, TrumpCare is a tax break for millionaires parading as a healthcare plan. It will do unimaginable harm to our rural hospitals and our economy. The bill was written in secret. It was rushed through this Chamber. And it represents a big-time broken promise. I urge my colleagues to reject TrumpCare.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the occasion of International Women's Day. You may also notice that I am wearing red, a symbol of solidarity with the A Day Without Women campaign. This is an important occasion for us to recognize the economic power and impact that women have in our economy and in our lives.

It is long past time that we as a nation provide for fairness in the workplace by ensuring equal pay for equal work, defend the right to choose, end violence against women, secure access to affordable childcare and healthcare for working families, and strengthen paid family leave.

I was proud to march with thousands of my constituents and millions of women all across the country during the Women's March. We showed that we are united and that together we will stand up for one another and speak out for anyone being trampled over, run through or pushed aside. Women are not objects to be owned, objectified or treated as second class citizens. Women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights.

The Women's March was an important moment to secure our rights to speak and be heard. Today, on International Women's Day, as many observe the Day Without a Woman Strike, remember that women's voices are the voices of our coworkers, our mothers, sisters, daughters, leaders, community members, consumers, and major economic players.

I stand with the many women today taking part in the Day Without a Woman strike, and the millions more in New York State and throughout the nation who share these values.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 96.

Mr. Speaker, the energy world was saddened by the recent passing of Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld on January 27. I rise today to pay tribute to his extraordinary life and countless contributions.

Known as the godfather of energy efficiency, Dr. Rosenfeld's efforts brought awareness to the tremendous benefits of efficiency. As a physicist at UC Berkeley, Dr. Rosenfeld became interested in efficiency during the 1973 oil embargo. He soon began pushing efficiency standards for appliances and buildings for California, and eventually for the entire Nation. He went on to work as an adviser at the Department of Energy and served on the California Energy Commission.

According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a group that Dr. Rosenfeld helped found, savings from energy efficiency gains have averted the need to build more than 300 large power plants since 1990.

The EPA has estimated that between 1992 and 2014, its ENERGY STAR program, a program built on the shoulders of Dr. Rosenfeld's work, has helped families save over $350 billion on utility bills while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.5 billion metric tons.

The cleanest and cheapest kilowatt-hour of electricity that one may take advantage of is the one we do not use.

We salute Dr. Rosenfeld.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the centennial celebration of John M. Fiore of Schenectady, New York, who turns 100 years old today, February 2nd, 2017.

John was born on February 2, 1917 to Vito and Maria Fiore. He graduated from Mt. Pleasant High School in 1934 and was the first freshman in the class when it opened in 1931.

After graduating John worked for GE as a Production Specialist with more than 45 years of service.

John went on to serve his country in World War II from 1942-1946, and received an honorary discharge as a Corporal.

In 1953 John married Mary Gerardi who passed away in 1972 after a long battle with illness.

He takes great pride in his family. John's parents came from Italy penniless and raised seven children, all of whom lived into their 90s and were outstanding citizens.

John is known to friends and family for his gardening, and shows a generous spirit in sharing fresh produce with his family and friends. Earlier in life John was also an active bowler, golfer and in later years took up duplicate bridge playing three times a week.

John is also a sports fan. He is a longtime fan of the New York Yankees and New York Knicks. One of his greatest joys is rooting for Union College, Notre Dame, and the University of Connecticut, all schools attended by members of his family.

John's greatest role has been that of doting father. He took an active role in his son Nicholas's activities, including Carmen Little League, Babe Ruth, CYO Basketball and Pop Warner Football. Later, he watched his grandson Nicholas, Jr. play recreational basketball. He was also a player agent for Carmen Little League and later served as Commissioner of Rotterdam Babe Ruth.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's tragic refugee ban that would have barred women like the Syrian violinist who has performed at the White House and who is worried about her family that remain in Aleppo.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 66.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, this House, the people's House, will vote to take the first step in a blindly ideological crusade to break our entire healthcare system and rip health insurance away from more than 20 million Americans.

Repeal would cripple our Nation's hospitals and create a $723 million budget shortfall in my congressional district alone, resulting in countless job losses across our great country. Repeal would return everyone to the days of big insurance companies and their denying of needed care due to annual and lifetime limits on coverage. Repeal would mean higher costs for individuals who seek routine preventative care, like mammograms or birth control.

This is not what the people want. People are sick and tired of Republicans playing political games with their health care. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect. Deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, and prescription drug prices are still too high for many working families. People are frustrated when they are faced with narrow networks or surprise medical bills.

Unfortunately, these are not the problems that Republicans are focused on fixing. In fact, the only problem Republicans seem to be trying to solve is that too many people have health insurance. Republicans want to roll back the progress that has been made and create a healthcare system that eliminates the guarantees of affordable coverage, by which families will face even higher deductibles and copays--a concept they euphemistically call ``skin in the game,'' and those with preexisting conditions, including expectant mothers, would again face a closed door instead of care.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, last May, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the first major environmental law in decades, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Before this reform, it had been widely acknowledged that the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, was broken. The law was hampered by litigation since shortly after it was passed in 1976, and was rendered almost completely ineffective.

It has only been 7 months since over 400 Members voted for this reform, which requires a number of new rulemakings by the EPA.

A primary motivation to reform TSCA was to remove procedural hurdles that were preventing the EPA from regulating dangerous chemicals. But the bill before us today would impose new, unnecessary obstacles in the rulemaking process, which will impede agencies that already are struggling with shrinking budgets and time constraints.

