Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by thanking my colleague, but, more importantly, my dear friend, Mr. Sam Johnson from Texas, for the work that he did to move so quickly working with his able staff to try to make sure we had a bill come before us. I also want to make sure that I salute the staff on this side of the aisle for the work they did in partnership to make sure that we could quickly put a bill on the floor of this House that could address what all of us agree is a glaring omission. And so I am pleased to stand here to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a bill that not only will take care of those dollars that Americans contributed to Social Security on a daily basis as they go to work and pay into the system, but it also will protect the dollars that so many Americans now rely on to receive their benefits. Today, Mr. Speaker, 160 million Americans work and pay into Social Security. They know that because they do that their families will be protected if they happen to die or if they happen to become disabled or if they decide to retire. Now, for most of the 58 million Americans who are already retired or currently receiving Social Security benefits of some sort, that Social Security benefit is the most important source of income for them. One of the greatest privileges we have as Americans living here in the U.S. is the opportunity to work and earn this Social Security protection for ourselves and for our families. We recently learned, as Mr. Johnson has mentioned, that Nazi war criminals and collaborators slipped through a loophole in our laws and began receiving Social Security benefits. The record is clear: Congress never intended for the perpetrators of the Holocaust--the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored murder of more than 6 million Jews and millions of other innocents--to be allowed to enter the U.S., let alone to participate in Social Security. It has been our longstanding policy that when Nazi persecutors who came under false pretenses are discovered that they be deported and stripped of all their privileges of U.S. citizenship and residency, including, of course, Social Security. I am pleased to be here today because today what we are saying is we are ready to act. This legislation will tightly close the loophole that allows some individuals to use and retain Social Security benefits even after their Holocaust crimes have been proven and their citizenship has been revoked. As the chairman has mentioned, and as we are trying to make clear today, it is critically important that we make everyone aware that when you work for Social Security, you have earned it, and only then will you get it. So when someone comes in, uses a loophole, tries to take advantage, and then believes that they can get away with it, we want to be able to act quickly and make it clear that it will never happen again. We want those safeguards to be in place for everyone who has been working hard and paying into Social Security for years and years. They are the ones that own it, not people who have defrauded our government. Like past Congresses, we believe that we must act quickly because the issue of the Holocaust is not unresolved in our minds. We know what we must do to anyone who perpetrated those heinous acts. We must act as quickly as we can. And so, Mr. Speaker, I say with a great deal of pride and friendship that I stand with the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee today, Mr. Sam Johnson, to urge my colleagues to join us in closing this loophole now before Social Security has to pay another dime to a Nazi war criminal. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who has been very active on this issue.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I think it is important to close on a particular note. I don't think it gets lost on the chairman or me that, when we sit as the chairman and ranking member on the Social Security Subcommittee, we have a major responsibility, and that is to make sure that what people expect when they allow a good chunk of money to come out of their paycheck, it is going to be used for what they believe, and that is for Social Security benefits for those who have earned them. When something like this comes along and you find out that someone found out a way to circumvent the laws and the process and take advantage of getting dollars out of America that have been put in for the purpose of providing security to those who retire or become disabled or who die, it really makes you want to act, but when you realize that, on top of that, the folks who are gaming the system are folks who should never have been in this country in the first place because they committed heinous crimes and were perpetrators of some of the worst evils we have seen in our history, then it makes you want to work doubly fast. At a time when we deal with major issues and oftentimes have challenges in reaching agreement, the American people should watch for a second because, in this case, we are coming together to say that we understand the purpose of Social Security. It is important to extend a thank you to the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee for making sure that, before we ended this year and before we ended this session, we had an opportunity to put our vote on the floor saying, ``No, if you don't earn your benefits, you won't get them, and if you shouldn't have been here in the first place, then you certainly shouldn't get Social Security as well.'' It is important