Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my floor votes on January 10 and 11, 2017.

Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call vote number 26, ``no'' on roll call vote number 27, ``no'' on roll call vote number 28, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 29, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 30, ``no'' on roll call vote number 31, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 34, ``no'' on roll call vote number 35, ``no'' on roll call vote number 36, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 37, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 38, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 39, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 40, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 41, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 42, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 43, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 44, and ``no'' on roll call vote number 45.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my floor votes on January 4 and 5, 2017. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``yes'' on roll call vote number 7, ``no'' on roll call vote number 8, ``no'' on roll call vote number 9, ``no'' on roll call vote number 10, ``no'' on roll call vote number 11, ``no'' on roll call vote number 12, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 13, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 14, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 15, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 16, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 17, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 18, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 19, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 20, ``no'' on roll call vote number 21, ``yes'' on roll call vote number 22, and ``no'' on roll call vote number 23.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think we should clarify something. Every day, Americans donate food, clothes, and money to charities. Millions of Americans do that all the time. Most of those Americans don't expect to get something in return. They do it because it is the right thing to do, and it makes them feel like they are part of the American community. So every day Americans are giving.

Now, the Tax Code happens to also try to encourage us to do more giving, which I think all of us agree is good. So let's remove that from the debate because I think we are confusing folks who might be watching this.

This isn't about trying to give people an incentive to give because Americans are doing it whether or not the Tax Code says to them: We want you to do this.

The issue is this. Under the Tax Code, some Americans--not a majority of Americans, not even a third of Americans, but a fraction of Americans--can take advantage of the provisions in the Tax Code that give them tax breaks for having given something.

You have heard a discussion about food. If you gave canned goods because the boy next door put up a bag and you put canned goods in there and you gave them away, this provision isn't about that. No. There are a fraction of American taxpayers, mostly companies, restaurants, and so forth, who can take advantage of that. You can't. Americans can't take advantage of that provision.

Say you have an IRA, or Individual Retirement Account. Some Americans have an IRA. The majority of Americans don't, but some do. You want to be charitable. Say you have done fairly well. You want to give some of your IRA to a charity. The Tax Code says: We want to incentivize you to do that.

The Tax Code right now says you can give up to $100,000 in your IRA to charity. Guess what? That won't be recognized as income.

How many Americans make $100,000? Not too many--but say you make $100,000. How much are you going to pay in taxes? How many of you have $100,000 in your IRA that you give away to a charity? Well, there are some people who can, and there are some people who do. Guess what? They get a tax break for doing that.

It is a pretty big tax break if you think about how much you would pay in taxes on $100,000 of your income. They get to give that money away. Guess what? They don't get taxed a cent on that $100,000 that they just gave out of that IRA that they can do.

By the way, you don't get to just do it once in your lifetime. Every year, an American can give away $100,000 out of your IRA and get the tax break.

How many Americans do that? A tiny, tiny fraction--but guess what? When you take that IRA rollover tax break and you take that other tax break for those companies that can give away food and you take the other tax breaks for those who have land that they could give away to a charity, guess how much it adds up to?

It adds up to what we, today, provide in funding to do research against breast cancer and all the research funding we put in to do Alzheimer's research, the same amount of money.

When people say, You don't have to worry about the cost of that, you don't have to pay for this--well, we could spend twice as much money to find a cure for breast cancer, twice as much money to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease, if we weren't giving away these tax breaks to somebody who can afford to give away $100,000 in their IRA every year to do good.

By the way, that wealthy American could give $100,000 out of that IRA today, but they get a tax break for doing it. Would that stop them from giving away $100,000 just because they don't get the tax break? I don't think so.

I don't think so because you don't have to be wealthy in America to give. We all want to give. In fact, the folks who give the most are the folks who earn the least. They give what they can.

How many times have you been invited to someone's home who you know it is hard for them to put food on the table, and they invite you to eat at their home, and they don't expect you to give them a thing?

We give because we think it is the right thing to do. The Tax Code wants to incent that, and that is good because we want to help charity.

To say that it doesn't have to be paid for, when we have to pay for all the cancer research, for breast cancer, when we have to pay for the research to cure Alzheimer's disease, when we have to pay for those food inspectors to make sure that the food that gets on our table is free of carcinogens and diseases and microbes that could endanger us-- absolutely, we have to pay for those things. As it was said earlier, there is no free lunch.

All we are saying is this: Let's do good. If we are going to give someone who is wealthy a chance to do good, let's pay for it. Let's figure out a way to do that because we want to be charitable, but let's not play this game that it doesn't cost somebody in America for this tax break to go mostly to wealthy folks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and celebrate the birthday of Edna Flores-Lagunte. Edna was a valued member of my Capitol Hill staff during the late 1990's, and she lived in San Francisco during the past decade. She would have turned 42 years old today. I say ``would have'' because, sadly, Edna passed away unexpectedly on June 8, 2014.