Even some of the Members that had concerns with TSCA reform, myself included, would agree that it is imperative that these rulemakings go forward efficiently in order to protect public health and to give the private sector the certainty that it asks for when it supported the reform effort.

Unlike 233 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I did not vote for this bill; but I do firmly believe that the rulemakings required by this law must be done effectively and quickly. Unfortunately, the bill before us today would undermine that process. For the record, I do not believe any amendments will fix the underlying bill, and I hope my colleagues will oppose this bill later today.

While Congress has moved on to other priorities, the EPA has been hard at work implementing the law as Congress intended. Since being signed into law in June, the EPA has already put into place new processes to review new chemicals, which is exactly what this House instructed them to do.

A number of rulemakings will soon get underway focused on how the EPA prioritizes chemicals for evaluation and how it will conduct risk evaluations. Other rules regarding the EPA's chemical inventory and the process for collecting fees will also be needed.

The Members that worked on TSCA reform deferred many of these procedural decisions to the EPA because we lacked the expertise necessary to determine every detail of the most effective, streamlined regulatory process.

We are not toxicologists or chemists, so we empowered the scientists that do this work to receive public feedback and create regulations, based on congressional intent, within a reasonable amount of time.

It is clear that an overwhelming number of Members of the House believe that the EPA needed these tools when we passed the Lautenberg bill to fix the EPA's chemical program. Let's not tie the agency's hands as it seeks effective implementation. We have seen what happens with a broken chemical safety law. Let's not go back to that.

I would also caution against the bill's requirement to choose the least costly regulatory option. People familiar with TSCA will know the term ``least burdensome,'' which required the EPA to select the restriction that was demonstrated to be the least burdensome to address identified risks.

In practice, this requirement was so onerous that the EPA was not even able to restrict known carcinogens like asbestos. The Lautenberg bill ended this requirement. Let's not reinstate this problem for our agencies.

Personally, I do not believe my amendment goes far enough. We should exempt every major environmental law responsible for protecting Americans' air, water, and land from this bill.

We have seen in many cases that these rules do not hurt the economy. They protect public health and provide much greater benefits to society than costs.

Many of our bedrock environmental statutes require agencies to review and update their rules periodically. Members of Congress should not prevent an agency from simply doing the job that is required of it under the law.

But in terms of this amendment and TSCA reform, Congress knew exactly what would be asked of the EPA in order to carry out the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act when we passed it by a vote of 403-12 just a few months ago. We cannot tell the EPA to do something and then tie its hands and expect it to get it done.

This amendment is simple. Do Members of this body want to give our regulatory agencies the tools they need to implement the laws that Congress has passed? And, in my view, it should not matter if these laws were passed 6 months ago or 60 years ago. Or should we make it more difficult to implement effective rulemakings, even when there is legislative consensus about the need for them?

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which requires that an agency publish a list of scientific information relating to a rule or expected to relate to the rule for each rule that an agency expects to propose for the following year. I am concerned that this amendment would create unintended consequences and operate as a one-way ratchet to slow down and stop the rulemaking process by requiring burdensome disclosures and creating options for procedural gridlock.

Agencies are already required to publish relevant data in support of a rule during these rulemaking processes. Rules that do not appear to be based on a reasoned analysis of relevant data may be vacated by reviewing courts as arbitrary or capricious. Moreover, data acquired through federally funded research is already accessible to researchers who have a legitimate purpose.

I am also concerned that because this amendment does not define scientific information or clarify the scope of this publication requirement, peer reviewed materials may be taken out of context or otherwise misused for political purposes. In so doing, this requirement may chill feedback in the scientific community, undermine agencies' ability to adopt the best rules possible, or otherwise manufacture delays in the rulemaking process.

Any additional requirements in this area should strengthen, rather than weaken, the process of science-based

rulemaking. Given these concerns, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Garamendi for bringing us together in this Special Order format to talk about some key critical components that address American families significantly. Representative Garamendi and Representative Marcy Kaptur, who both do their homework, are a great addition to the House because they challenge us with facts, not fiction. They care deeply and passionately about improving and enhancing the quality of life. So to stand with both on this issue is a good feeling for me.

Just a couple of observations: I think it is okay for government to have a heart. We speak to the heart and soul of working families across this country by understanding that health care is not a privilege; it is a right.

So let's begin with that fundamental basic observation, a right. What we have seen with this right is that over 30 million Americans have been added to the rolls of the insured over the course of the Affordable Care Act.

Now, Representative Kaptur did a great job of speaking to history of

Medicare, of Social Security, and of the Affordable Care Act, as did Representative Garamendi. I remember being at the 75th anniversary celebration of Social Security, and people were talking about the discrediting going on before Social Security was enacted into law. There were those who demonized it before it became law. There were those who have fought it ever since. They don't want that right for working families.

I would suggest that Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act are rock solid elements of a foundation upon which to grow quality of life and longevity. It is a basic fundamental additive that, when brought to our working families across this country, we are providing a service and we are addressing them with dignity. That is what this is about.

The demonization of the Affordable Care Act is interesting. Because if you look at polling, you will find that people say that ObamaCare is destroying the Nation. Well, what about the Affordable Care Act? That is working. My friends, it is the same issue, it is the same concept, and it is the same program.