to get this done, and we hope the Senate will act quickly. Hopefully, before too long, the President will have an opportunity to sign this, and forever, we will be able to say that we know that no perpetrator of the Holocaust will ever have an opportunity to steal Social Security from those who worked hard to earn it. With that, Mr. Speaker, and thanking the staff on both sides of the aisle for the work they have done so diligently and to my friend and chairman, Mr. Johnson, I say thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, today, 160 million Americans pay into Social Security every day that they work, and as a result, they know that they and their families will be protected if they die, become disabled, or retire. For most of the 58 million Americans who currently receive Social Security, a Social Security benefit check is their most important source of income. We recently learned that some Nazi war criminals and collaborators slipped through a loophole in our law and are in fact receiving these very same Social Security benefits. I am pleased to join with my dear friend and colleague from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, to introduce the No Social Security for Nazis Act, which tightly closes this very loophole. As the chairman and the ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee, Mr. Johnson and I have the responsibility to safeguard Social Security, and I believe this bill is the right way to do that. Like past Congresses, we believe that there is no place for the Holocaust perpetrators in the United States of America, and if there is no place for them in our country, then there is certainly no place for them in our crown jewel, Social Security. I hope we can move quickly to enact this legislation before Social Security is required to pay another dime to a Nazi war criminal. I thank Chairman Johnson for his tireless work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to join Chairman Johnson and me in sponsoring the No Social Security for Nazis Act.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today, the President is meeting with congressional leaders to discuss our strategy moving forward in Iraq and Syria to protect Americans, our homeland, and our national interests. It is hard for me to understand why we are debating this partisan resolution that would condemn the President and our government for having saved the life of an American soldier, Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. In the past month, we have seen with horror the sight of two Americans killed at the hands of some of these deranged insurgents, not unlike the situation many of our American soldiers have faced in Afghanistan where Mr. Bergdahl was captured. So here we have 2 weeks to go in this congressional session because we are just back from an August recess where there were no votes, and we have already been told by the Republican leadership in the House that they don't intend to be in session more than 2 weeks now, this week and next week, possibly a few days in the following week, and we are going to be gone. In that time, we have to finish a budget, we have to deal with all sorts of other pressing matters, and we have to work with the President to come up with a strategy to make sure that it is clear where America stands on these issues that impact the lives and security of Americans abroad and at home, and here we are debating a resolution that has no impact. It doesn't change the circumstance. Bowe Bergdahl is now alive and back home. It doesn't change the fact that James Foley is still dead and so is Steven Sotloff. They are both still gone. But what we do know is that the military kept its commitment to our men and women in uniform when they say we never leave one of our own in military uniform behind. Now, you can have this semantic discussion about whether a statute supersedes the Constitution or whether this statute required the President to act a certain way. All I know is what General Dempsey has said before. General Dempsey being the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, General Dempsey said this with regard to the rescue of Bowe Bergdahl: This was likely the last best opportunity to free him. Now, anyone in this Chamber has the right to argue whatever they want. But no one was in the shoes of Bowe Bergdahl, quite honestly, no one was in the shoes of General Dempsey, and at the end of the day, not one of us is in the shoes of President Barack Obama. And if that window is closing, he has got to make a decision because there is an American life on the line. And if we don't believe that, just ask the families of Mr. Foley and Mr. Sotloff. Bowe Bergdahl is alive today. Thank the Lord, thank you, President Obama, and thank you to our men and women in uniform who risked their own lives to make sure that men and women like that could come back home. We have 2 weeks to go before we are gone and out campaigning for election. You would think that we would work on the things that people in America are concerned about most. They want us to not shut down this government again, they want us to make sure that we continue the success of the last 55 months of creating 10 million jobs--because remember, don't forget, it wasn't too long ago, January 2009, when George Bush handed the keys over to Barack Obama at the White House, we bled 800,000 jobs in just 1 month. We have got more work to do to get people to work. There are a whole bunch of families, including mine, who are sending their kids to college.