One of Edna's great passions was participating in the annual AIDS/ LifeCycle, a 7 day, 545 mile bike ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles to raise funds and awareness in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Edna was a veteran rider and participated in her 13th AIDS/LifeCycle last year. Her involvement originally stemmed from a strong desire to raise awareness of HIV/AIDS in the Filipino American community. She oftentimes rode in the memory of friends whom she had met over the years.

Edna took part in last year's event with her husband, Richard Lagunte, also a longtime rider. Sadly, she suffered cardiac arrest in the middle of the ride and passed away shortly thereafter.

Not only was she well-known among event organizers and fellow cyclists, she was a beloved individual. Edna was genuine, enthusiastic, compassionate, and full of life. Her strong dedication to serving the needs of individuals with HIV/AIDS and raising awareness was truly outstanding and serves as an example for all of us.

During her tenure in my office, Edna was a respected member of my staff who gave so much of herself. I will always remember her for her cheerful spirit, generosity, positive attitude, and her stunning smile.

Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues and this House to rise with me to celebrate the birth and life of Edna Flores-Lagunte. I am saddened that after less than 42 years of living, we must say farewell to a remarkable human being who personified the very best in public service. I extend my deepest condolences to Edna's husband Richard, parents Nena and Esposito Flores, and brother Edward. She touched so many and is deeply missed.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that this House should start to concentrate finally on bigger paychecks for our people who are working and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to decent health care.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, the barbaric killing in Paris last week of 17 innocent human beings, including two police officers, is a stark reminder of the high price we sometimes pay to exercise our freedoms, including our freedom of speech.

Here in this House, we exercise that freedom every day on this floor, but that freedom comes with a responsibility. We are all entitled to our own opinions, and we can express them here, but we are not entitled to our own set of facts.

This sense of Congress fails in that responsibility. First, it misappropriates the facts, but worse, it misrepresents the facts.

The Affordable Care Act prohibits the precise activity and conduct by employers that this sense of Congress says it is trying to prohibit. In fact, the Affordable Care Act has explicit language, and I will, for the Record, submit 29 U.S. Code, section 218(c), protections for employees, which specifically prohibits an employer from discriminating against an American citizen who works for that employer for the purposes of hiring someone who doesn't have a right to work and, therefore, will not get insurance.

So the worst part of this sense of Congress is that it tries to mislead the American people to think something is going on that isn't. And if it is going on then, in the time that the gentleman has to push his amendment, I would urge him to name a name of an employer who is doing this to an American citizen who should be allowed to work.

29 U.S. Code Sec. 218c--Protections for employees

(a) Prohibition

No employer shall discharge or in any manner discriminate

against any employee with respect to his or her compensation,

terms, conditions, or other privileges of employment because

the employee (or an individual acting at the request of the

employee) has--

(1) received a credit under section 36B of title 26 or a

subsidy under section 18071 of title 42;

(2) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide

or cause to be provided to the employer, the Federal

Government, or the attorney general of a State information

relating to any violation of, or any act or omission the

employee reasonably believes to be a violation of, any

provision of this title (or an amendment made by this title);

(3) testified or is about to testify in a proceeding

concerning such violation;

(4) assisted or participated, or is about to assist or

participate, in such a proceeding; or

(5) objected to, or refused to participate in, any

activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the

employee (or other such person) reasonably believed to be in

violation of any provision of this title (or amendment), or

any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under this

title (or amendment).

(b) Complaint procedure

(1) In general

An employee who believes that he or she has been discharged

or otherwise discriminated against by any employer in

violation of this section may seek relief in accordance with

the procedures, notifications, burdens of proof, remedies,

and statutes of limitation set forth in section 2087(b) of

title 15.

(2) No limitation on rights

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the

rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any

Federal or State law or under any collective bargaining

agreement. The rights and remedies in this section may not be

waived by any agreement, policy, form, or condition of

employment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who is on the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I asked if the proponents would name the name of an American who has been discriminated against, the name of an employer who has discriminated against an American worker. They gave none. This is all anecdotal. These are all stories. They don't have anything to do with the fact that we need to pass the Homeland Security bill because we are jeopardizing the funding for our security.

Are people tone-deaf to what happened in Paris that they would do these types of amendments at a time when we need to support our men and women who protect us through Homeland Security?

This is wrong, and that is why we oppose this senseless sense of Congress amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

To govern means to get things done. That is pretty simple, and quite honestly, that is about all the American people ask us to do on a daily basis: get things done.

Instead of bringing a clean Homeland Security funding bill to the floor of this House, our colleagues on the Republican side have decided to put our Nation's security at risk and cater to some of the most radical views in their party.

It is stunning that only a week after the tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, we are standing here on the floor of the House of Representatives talking about attempts to make it more difficult for the Department of Homeland Security in the United States of America to defend our Nation.

A good bill--and we have heard this, Republicans and Democrats alike say that the underlying bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security is a good one; it is just all the poison pill amendments that have been forced into this bill.

So a good bill to fund our government's Homeland Security and all of its obligations will come before us and become a victim of what has become known as shutdown partisan politics.

What is at stake? Border protection, customs enforcement, transportation security, Coast Guard protection, Secret Service protection, emergency management in the event of an attack or a natural or manmade disaster--all put in jeopardy to play partisan politics.