So what we have tried to do is discredit a program that took on a major challenge, took on major industries, and needed to provide a balance and an actuarial outcome that is providing a go-forward and accomplish what you have enacted as a mission. The actuarial science has got to be precise.

So for those who want to repeal, they are talking about, in cases, pulling a brick out of the foundation and having it get wobbly, and it is going to crash the marketplace. We are going to have all of these people who have been enrolled or have been forever enrolled in health care impacted by rising costs and disruptive outcomes that will put them at risk.

So like the Social Security Program before the ACA, like Medicare before the ACA, as you floated these boats, as you went forward with time, you learned where you needed to tweak, and you adjusted, by amendment format, to make the program stronger. That is what we have been asking for in a partnership here in the House and with the Senate. Let's work on those areas that may need improvement, but do not repeal because repeal without replacement is a disaster. It is a disaster waiting to happen.

We have provided hope for working families across this country. We have had the testimony presented to us, anecdotal evidence, that this is working, that for the first time families have enjoyed a connection to a system, a standardized approach. What was the program?

People say: Well, I don't want to pay for someone else's health care. You have been paying for it before the ACA. It was called the emergency room. It wasn't standardized because whoever you got at that emergency room in whatever location, as you traveled looking for assistance, didn't provide a steady flow. It was a wasteful outcome for taxpayers and an insufficient outcome, a cruel outcome for those consumers who were impacted by being underinsured or uninsured.

So let's set the record straight. We have had a program up and running for 8 years now. The Republicans have chastised this program saying it needs to be repealed. We have taken over 65 votes, or 65 votes, I believe, to repeal, but there has never been a replacement plan. So what kind of gimmick is this to pull away a program that is working for tens of millions of families added to the rolls but not replace? That is disaster waiting to happen.

So we challenge our colleagues here in the House and in the Senate down the hall to be academic about this, to be compassionate about it, to be passionate in our resolve, and to make a difference by putting together the improvements that we require and not repealing.

Now, we look at the Affordable Care Act and what it means to our health care. But if you repeal, you will wreak damage on the budget. You will destroy our economy. You will have a huge workforce displacement, and you will slash care for America's working families. Is this the outcome that we want?

Remember, we were the last industrialized nation to come to the table and provide guaranteed health care for our families. That is not something of which we are proud. That was destructive. That was insensitive. It was not effective. It was a waste of tax dollars the way we did it.

So now we go forward with a program that allows us to now take a look at the history, albeit brief, on the Affordable Care Act, but understanding where we need to fine tune. We do that, and the challenge is there for all of us: take the cost out of the system for a stronger future and provide at least the same level of quality, if not enhanced quality, as we go forward. That should unite us in a common cause, cutting the cost of the program and enhancing the quality of services provided. What a great mission for all of us to embark upon.

So let's not play politics with the health care for tens of millions of people who are new to the system and for all of us who have been covered routinely by the system. We can do better than that.

Let the lessons of Social Security and Medicare, which, as my colleagues indicated earlier, address the American public with dignity, improvement, enhancement, and hope, the best commodity we can deliver as a government to her people.

So I thank Representative Garamendi for the opportunity for us to speak to these issues. Frankness is required right now. The lack of theater would be an improvement. No theater on this. Let's settle for facts, not fiction, and working together to bring about what is a sound resolve that allows us to provide stability and success for the American public. That, I don't think, is too much to ask.

So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) for bringing us together.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi.

As you talk about public sentiment about Social Security, the Affordable Care Act, and hearing the evidence you have provided from your constituent within your district, it becomes very apparent where the American public is.

When polled recently, only 20 percent of the American public is in support of efforts to repeal without replacement--20 percent. So the great, great majority understands what is going on here.

We have also seen during the recent campaign season, which probably went a year and a half to 2 years long, a lot of talk about repealing the Affordable Care Act, undoing the act. That happened in the same timeframe as 11.5 million people were added to the rolls for 2017. So there is an appeal here that is drawing the American public toward the coverage provided by ACA. So the sentiment here is to get things done and provide, again, the stability.

I am also a cosponsor of legislation entitled Strengthening Social Security Act that would improve how we calculate the benefits for Social Security. We are not advancing reducing those benefits or raising the retirement age to 69 or whatever level; we are talking about enhancing benefits. When you talk to seniors, they will say we either have got nothing or we got just a bit of an increase that was taken away with the other hand for some other purpose.

So, yes, we need to revisit just how we give that green light to a COLA adjustment, and we need to calculate that approval with items that are truly essential for the senior citizens, not big screen televisions or certain items that are adding to a luxurious note, but one that speaks to their basic core needs to live day to day. So the Strengthening Social Security Act does just that. It takes into account all of the essentials in that calculus that will determine whether or not a COLA adjustment is given that given year. So that is important.

I also believe it is time for us to look at that cap that we have created, that we have placed on contributions to Social Security. You know, some people by February 12 or 14, whatever date it is, are done paying. They are done contributing by that point in the year. Well, the standards of $118,000, or $127,000 coming this year, are just capturing most of those revenues. The hardship is placed on the working, middle- income community, those looking to ascend the middle class. There could be a far greater contribution from other income strata that we ought to look at to provide stability.

A point needs to be made that Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act are all intertwined. There were strengtheners that were provided for these programs. There was a partnership of revenue stream that was calculated and assumed that again provides for the quality of response to the consuming public, and especially those in senior years.