Mr. BECERRA. We have more student loan debt in America held by our young men and women trying to get their college degrees and, of course, their parents, as well, who are paying for them, than we hold in all the credit card debt in America today. Does this bill do anything to help young Americans and their parents help their kids get through college? Not a thing. Does this help an American today who works full-time and still lives in poverty because he is working at a minimum-wage job? Not a thing. Does this help a woman who is out there working just as hard as a man and doing the same exact thing but earning less money than he is? Not a thing. We have got work to do. Bowe Bergdahl is alive. Let's praise that. Let's make sure every American can come back home and say the same thing, and then let's get to work doing the real business of this country rather than passing partisan resolutions that have nothing to do with the business at hand.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. The corrosive effects of shutdown do-nothing politics is on full display here tonight in the House of Representatives. Stripping the rights and protections of children is never a good solution in any legislation, whether it is the children huddled at the border alone and afraid or now including the young DREAMers of America who believe in this country. They have now become the targets of this legislation. They are the ones who are being told, it is because of you that we must change the law and treat human beings so harshly. Mr. Speaker, if I could speak to those frightened children and our DREAMers of America and those working for a fair solution on their behalf, this is what I would say: (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:) Is there any doubt what Republicans' intentions are for the migrant children at the border? Is there any doubt what Republicans' intentions are for young DREAMers and their families? Is there any doubt why immigration reform remains shackled? Is there any doubt what we must do with our vote, our voice, to defend the rights and dreams of our children? Queda duda de las intenciones republicanas hacia los ninnos migrantes en la frontera? Queda duda de las intenciones republicanas hacia los muchachos sonnadores y sus familias? Queda duda de porquee la reforma migratoria queda encadenada? Queda duda de lo que tenemos que hacer con nuestro voto, nuestra voz, para defender los derechos y los suennos de nuestros hijos?

Mr. BECERRA. Tonight, with this bill, we see what happens when, for more than 390 days, our Republican colleagues refused to allow a vote on the Senate's bipartisan solution to a broken immigration system. But for the shutdown do-nothing politics in this House, we could have tackled the humanitarian issues we face down on the border a year ago, but we haven't been able to get a vote to do this the right way. It is time to have that vote to fix the broken immigration system, not blame children and punish them by changing the law to strip them of their rights and of their protections. We can do better. This bill will not become law, and we will have a chance to do better for those children, for those DREAMers, and, quite honestly, for America.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Madam Speaker, I agree with those who have said that doing nothing is not an option. But making matters worse should not be an option either. Stripping children of the chance to establish their credible fear of death or endangerment is a crude and cold way of dispensing justice in America. That is not the American way. This bill is a patch, not a solution. It lasts 2 months. So we will be right back here, trying to solve this challenge again, in September. Governing and budgeting in pieces is what leads to government shutdowns. That is not the American way. This bill robs Peter to give to Paul. How does this bill fund the money to pay for the border work that has to get done? First, it strips emergency funding to tackle devastating wildfires that the President has requested because the States have requested it. Second, it takes $407 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund, money which would be used to help people who have been devastated by wildfires and other natural disasters. Madam Speaker, if we had passed immigration reform a year ago with the bill that passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis--which on this floor, we have been denied a vote on for more than 380 days--we would not be looking at a crisis on the border the way we are today. But that is the difficulty we have. When you don't fix the broken immigration system, this is what you encounter. And these piecemeal approaches aren't going to solve anything. We are going to be right back at it in September. That is not the American way. We provide justice to people. We make sure we dispense it the way we should, and we take care of our emergencies. Let's get this done the right way. Let's do two things: let's give the emergency funding that the people need at the border to run this process right, and then let's finally on the floor of this House have a vote to fix a broken immigration system.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 437. If present, I would have voted ``no.'' (By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehner was allowed to speak out of order.) Honoring Dr. Jessica Bienstock