If the American people are going to believe that Congress is anything more than a graveyard for good ideas, then we need to get to work and not let a tiny minority of radical voices block progress. It is time for us to say to Americans: We get it; we heard you.

It is time to protect the homeland. It is time for us to act bipartisanly, and it is time for us to act as leaders for all Americans, not a political party.

We must pass a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security without delay, and then, yes, we can get to debate immigration and immigration reform and pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, but don't put the security of our people and our homeland at risk simply to game the system.

Let's pass a clean Homeland Security bill. Let us defeat all these amendments and get to work the way the American people expect us to.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, H.R. 30. This amendment will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, H.R. 30 is nothing more than a sucker punch to the middle class. People who live off of their inheritance aren't hurt by H.R. 30. People who live off of their investments aren't hurt by H.R. 30. Even people who are destitute and need our help to make it through the day aren't hurt by H.R. 30. The only people who are hurt are workers who earn a paycheck. They are the losers under H.R. 30.

Now, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you have been watching or listening to this debate to say to yourself, I don't understand a thing that went on. One said orange, one said apple. One said tomato, one said tomato. One said it helps, one said it hurts.

That is what the debates are all about: Americans get to make decisions. We start this new Congress having made decisions as American voters, and you would think that we would then come to Congress as representatives of the people to try to now move forward together. If we can't agree it is an orange or an apple, let's figure out what we can agree with.

Whom do we typically turn to to tell us what we should at least agree with if we still think it is an apple or an orange? We typically turn to the nonpartisan, neutral body that guides this Congress that is named the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office doesn't represent Democrats and it doesn't represent Republicans. It represents the American people and is here to guide Congress, this House, to make sure we are making decisions based on the facts.

What are the facts according to the Congressional Budget Office--not Republicans, not Democrats? According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill would increase the taxpayers' burden by $53 billion over the next decade because this bill is unpaid for. This bill would result in 1 million Americans losing their employer-sponsored coverage. That is not Democrats saying that or Republicans. That is the Congressional Budget Office.

This bill would increase the number of people who obtain their coverage by government-sponsored health care because they would have lost their employer-sponsored health care. And that is why the American taxpayer would have to foot the bill of close to $53 billion.

This bill would also, according to the Congressional Budget Office, increase the number of Americans who end up with no health insurance up to 500,000. That is not my number; that is CBO's. I think it is higher, but CBO says 500,000. I will be guided by CBO.

CBO tells us as well that there are some five to six times as many American workers who are at the 40-hour-a-week threshold than there are Americans who work at about 30 hours. So when this bill says that now the threshold will be 40 hours, any employer who decides to cut 1 hour--the time of this debate, 1 hour--from the paycheck of an American worker has escaped responsibility to provide health insurance for all those workers under their employ--1 hour. Six times more American workers are working 40 hours a week than 30 hours a week. That is why H.R. 30 costs the American taxpayer money. That is why it is bad for Americans and their paychecks.

Now, Americans really don't care much about these debates. At the end of the day, they want to know we are doing something and getting something done. They want to know we are working together to solve some problems. They want us to boost job growth. They want us to boost an economy that works for all Americans, not just the privileged few. We have some pretty good news for them over the last few years. Nearly 11 million new jobs, 57 consecutive months of job growth, the longest streak in our country's history. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act which is being debated today, 10 million more Americans today have health insurance, and that means health security that they didn't have before.

The deficit has been cut by two-thirds, gas prices cut by half--good news. So you are probably not surprised to learn a couple of other things. During that same time, the economy has grown 12 percent, corporate profits have grown 46 percent, and the stock market 92 percent. What is the missing element in all of that growth? Paychecks. The paychecks of the average American worker have stagnated over that time. Everybody else is doing well at the top, but the guys at the middle, they are hurting.

What does H.R. 30 do? It sucker punches that same American worker who has to earn a paycheck--not the guy who has an inheritance, not the guy who has investments to live off of--the guy who lives off of a paycheck.

My motion to recommit says stop that. We have our final chance to do that. Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote against H.R. 30, and let's work on behalf of Americans and their paychecks.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Clerk, first I would like to recognize each and every Member who has taken to this floor to represent the people of the United States and say congratulations to them and to all of their loved ones who are here witnessing this solemn event where we will have an opportunity to lead our country. We say congratulations to them as well.

Madam Clerk, I have the distinct pleasure of nominating someone who is a proven leader, someone who already will go down in history as one of the most effective Speakers the House of Representatives has ever seen, someone who has shown that it doesn't take a man to get the job done, that it can be done by an American who is devoted to this country, someone who knows her heritage, someone who has worked tirelessly for the American people, but someone who understands first and foremost that the job of this House is to get things done.

I have been empowered, Madam Clerk, to nominate on behalf of all working Americans, those Americans who still believe in the American Dream, to put the name of the gentlewoman from San Francisco who will serve again in the House of Representatives, put her name forward for the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the 114th Congress. I, therefore, at this point put before you the name of Nancy Pelosi to serve as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I offer a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.