I have a large percentage of senior citizens in the makeup of my constituency. It is important to recognize that many who are on Medicare end up getting Medicaid assistance because of situations that are called upon where they are perhaps placed in nursing homes, adult homes, or the like. So we have to be cognizant here of the public sentiment, where is their thinking, and we know exactly what they want. They want stability for these programs. They want strengthening of the programs. They want to make certain that all of these efforts that have lasted for decades, or were introduced as late as 2010, will continue so they have a future that is that more secure, that more certain.

So tonight we talk and implore our colleagues to please help improve the Affordable Care Act. Let's not repeal, and certainly do not repeal without a replacement plan. That is a disaster that will really cause havoc in the marketplace. It is one that doesn't prove to be actuarially sound. Also, let's make certain that we don't have these efforts again to voucherize Medicare, to privatize Social Security. These are programs that have provided stability.

When I came into the House in 2009, it was at the lowest point of the recession which President Obama was handed upon his entering into the Presidency. There were 700,000, 800,000, 900,000 jobs lost a month in the deepest, darkest moment of the recession. What did we see? We saw individuals who took their lifetime's worth of savings and entrusted them to a marketplace, and they lost everything for which they had ever worked, and others realized they didn't lose a single cent of Social Security. Therein lies a tremendous bit of testimony as to the meritorious achievements of a Social Security system, one that provided that safety net for all families, one that made certain there was some sort of continuous flow, a backup, a reinforcement, as you went into retirement years.

We are reminded of Medicare and what the results were for retirees, how long they were expected to live and what their quality of life was like. It was tremendously, favorably turned around with the benefits of Medicare.

So with an impassioned plea, I encourage this House, the Senate, to do the right thing: stand for the American public and allow them to be addressed with dignity with these programs that have proven themselves. And where there is a need to further assist, as there has been time and time and time again with Social Security, as there has been time and time again with Medicare, let's provide that same approach to the Affordable Care Act.

I thank the gentleman from California for bringing us together and being able to share our thoughts and advocacy to do the right thing.

Representative Garamendi, if I just might, I am listening to Representative Kaptur talk of the interaction she had with her constituents, and I would just add my similar experience.

Some of the most cherished efforts of the Affordable Care Act are about preexisting conditions. Being a woman, being a pregnant woman, or being a woman or a man fighting cancer made it very difficult for people to get that insurance, and lifetime caps. You know, people being rolled into surgery, wheeled into surgery, and being told that they were discontinuing their plan.

So these are elements of the Affordable Care Act that could be at risk if we start playing around with the actuarial balance that has been achieved. And preexisting conditions, they rang right up there as one of the biggest concerns people have about repeal.

Just a quick comment. We have talked about much here this evening. I joined you a bit after you started. I don't know if you mentioned the hospital situation.

But representing a number of hospitals, from stand-alone clinics to some very specific specialty type of health centers, they are all concerned about the impact of repeal. And certainly, being a major employer, if not the major employer in some of my counties, as you reduce that care, you are reducing the workforce. So now we are creating another impact, and it is why the ripple effect of repeal is so strong and devastating, and will raise our deficit.

Mr. Speaker, this being National Engineers Week, I rise to recognize the importance of STEM education and training for our future engineers.

It has been projected that our Nation will need almost 2 million engineers by 2018, and that some fields in engineering will experience a 30 to 70 percent growth during that timeframe.

Despite these critical workforce needs, a vast majority of schools do not offer K through 12 education that creates clear pathways into careers in engineering and STEM-related feeds.

This week, I visited Tech Valley High School in Albany, New York, in the 20th District, to highlight this need and celebrate the good work being done in my congressional district to close the skills gap we see in this very vital discipline.

The nations that lead the global economy of the future will be those that invest in the education of their next generation--particularly in engineering. I urge my colleagues to recognize this need and to work in their own communities to bolster engineering education nationwide and allow our Nation to become the kingpin of the future international economy. Let's grow and cultivate those engineers.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to utilize the time allotted to the Democrats in the House to speak to the issue of trade. There are many who see this issue as an important issue.

Others are now beginning to understand some of the dynamics as they relate to free trade versus fair trade and just what the dynamics of some of the last decades were, as recent past history has indicated, as they relate to

American jobs and the American economy.

This will be a good opportunity for us to address in fuller terms the issues of trade that we believe need to be addressed significantly well before we go forward with these negotiated contracts that could cause undesirable results, rather than those for which we all, I would believe, want to work--the opportunity to provide for individuals to tether the American Dream, to be able to go forth with dignity, to assume jobs that allow them to express their skills and God-given talents, and to be able to have that soulfulness of earning a paycheck.

We want to focus on those issues here this evening. There are many who would suggest that a fast track is of great concern. Fast track is that circumventing of the responsibilities of Congress--the ability of Congress--to get more in depth with the proposed agreement, to understand fully what those impacts of the agreements might be on their local economy, on their State economy, and certainly on the national scene.

It is important for us, I believe, to invest ourselves as a House. I would encourage those viewing this evening to ask their individual Members of Congress where they are on the fast track.

Do you stand for the concept that goes back to the days of President Nixon, that gave a more expedited process and perhaps more authority over to the executive branch to get these contracts done? Or do you stand for the scrutiny that should rest with the Congress to make certain that no undue pressure is put on our local jobs and economy, falsely so?

I believe that we do have that responsibility. As we have seen in recent years, we have grown the trade deficit of this Nation into the trillions of dollars. The challenge exists here, in the House, in this Congress, both Houses being faced with the added pressures of understanding what the dynamics of our trade deals are all about.