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, and 367. If present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote Nos. 362, 363, 364, 366, and 367, and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 365.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from New Jersey, Chairman Frelinghuysen. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the ranking member for your efforts in putting together this legislation. In particular, I appreciate that this bill provides funding for the support for international sporting competition fund. This account is crucial for ensuring the safety and security of countless Americans who participate in different Olympic initiatives, including the preparations for the Olympics, Paralympics, and Special Olympics. The United States has a rich tradition of supporting the Special Olympics, both in the United States and abroad. These unique events empower people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, while promoting acceptance for all and fostering communities of understanding on a global scale. Approximately 1,000 athletes participated in the first Special Olympics World Games in 1968. By comparison, there has been a sevenfold increase, with 7,000 athletes expected to participate in the 2015 Special Olympic World Games, which will be held in Los Angeles, California. With this substantial growth, there has come an increased need for security. It is important for this legislation to match as best possible our country's previous funding commitments. This critical funding need could be addressed either through additional funding for the support for international sporting competition fund or unobligated funds at the Department of Defense. I asked for and look forward to the opportunity to work with the chairman, ranking member, and all of our colleagues who wish to continue our country's support for the Special Olympics through any available funds in this legislation. At this point, I yield to the chairman for his response.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 4031, a bill named the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014'', because I don't throw babies out with the bathwater. Let me explain. When our fellow Americans put on our country's uniform in service to our nation, we owe it to them to repay that service. When these Americans retire the uniform, as veterans they deserve everything a grateful nation can offer--our love, respect, gratitude and, just as importantly, the care and attention they may now need upon coming home. Reports that the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to provide many of our veterans the care and service they have earned are more than disturbing, and if true, warrant decisive action. With facts in hand, our government must be prepared to move swiftly to right the wrong and hold people accountable. H.R. 4031 is a bill which is being portrayed as a fix to the troubling reports of mismanagement and mistreatment at VA facilities. It is hardly that. H.R. 4031 would go well beyond giving the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to fire personnel in this particular case of potential mismanagement. This bill makes permanent and reactionary changes to longstanding rules governing the hiring and firing of people holding positions of public responsibility. It would paint responsible, hard-working public servants with the same brush as those who may have recklessly mismanaged VA services. If H.R. 4031 became law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs could hire or fire someone based on a whim. It would forever and irreparably damage our ability to hire and retain the best and brightest based on merit and experience. This bill would bring back the dark days when hiring and firing decisions within our federal workforce were driven by political influence and patronage. The vast majority of veterans will tell you that they have received the quality of care that they have earned and deserve at VA health centers. But anything less than 100 percent satisfaction for our veterans is not good enough. That's why we must swiftly and decisively investigate these alarming reports of mismanagement at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I will do anything and everything I can to live up to that standard. But I will not lump truly dedicated, hard-working public servants together with those who have failed in their fundamental obligation to serve and care for our veterans. I will not throw the baby out with the bathwater--and I do not believe America's veterans want us to do that either.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Nicaraguan Cultural Committee ``Jose de la Cruz Mena,'' and salute them for the wonderful cultural efforts they are producing for the residents of the City of Los Angeles. Founded in 2010, the Nicaraguan Cultural Committee ``Jose de la Cruz Mena'' is a small but dedicated organization committed to raising awareness on the traditions and customs of Nicaraguans who reside in the City of Los Angeles. Since music is fundamental to Nicaraguan culture and spirit, the committee opted to be named after Jose de la Cruz Mena, a pioneering artist who was the first to introduce classical music to Central America. Although he suffered from various illnesses that left him blind at the age of 22 and led to a premature death at the age of 33, de la Cruz Mena's special talent allowed him to participate in composing the Nicaraguan national anthem. The committee is honoring his legacy by sharing his story and music with Angelinos. To increase appreciation for Nicaraguan music and culture, the committee successfully encouraged the City of Los Angeles and the State of California to officially recognize May 3rd as ``Dia del Nicaraguense'' (Nicaraguan Day). The Nicaraguan Cultural Committee celebrated this distinct recognition on May 4 by hosting the first Nicaraguan Folklore Festival in Pico Union where many Americans of Nicaraguan descent have lived since the 1980s. The festival highlighted special Nicaraguan traditions and featured artisan crafts from Nicaragua. To foster cultural exchange, the committee plans to host the Nicaraguan Folklore Festival annually. I wish the Nicaraguan Cultural Committee ``Jose de la Cruz Mena'' continued success in its efforts to preserve and highlight Nicaraguan traditions!