The first step of which we express concern is that fast track concept where we, again, do not allow for the fullest efforts of Congress to be utilized--where we can amend, where we can adjust, where we can advise--and simply a thumbs-up/thumbs-down doesn't quite cut it for the people we represent, the working families the great many of us dub the ``middle class of America.''

As I enter into this discussion, I am reminded of the district that I represent in upstate New York that basically witnesses--hosts--the confluence of the Hudson River and Mohawk River.

Those two valleys merge in the district that I represent, and they were the gateway, designed as an Erie Canal, barge canal system, that produced not only a stronger economy for New York, developed a port out of a little town called New York City, and then gave birth to a necklace of communities dubbed ``mill towns'' that became the epicenters of invention and innovation.

It was there that many an immigrant tethered his or her dream, the American Dream, at those factory sites, where they were able to climb that ladder of opportunity, where they were able to lift their family's potential simply through the investment of hard work, pouring forth somehow their ability to land those jobs, and then to provide the creative genius that oftentimes developed new product lines or better product lines.

That was a heyday of the American economy that, again, started through these mill towns. They became those locations of hope and prosperity. Then it led to a westward movement, an industrial revolution where we were the kingpin of the world's economy.

We know the world dynamics are different today. We know that we need to adjust and respond, but we do that thoughtfully. We do it mindfully. We do it in a way that is academically measured, so that we don't introduce free trade but, instead, value fair trade, making certain that fair trade doesn't dispense unnecessarily of American jobs, that does not deflate our economy and finds us working on something, competing on something--the likes of an unlevel playing field. We need to have that level playing field be the result.

Tonight, we are talking about some of those trade negotiations that will come forth. The most recent now is being viewed as a huge impact on the world's economy. A great percentage of the world's economy will be impacted by the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

We have to make certain that it is done correctly, that it is done sensitively, that it keeps in mind that the American contribution to all of this should provide us an ample opportunity, an equal opportunity, to compete for jobs.

What has happened is that we have had these trade negotiations develop well beyond the original dynamics of trade barriers and tariffs. They are incorporating far more information and dynamics than just those barriers. We may reach to items like collective bargaining opportunities or environmental standards or guidelines for public health or requirements for public safety.

If we relinquish some of those hard-fought battles in this country to make safer a workplace or to have a product be as safe as possible or where we have been sound stewards of the environment or we have offered dignity to workers to collectively bargain, to unite as an effort to score for better benefits and just remuneration for the work that they do, we want to make certain that those standards are not dumbed down, that they are not reduced, that the world comply with those given opportunities for which decades' worth of sweat equity was poured forth.

Advocacy was echoed in the halls of government to make certain that these justified outcomes were fought for and realized and made statutorily etched into our government and our laws.

We do not take this lightly. We take this effort as a serious challenge, one that would address some of these hidden impacts that aren't often shared well enough with the general public that we serve that are represented here in this Chamber.

It is important for us to understand one of those growing concerns happens to be currency manipulation. It is one of those sneak attacks that really provides for a grossly unlevel playing field. We are discussing a critical aspect of the global economy and trade policy that has been ignored for far too long.

This currency manipulation is causing a lot of concern on both sides of the aisle and is now pushing legislators to speak more forcefully. When countries manipulate their currency, it makes foreign-produced goods all the cheaper. That should signal an alarm.

It doesn't end there. It also suggests or creates a situation where United States exports are less competitive. It doesn't end there because, as we lose in that battle, where we are less competitive, it then drains our economy by contributing to the downward pressure on wages in many sectors of our economy.

We have seen this tremendous impact in trade deficit that has been produced in this country because of failed negotiated contracts and because of the impact of currency manipulation.

Now, I understand that currency manipulation is not something most people talk about. It is not easy to conceptualize how devaluation of China's yuan or Japan's yen could impact us so severely. It puts American jobs in jeopardy. That is why we need to consider this issue much more seriously.

We need to make certain that a structured response to this manipulation is part of the negotiations and part of statute from the Federal perspective. Millions of jobs, I would suggest, are at stake.

If a country is going to cheat by devaluating its currency to make its products cheaper, it hurts America, and that hurt should not be tolerated. It is as simple as that.

For anyone that claims to support unfettered free trade, I urge them to engage in this issue. Persisting currency manipulation distorts markets. It is as simple as that. As long as it is allowed to continue, trade cannot be free, trade cannot be fair.

Now, there is a growing bipartisan consensus that strong and enforceable currency rules are needed, needed to ensure a level playing field for both the legislative perspective and as part of any new free trade agreement. We believe, many of us, that it should be part of statutory reform but, indeed, included in those agreements that are struck.

Few actions by foreign governments do more to disrupt free trade and harm the United States job market than currency manipulation.

A wide array of economic think tanks--including the Laffer Center at the Pacific Research Institute, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Center for Automotive Research--have all published what are extensive studies and commentaries supporting a crackdown on currency manipulation.

These groups hold varying and diverse views on the benefits of free trade, so they may not all be coming from the same perspective, but all are united in their sense that trade cannot be free or fair if countries are allowed to cheat by manipulating their currencies.

The Peterson Institute has support indicated for currency as a chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Certainly, the former economic adviser to the Vice President has also supported including a currency chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The Peterson Institute has estimated that America's trade deficit has averaged some $200 billion to $500 billion per year higher as a result of the manipulation.

That is happening from many angles, primarily from forces in China and Japan. Let me repeat those stats. $200 billion to $500 billion per year is the estimate for our trade deficit coming from some sound think tanks as a result of currency manipulation.

The Peterson Institute also estimates that interventions in currency markets by foreign governments have cost United States workers as many as 5 million jobs over the last decade. So I believe it speaks to us profoundly and should cause us to respond to the challenges of protecting jobs, American jobs, through the issues of fairness. This is not asking for some unfair competitive advantage. It is simply reminding the world that we understand what is happening out there as dynamics work against us and that we are going to do what we can to inspire fairness in the process.

The EPI, the Economic Policy Institute, found that ending currency manipulation could reduce the United States trade deficit by as much as $500 billion within 3 years and create as many as 5.8 million--5.8 million--American jobs. These are statistics that should not be taken lightly. They are reports that should feed our senses and build our passion to do what is correct here, to make certain that we inspire the sort of reforms to this process and to Federal law that would make for a much fairer outcome, a more fair outcome for the American public.

Certainly there is no greater issue that rests before Congress these days than creating the climate that allows for private sector job growth. Now, government may not create jobs. That may not be our purpose, prime purpose, but we certainly can do all within our power to create the sort of climate, the environment that allows for job growth to be maximized.

As we move into this desire to have world trade work as powerfully as it can and as fairly as it can for those of us in this country, we need to make certain that some of these reforms are embraced, and embraced in as enthusiastic a manner and expeditious a process as possible.

There was a report released just last week by EPI highlighting the negative impact that the Trans-Pacific Partnership would have on the United States' jobs if currency manipulation is not addressed, and that report, dubbed Currency Manipulation and the 896,000 United States Jobs Lost Due to the United States-Japan Trade Deficit, contains estimates for job displacement for every congressional district. We are making certain that all of our colleagues know of this information. These are data that are relevant to the people that we represent. These are data that challenge us.

I know that the study found that over 46,000 jobs would be displaced in New York State, including 1800 in the 20th Congressional District of New York, my home district. That is due, again, to the massive trade deficit that this Nation endures with Japan, a deficit that has been fueled primarily by currency manipulation.

So how do we address currency manipulation? How does it work? To identify manipulation, we need first and foremost to look at three criteria, criteria that are based on the International Monetary Fund's definition.

First, does the country of concern have large reserves of foreign currency, does the country have sustained trade surpluses, and does the country continue to buy large amounts of foreign currency?

Worth repeating. Does the country have large reserves of foreign currency, does the country have sustained trade surpluses, and does the country continue to buy large amounts of foreign currency?

Undervalued exchange rates allow the manipulating country to boost exports of their products and then put imports from other countries that are not cheating at tremendous disadvantage. Floating currencies should be self-adjusting based on trade deficits and surpluses. Cheaper dollars will lead to more exports and a balancing of the deficit over time. It is an ebb and flow relationship, and there is a natural tendency for that ebb and flow; but when enters in a greed factor, it can change those results and change them severely. The natural trend is not allowed to occur when a country intervenes in that currency market.

Countries like China and Japan have prevented this self-correcting process by buying United States currency. This artificially strengthens the dollar and keeps us importing relatively cheap goods produced abroad.

We already have a significant trade deficit with Japan, and that is very much measured in the automobile industry. Our trade deficit with Japan is second only to our trade deficit with China, and the majority of that deficit is in the automotive sector.

Now, if you are to talk to any of our colleagues from Michigan, they will tell you about the devastation that has been borne upon, laid upon that auto industry in their home State. They have shared with us some very painful statistics. Well, the majority of that deficit, as I said, is in the automotive sector as it relates to Japan and China.

Japan, for instance, imports one American car for every 100 Japanese cars imported into the United States each year. That is one car, one car imported from America into Japan for every 100 Japanese cars that are imported into the United States each year. That pattern can't continue. That is an easily predictable devastating outcome.

Ford Motor calculates that the weakened yen of Japan added some $6,000 in profit, on average, per car imported from Japan in the years 2012 to 2013. So if you have that $6,000 advantage built into the sales price, where do you think we are going? It is allowing for such a devastating impact on the American worker, the autoworker of this country. It is unrealistic to have us as a nation to stand silently and not echo some order of concern.

So what can the Congress do? Well, the House of Representatives should pass the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, and the administration should require strong and enforceable currency manipulation provisions in the TPP, in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Bipartisan groups in the House and in the United States Senate here in Congress are introducing legislation which would use United States trade law to fight currency manipulation and provide consequences for countries that indeed do cheat.

In the 113th Congress, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, of which I was cosponsor, would have enabled the Department of Commerce to impose countervailing duties to offset the impact of currency manipulation. If you want to cheat, you pay. We are not going to stand for unfair trade. That bill had 157 bipartisan cosponsors, and identical legislation was passed with bipartisan support back in 2010.

The legislation is identical to the House bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2010. That bill is consistent with the World Trade Organization and its rules. I think that this bill is written intelligently to conform to our trade agreement rules by considering currency devaluations as an illegal trade subsidy.

We already have mechanisms for addressing other illegal subsidies, but a bill such as that one, which is a start to addressing the problem, will not end

the practice of currency manipulation. We also need to include provisions in our trade agreements. Those provisions included in those agreements would provide our trading partners with a strong deterrent for manipulating their currency in the first place. We also have to make sure that our trade obligations explicitly allow this approach to targeting currency manipulation.