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 188 through 193. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 191, 192, and 193, and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 188, 189, and 190.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Today's vote on H.R. 4438 and on five other Republican bills to come that would permanently extend other tax breaks without paying for them will increase the deficit by $310 billion and lead to Republican cuts to services like Medicare, health research, and school funding. How much is $310 billion? That is five times what we spend on services to our veterans. We have over 21 million Americans who have served in uniform who are veterans of this country. That $310 billion is three times what the Federal Government invests in education, job training, and social services for an entire year. It is over 10 times what we spend annually on medical research to come up with the innovations and the lifesaving treatments that Americans rely upon. We hear from our colleagues on the Republican side that they are fiscally responsible, that they are fiscal hawks, but they pass these severe budgets that would cut schools, that would cut medical research, that would cut Medicare funding for our seniors, that would cut Social Security, but they have to do it because we have to get rid of that deficit. Here we have the fiscal pretenders. In this bill, H.R. 4438, our Republican colleagues propose to blow the deficit wide open by adding $310 billion to that deficit by passing these unpaid-for tax breaks. Yet when it is time to make the tough choices, when it comes to providing the services that our middle class families want for their children to go to college, they can't do it. But there is a free pass for these corporate tax breaks. What American citizen and taxpayer would trust this Republican math from our colleagues? I urge colleagues to vote against this budget-busting legislation and turn our focus to building an economy that works for all Americans, not just a select few.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let me say in advance that I appreciate the work that has been done by any number of Members with regard to this legislation. Many people have engaged in a good faith effort to try to find an acceptable solution that resolves issues which are legitimate and have raised a concern for a lot of us with regard to how we move forward with the Affordable Care Act and make sure that not only Americans are covered, but that our companies can continue to offer insurance coverage for those Americans that are not only affordable but have high quality. And many of us have recognized that in the case of Americans who are out of the country for more time than they are in the country in a year, that we may have to make some exceptions for them so that the company that is offering them health insurance can offer a policy that is competitive. We don't want to price out our American companies that offer health insurance coverage simply because they are trying to meet domestic care standards for health care that are required as a result of the Affordable Care Act but that may not work as well abroad. So you take a look at the name of this bill, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014. You think, okay, that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to help expatriates, Americans who work abroad more time than they are here at home. But when you take a close look at the bill, that is not what it does. We are told by the Congressional Research Service that there are probably about 285,000 Americans who have expatriate health care coverage. This bill wouldn't impact just those 285,000 Americans. This bill impacts millions because it impacts U.S. citizens who are here in the country, not abroad for more than half of the time, and it could have an impact on every single legal immigrant who is in this country. So I think all of us agree. We want to make sure that the Affordable Care Act and its patient protections work, and if we could tweak things to make it work better, we should. But this is not a bill for expatriates. This is a bill that goes way beyond. So let's not fool ourselves. We have to take care of trying to deal with the narrow exception that we are looking at for expatriates, not create a giant loophole by which we can now remove the protection against discrimination for preexisting conditions that right now all Americans and legal immigrants can now know that they have. We want to make sure that all of those people who now have protection from the plans that don't provide coverage after a certain amount of money, where all of a sudden, boom, you go bankrupt because you didn't know that your insurance company would only cover $50,000 of your health care costs, that protection might be gone. What we don't want is to create a giant loophole in trying to help a narrow band of Americans and companies that offer these Americans health insurance coverage. The White House has said there is a fix here. And I know the White House has been trying to work with the proponents of this bill to come up with a fix. But as they said the last time this was up, this needs work, and it should