So I believe there are efforts within our grasp that we can work to achieve, that the changes and the reforms that we can provide will enable us to breathe free and grow and enhance the opportunities of our manufacturing sector.

Now, we think back to the booming economy we had in the 1950s and 1960s. We think of all the post-World War II growth of this Nation. We think of the tethering of the American Dream. We think of the passion of immigrants who had come here to climb those ladders of economic opportunity. We think of the generations that were strengthened by those who made the journey. It was their dream to provide a better life for them and their children and their grandchildren, and they saw it happening within these mill towns, those epicenters of which I spoke, epicenters of invention and innovation, of creative genius that enabled us to be the best we could possibly be and where there was hope abounding in our communities.

We can bring back that spirit. We can call for justice, social and economic justice as it relates to workers, as it relates to a world scene where there is a thought for those in the middle-income community, the middle class of America, the working families of America, strengthened and empowered because we get it here in Washington, where we speak to forces like counterforces, like currency manipulation that doesn't give us a fair shot, that creates an unlevel playing field, that will cost us dearly in jobs and in the growth of our economy.

So there is much work to be done. We need to make certain that as stewards of these agreements we are insisting that our strength be heard at the table, that we make certain that we are informed about issues like child labor laws, about the rights for collective bargaining, about environmental standards, about the need for public health and public safety to be addressed in the workplace and in the product line that is developed.

These are standards that are uniquely American at times, that should lift the world along with the people of this great country. We don't abandon those championing efforts that enabled us to be a stronger people, a safer people, building a stronger tomorrow. We don't abandon those principles. We build upon them. We share them with the other nations of the world.

As I mentioned to a group of labor individuals in my district recently, there are consequences galore if we continue down this path.

We are selling short the American worker. We are offshoring jobs that we can ill afford to ship away.

But it is beyond that. Not only does the American worker lose her job, not only does the American worker lose his hope, we then find economies around the world accepting the fact that their citizens are working for 75 cents an hour. Where is the justice to any of the workers around the world? This is an impact that has a ripple effect that pours forth in painful measure with insensitivity and gross, gross negative outcomes.

We can do better than that. We can be a country that will stand tall and know from the growth and progress that we have achieved through our halls of government, through the efforts of labor and unionized forces that came through labor and said, We are better than this. We need to share in the wealth of our economy.

We need to make certain that we respect our labor forces. The unionized efforts gave us sound benefits and sound salaries and good working conditions, acceptable standards. We are not going to ship that away. We are not going to allow for currency manipulation and the undoing of the American ideals, to be forsaken for the sake of a factor that has taken this global economy and produced these outcomes that are grossly unfair.

When we see a trade deficit in the trillions of dollars, when we understand that addressing currency manipulation can undo by hundreds of millions of dollars a deficit in a short order of 3 years, we can make a difference. We can be a force of change. We can be the voice of reason. We need to be that leader at the table.

Congress needs to be involved, invested in this opportunity. We need to make certain that the academics guide us here, that we pay attention to the data that are speaking to our senses.

We are rejecting all for which we fought. We are rejecting all for which labor painfully organized and achieved successful outcomes. If there is not justice for all in this process, it will not work.

But the American standard, the American appeal, the American hope that has been a beacon to people around the world should be that guiding force, should be the noble effort that allows all of us to understand that by committing to these issues of social and economic justice, we will have strengthened not only the American worker but workers around the world. An unlevel playing field simply does not work here. And offshoring jobs is the painful, gross neglect of the American Dream. The American Dream was one that found people playing by the rules, rolling up their sleeves, and expecting to taste success.

We can still build that aura within the halls of government. We can create those standards that determine a fair and just outcome. And we can speak soulfully to the people who are counting on us in the given communities they call home across this great expanse called the United States of America. We have always been that higher standard. We have always been the people in search of a better tomorrow. We have always been a society indebted to justice.

Throughout our annals of history, stories replete of us making a difference by working our process called government, by making certain it empowers the individuals and families of this Nation in a way that simply speaks to what is right. We know it is right here.

There have been a number of folks in this House championing the effort of fair trade, talking about the inclusion of Congress in a way that allows for amendments and improvements to agreements and certainly an outspoken force that speaks to holding fast to those standards that speak to the wisdom that guides us, of being fair and respectful to those who labor, who labor steadfastly, who ask only to be treated as an equal partner in this process.

It is an honor to represent those voices that speak so profoundly well in the workplace, asking for that dignity of work, asking for just remuneration for the sweat equity that they pour forth in wanting to have just that better step forward for their children and their grandchildren as they grow to their tomorrows, filled with hope. We can provide hope. We can build change. And we can issue justice if we put our mind, heart, and souls to that effort. I suggest we can do it. It is within our grasp.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California for leading us on middle class economics and on infrastructure and on growing the jobs and growing the economy. That can be--must be--our top priority, making certain that the dignity of work and the strength of drawing a paycheck are the American Dream that we want to help individuals and families across this country tether so they can move forward, utilizing their skills and talents and passions in order to be able to maintain a household, raise a family, and provide for the American Dream. It is always a pleasure to join you when we are speaking on these issues so forcefully, and to know there is a solution out there. There is a way to grow this economy, and looking at some of the items mentioned in the budget is important, and we should pay respect to that.

Certainly infrastructure that you just made mention of, and thank you for leading us in a recent motion to recommit to make certain that those who will staff those boats, transporting that cargo of LNG, create American jobs. We need to be very much disciplined in how we create a working agenda for America's families, and that is one step in the process.