not come up for a vote. But what are they saying now? The administration issued this today: The administration does not support House passage of H.R. 4414 in its current form because it would reduce consumer protections and create even more loopholes in the Tax Code. There is a fix, but this is not it because it goes way beyond. And what we also have to do is recognize that there are other things involved. This bill will cost the American taxpayers money. How much? We are told by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax Committee, $1.4 billion. Is it paid for? Are the $1.4 billion that we would take away from--or have to take from other taxpayers covered so that we won't have to have other Americans pay for this? No. This bill is unpaid for. And so for any number of reasons, we should sit down and get this resolved the right way because the White House says there is a fix. Those of us who oppose this bill say there is a fix. But to create more loopholes which allow American citizens and immigrants who are lawfully here, working hard, to all of a sudden be deprived of their protections----

Mr. BECERRA. To deprive American citizens who don't know about this, to deprive those immigrants who came to this country legally and are working in this country and today have the same protections to make sure they are not discriminated against for a preexisting condition, who also have a chance to get offered a plan that has those protections against that fine print we used to see in the health policies, to all of a sudden tell them that they are going to be denied that because we were trying to fix a problem for Americans who work abroad for more than a half a year, that is not what we should be doing. There is a fix. This should not cost the taxpayers more money. And I believe we could do this pretty quickly because it is a narrow issue. If we really want to help expats, take out the language in the bill that talks about legal immigrants who are in the country. It talks about workers who come to this country to work under worker visa categories, like in the high-tech field or in agriculture. We can do this very simply. And I just appeal to my colleagues and friends on both sides of the aisle: Let's not open up bigger loopholes that cost the taxpayers money simply to try to fix a narrow version of this that we know we can do. So with that, I hope that sanity will prevail before this goes too far.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the ranking member on the Budget Committee for, first, all the work he has done over the years in trying to get America back on track when it comes to what it should do with its budgets. Budgets are a testament to our values and our priorities, and I believe Mr. Van Hollen has made it very clear what the values and priorities of Members of this side of the aisle are. It is about making sure that we invest the taxpayer dollars to help our economy grow, help grow jobs, and help our kids grow up and get to college. But let me remind everyone here of something. Remember those brainless, autopilot sequester cuts which had been scheduled for last year that led to the Republican shutdown of our government? Well, the Republican budget of 2015 is sequester on steroids. Remember last year's autopilot sequester cuts that would have kicked over 50,000 children out of Head Start classes? Well, the 2015 Republican budget kicks 170,000 kids out of Head Start classes. This Republican budget would kill jobs, with 1.1 million Americans likely to lose their job as a result of this budget and probably 3 million more the following year are the estimates. This budget would cut seniors' Social Security benefits by changing the way we calculate their cost-of-living increases so that they would get less each year, even though we know the cost of living for seniors keeps going up. They would continue to reduce our investments in very important projects that include Medicare, because this Republican budget would voucherize Medicare. It would turn it into a privatized version of what we have now, without the guarantees, so that seniors will be paying more for their prescription drugs. This Republican budget would close not one single wasteful corporate tax loophole and, instead, it actually offers billionaires a $200,000 tax cut at the same time that it is increasing taxes for the middle class by about $2,000. It should surprise no one that, while we are not closing any tax loopholes in the Republican budget and while we are increasing the taxes for middle class Americans, this Republican budget excludes things that we should do. Through this budget we could, right now, move to increase the economy's capacity, increase the number of jobs, and decrease our deficits by finally fixing our broken immigration system. Our Democratic budget does that; the Republican budget doesn't. And as a result, we give up, through the Republican budget, an opportunity to reduce our deficits by close to a trillion dollars over the next couple of decades. We give up the opportunity to create close to 3.5 million jobs over the next 10 to 20 years by doing immigration reform, and we give up the chance to strengthen Social Security by doing immigration reform. The Democratic budget makes those investments. The Democratic budget actually invests in early childhood education. The Democratic budget makes it possible for more middle class families to afford to send their kids to college. The Democratic budget makes those investments because we do close corporate tax loopholes. We do go after those who are evading paying their fair share of taxes. And we can make those investments in early childhood education, in fixing our broken immigration system, in investing in our roads and bridges because we go after those who are evading paying their taxes. We could do that. But, again, I remind you, this is a budget being presented on this floor from our colleagues on the other side that actually put the brainless cuts under the sequester on autopilot. And we need to defeat that.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, let me first acknowledge the work that has been done by so many of our colleagues here bipartisanly, the gentleman from Delaware, the gentleman from California, the committees of jurisdiction, and leadership, I suspect, on both sides of the aisle. I, too, have been involved in trying to deal with this. If you take a look at the title of the bill, it tells you what they are trying to do. The bill is called the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act, so the bill tells us that it is to deal with the issue of expatriates. Well, who are expatriates, and how are they impacted by the Affordable Care Act? An expatriate, I think most of us would acknowledge, is an American who is told by his or her employer, we need to send you abroad to go work--whatever the task is--but I need you to go; so that expatriate, now living abroad, will be told that he or she must have an insurance policy that abides by the Affordable Care Act's protections for Americans who get health care here. The insurers will say: well, we may have to deal with different standards in that other country, so give us some flexibility. That is very fair. We should make sure that any company that has to send a worker abroad has the flexibility to make sure that they are providing good coverage, but that they are not strapped by the regulations that apply to coverage here in the U.S. Everyone agrees with that. Here is the problem: this bill doesn't do that. It doesn't do that, and I say that with all due respect to my colleague from Delaware. It doesn't do that. Let me ask you this: Is someone who works in this country 365 days of the year someone who we would consider an expatriate? Is an American who spends most of his time--three-quarters of his time working in the U.S. an expatriate? Should the family of that American who goes abroad, but the family never leaves the U.S., be denied the protections of the Affordable Care Act, so that a preexisting condition can now be used to discriminate against the child of that American worker? That is the difficulty with this bill. This bill talks about expatriates, but the reality is a lot of Americans who never leave this country and a lot of foreign workers, including green card holders who are on their way to becoming citizens, who have every lawful right to be here because they have gone about it the right way, they are just waiting their time so they can qualify to become U.S. citizens--many of them could be denied the protections that we all now have. We cannot be discriminated against based on a preexisting condition. We must be provided minimal protections. We have a right, now, to make sure that an insurance company doesn't use what we are paying in premiums to put in the pockets of executives and big salaries. That money has to now be spent, by law, on health care coverage. This bill would say no, those who are expatriates would qualify for different plans that don't have to meet those Affordable Care standards. Why should more than 13 million people who are in this country legally and are on their way to becoming U.S. citizens--who today have the same protections you and I have to not be discriminated against for preexisting conditions--because this bill that is supposed to be for expatriates, now be told no, you might be offered a policy that doesn't have to meet the Affordable Care standards? Why should an American family that sees one of its breadwinners, father or mother, be sent abroad to work for 90 days be told no, we no longer have to offer you an Affordable Care health care policy that prevents discrimination against your child because he or she has asthma? If this were a bill to focus on the issue of expatriates who go work abroad, where I think it is a legitimate concern of the insurance company to not impose upon the insurance company costs that are beyond what are paid here, I would agree that this goes well beyond that, and I would urge my colleagues to think twice before voting for this bill this way.