But to the greater issue of infrastructure, I would suggest that we are well beyond that deadline when we should have responded to America's needs. We have a very deficient infrastructure. There are many bridges in this country that are rated deficient and weak. There are a number of situations with the grid system that was designed for a monopoly setting, and we now know that we transmit, we deliver electrons not only from region to region, former monopoly region to monopoly region, but State to State and country to country. It requires an upgrading in investment in our electric utility grid and certainly broadband. For our communication's sake, we need to wire neighborhoods in remote areas in communities across the country to enable us to strengthen the outcome, the commerce end of it all, to give businesses those needs that are so important.

Let me just close with this, because I see our friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has joined us. I believe it is the Ninth District of Ohio.

I recently held a press conference at home after a week of being on the floor here, and it was about the child care and dependent child care credit, tax credit, and it was amazing to hear the real-life stories of parents who struggle, trying to work. They need two incomes and are impacted by the high cost of child care, quality child care. They need that comfort zone to know that as a coparent, in a way, with the given agency that they are in a secure setting, so that they can be productive at work and know that their children are well cared for.

And it brings great benefits. There are social and cognitive and educational skill sets that are introduced into the lives of those toddlers and children that makes them all the more ready for that pre-K to K to elementary setting, so it has great benefits. But when you think about the fact that the average cost is $10,000 per year for child care, and when toddlers can be as high as $16,000 and a 5-year old as high as $12,000 per year, that is an immense cost to families.

So as the President addresses this issue in the budget, he triples that benefit to some $3,000 per child under 5 per family. For families making as much as $120,000, they can get that full benefit, and there is a scaled-down benefit for family incomes as high as $210,000.

So there are efforts here to grow the economy through middle class economics. The middle class has taken it on the chin for far too long. We have seen the growth of this economy post-recession and all of the added wealth that has come since that turnaround, that upward movement that has gone to a relative few in our society. Now it is time to share the wealth with the great numbers of us in the middle class, and that is the engine that runs America.

If you give more purchasing power to the middle-income community, you give it to the working poor, give it to those looking to ascend into the middle class, that will drive a strong economic recovery, even more powerful than what we have seen since the President took office in 2009, when we hit the lowest point in March 2009. From that recession that President Obama inherited, we have done really well. We could have done much better with infrastructure investments, which would have put many people in the trades to work and where we would have responded with a much stronger outcome for purchasing power for the great many of us in that middle-income community.

So, Mr. Garamendi, it is always a pleasure to join with you and our colleagues to make certain that we bring to the public's attention direct assistance that we can provide, items that have been introduced in bill format or included in a proposed budget from the President that can make a difference in the fabric of this community called America, where we can tether that American Dream in more noble and measured terms, and where we can make certain that we not only grow the climate for job production but grow the economy.

So it is within our grasp, but we just have to be bold in our attempt to go forward and to be progressive in our thinking and in our policies.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi.

If I could just associate my comments with the representative from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur talked about the impoverishment factor around the world. These negotiated agreements are much more than just trade barriers and tariffs. They become public policy.

When you lose American jobs, that is only the beginning of the story. We have made a situation very critically tough here, and we have resulted in impoverishing workers around the world, so that is an undoable, unsustainable outcome.

I think back when Ms. Kaptur spoke of the exodus of jobs and the incremental steps that took them eventually offshore. I think of the entire passageway of the Erie Canal system that drove a westward movement, reached Ohio, and then eventually allowed for the development to the west coast.

You think of that, and many a person, many a worker, tethered the American Dream to those mill towns that were given birth to by that Erie Canal system. That was the empowerment of this Nation--and to think that that whole history has been rejected. A lot of the creative genius came from the immigrant who was working on those assembly lines. We need to remember that history. We must have it speak to us.

This whole idea of inserting public policy into these agreements or, again, circumventing our responsibilities here in the House--people who we represent at home need to ask us: Where are we on fast track? Do we want to give up that congressional responsibility and just do thumbs up or thumbs down on a negotiated agreement?

The other items that I am concerned about are items like the earned income tax credit. That is part of the budget request made by the President. I spoke to a number of people in my district who rely on that and others who aren't even filing for the earned income tax credit and they qualify.

I want people to understand that this is not a tax loophole, this is economic and social justice, where we take folks who perhaps might not even make enough to file a tax return to get an earned income tax credit.

This is one of the greatest antipoverty agents we have in the budget, so we need to make certain that that earned income tax credit is available when the final budget is completed, and we need to make certain we get the word out.

This is about empowering those who are at the lower strata of income. We want to make certain that programs like the earned income tax credit speak to those who are working. It is encouraging people to work, and it is trying to bring again some economic justice and social justice.

So many of these communities are benefited when we remind people that these tax opportunities are available for them. It empowers the regional economy. So many times, there is poverty clustered in some of our urban cores, and so the social justice that comes with an earned income tax credit is that millions of dollars are now brought back into the community.

On those budgets where our lower strata income qualifying folks are, they are going to spend those dollars, they are not going to bank those dollars. So an earned income tax credit, dependent child care tax credit, these are important items--fair trade, infrastructure improvement, there are a great number of things that we can do to muscle up the outcome here.

It begins in those hallowed halls of government where you can, through these efforts in the halls of government, make policy happen. We need to take heed as to what needs to be done for our middle income community.