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, first the facts--not the facts from this side of the aisle, not the facts from the other party, but the facts that we get from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which is in charge of telling all of us--Congress and the rest of the country--what does legislation that is proposed by Democrats and Republicans actually cost, and what will it actually do. They are the nonpartisan referee that we are supposed to rely on to sort of give us the facts without getting into these political battles. What do the folks at the Congressional Budget Office say about this bill? One, it will increase the deficit by $75 billion; two, around a million American workers will lose their health insurance coverage that they get through their employer today; and three, around five times as many workers in America will be at risk of losing hours at work as a result of this bill should it become law. Okay, so those are the facts not from Republicans, not from Democrats, but from the nonpartisan CBO. So let's now talk a little bit about those facts a bit more, because I think a lot of folks are very confused. What the heck is going on? We are going to lose hours at work? We are going to gain? What is going on? Essentially it is this. We have got to figure out how we make sure that employers who currently offer health insurance to their employees don't say, hey, I don't want to do it anymore, so I am going to stop offering it. How can I do that? I can make sure I keep my employees employed for less hours than is required by the law. This bill says if you have that threshold that the number of hours you have to work is 30, well, a whole bunch of employers are going to say, hey, I can game the system if I drop the number of hours my employee works at the job to less than 30. That is true. The problem is this. The vast majority of Americans don't work 31 hours, 32 hours a week. They work 40. A lot of Americans, in fact, work 42, 44. They work overtime. So what the Affordable Care Act did was made sure that most employers who currently offer employer-covered insurance to their employees continue to do it because very few employers are going to say, I can game the system by dropping my 40- hour worker to 29 hours. That is 11 quality hours, unless you were just letting these folks just sit on a couch. What happens if you raise the number of work hours to qualify for the affordable care coverage to 40 hours? Well, that is why the CBO says about 1 million Americans will lose their insurance coverage, because if you are working a 40-hour workweek, an employer would say, gosh, it would be tough for me to drop you to 29 hours, it would be a lot easier to say, I will drop you to 39\1/2\ hours, in which case I no longer have to offer you insurance. That is why the Congressional Budget Office said that over 1 million Americans would lose their health insurance coverage and why it would cost about $75 billion to do this legislation, because guess what? If the employers are no longer offering you insurance and you still have to go to the doctor for your child and you can't afford it anymore because you don't have insurance, guess who gets to pay? The folks up there in the audience in the gallery and those of us here who pay taxes, because guess what? They will go to the emergency room, and now they will use the Medicaid program to help cover that bill they can no longer afford because the employer cut them back a little bit. If we all really want to make sure Americans get to work, then let's separate the myth from the fact. Remember 4 years ago death panels? If the Affordable Care Act, this new health security law, takes effect, death panels are going to decide if your grandmother gets to live. How many death panels have you heard that have told your family member he or she will have to die? Okay, I ask anyone in this audience, do you have a doctor? Do you have insurance? Do you know your doctor? Ask yourself this question: What is the name of your government doctor? You have a doctor. Did you know your doctor works for the government? You are going to say, no, I have known my doctor for a long time. He or she doesn't work directly for the government. If you believe the myth, yes, your doctor does because, remember, this was a government takeover of health care. It was a myth. In fact, this Affordable Care Act's law requires you to use private health insurance coverage to get your health care through private doctors and private hospitals. But what it does is it requires you to do it, and it requires employers to do it, as well. That is what the law did. It didn't say, you are going to go to a government doctor or a government hospital.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman. So once you separate the facts from the myth, it becomes pretty clear what we have to do. We have to make sure if you are an American we reward you for your work. If you are an American and you get health insurance through your employer, we don't want your employer to game the system and put the burden on you now. And so what we want is to make it affordable for the employee and affordable for the employer. This bill makes it unaffordable for the employee moving forward, and it makes it, quite honestly, for the employer, as well, because you are losing your good workers. We need to defeat this bill and try to make the Affordable Care Act work for everyone.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 537) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 531) and ask for its immediate consideration.