Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. 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. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. 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. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 26, 2016, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call vote number 557 and 558. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call vote number 557 and ``yes'' on roll call vote number 558.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture this Saturday, September 24, 2016. As the nineteenth museum to join the Smithsonian Institution, the National Museum of African American History and Culture joins the world's largest museum, education, and research complex. It is the only national museum devoted exclusively to the documentation of African American life, history, and culture. When the Smithsonian was founded in 1846, the United States was a far less perfect union than the one we live in today, and the idea of a museum that would tell the story of African Americans could hardly have been imagined. Yet there can be no denying that the story of America and its vitality, resilience, and optimism are rooted and reflected in the African American experience. In the words of Lonnie G. Bunch III, founding director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, ``there are few things as powerful and as important as a people, as a nation that is steeped in its history.'' As Members of Congress, we have the privilege of representing the entirety of the American people and working in the ``People's House'' and under the glorious dome of our U.S. Capitol and its crowning feature, the Statue of Freedom. In the pages of history, you will find extensive information about the architect of the Capitol, the artist who designed the Statue of Freedom, and the foundry owner who was commissioned for the casting of the statue. What is less known is the story of Philip Reid, the enslaved laborer of the foundry owner who was the only known slave working on Freedom and instrumental to its successful casting in bronze. Philip Reid worked on the casting of Freedom from 1860 through 1862, despite the beginning of the Civil War and its toll on construction of the Capitol. When the statue was finally completed and placed atop the Capitol Dome in 1863, Reid had become a free man thanks to the Compensated Emancipation Act signed by President Lincoln. The story of Philip Reid is the story of America, and only one of the many histories and cultural contributions that will be shared with the American public at the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Like the building of the U.S. Capitol, the creation of this museum has taken almost a century, but its time has finally come. Today, we celebrate its opening and its tribute to generations of Americans past, present and future and the defining way in which our country has been shaped by our African American brothers and sisters. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I recall the words of the Harlem Renaissance poet Langston Hughes who wrote that ``America is a dream . . . not my dream alone, but our dream. Not my world alone, but your world and my world.'' Let us all share in this great dream made real together.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 13, 2016, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call vote number 496. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on roll call vote number 496. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 14, 2016, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call vote number 508 (Rep. Boustany amendment). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call vote number 508.

Mr. BECERRA

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

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, section 430 in this bill provides a blanket prohibition of the EPA having the opportunity to make sure that financial responsibility requirements are imposed on polluters. There may be some provisions in this bill to try to deal with some of these aspects of pollution, but there is nothing that would require the polluter to show financial responsibility if we don't get rid of section 430. Therefore, in this bill, we would essentially be making lawful polluters polluting communities and not having to take responsibility for cleaning them up. I don't believe the American people, and certainly not American taxpayers, are expecting Congress to be passing bills that put the burden on taxpayers to clean up someone else's pollution. Beyond the cost of the pollution is the cost to our families. Children who are infected by lead contamination could suffer a permanent effect. I think that we want to make sure we are providing our children and our families with every bit of safety they expect, especially when they had no responsibility for the contamination of the pollution that exists in their neighborhoods. I urge my colleagues to consider this amendment which simply would strike this provision so that EPA can do the work that we expect it to do, and that is to preserve the safety and health of our communities by making sure if you are going to have a business that pollutes, that you be responsible for cleaning it up. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 430 from the underlying bill. Section 430 blocks efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that industries which handle hazardous substances set aside sufficient funds, in the form of bonds or insurance, to clean up toxic spills or releases that are attributable to their hazardous activities. Under current law, the EPA is required to set financial responsibility requirements for industries at high risk of polluting the environment to the point of creating these toxic Superfund sites. Congress required the EPA to establish financial responsibility requirements to ensure that taxpayers do not have to pay for the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites. Communities across America experience firsthand what it is like to live and breathe through the contamination of a serial polluter. Right now, thousands of people in my hometown of Los Angeles are living through this very nightmare. After nearly 30 years of operating a lead recycling battery plant, Exide Technologies in the Los Angeles area shut its operations down after contaminating some 10,000 thousand homes with lead--let me repeat that--10,000 homes with lead in the Los Angeles area. It has been more than a year since Exide shut down this plant and we still don't know who will foot the bill for cleaning those nearly 10,000 homes with each home carrying up to a $40,000 price tag to get cleaned up. A $40,000 price tag, 10,000 homes--do the math--$400 million. And that $400 million only deals with the cleanup, it doesn't deal with the health effects that those 10,000-plus people will have to deal with for their children and for themselves having suffered from the contamination of lead in and around their property. Mr. Chairman, section 430 lets polluters off the hook and leaves the American taxpayer on the hook for cleaning up their messes. I don't believe the American people intend for American taxpayers to have to take on the cost of cleaning up someone else's pollution. That is why I have introduced this amendment to strike section 430 from the bill, so that polluters, not American taxpayers, take the responsibility for cleaning up their mess. I urge passage of my amendment to ensure that polluters, not taxpayers, clean up their pollution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 6, 2016, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call vote number 368 (Rep. Ellison amendment). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on roll call vote number 368.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent--because it is more than just time for a moment of silence--that we bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Shannon Johnson, a victim of gun violence, who died during the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, who never received a moment of silence on this House floor, to dignify the passing and the need to do something for him and his family.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, when you make a contribution to the local volunteer fire department, you know what the money will be used for. When you make a contribution to the League of Women Voters, you know what the contribution will be used for. When you make a contribution to the NAACP, you know what the contribution will be used for. There are a whole bunch of organizations that we don't understand why they are using their money for something other than social welfare. They are influencing our elections. It has to stop. We can't even find out what the source of the money is. It could be money laundered from some drug sale. It could be money from some foreign government. We don't know where the money from some of these organizations is coming from to influence our elections. It is time for us to have clarity. This provision in this bill has no reason, no purpose, to be here. It simply keeps secret the dark money that influences our elections. My amendment simply strikes that provision so that the IRS can give us clarity on who can and who cannot use tax-exempt laws to try to be a social welfare organization. It is time for us to have clarity in the law. Get rid of secret money. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. BECERRA. Can the Chairman let me know how much time remains?

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Secret money is killing our democracy. More and more, our elections are being driven by organizations that are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in secret donations. We don't know and can't find out who is giving all this money. These secret organizations use the Tax Code to hide the source of their money by operating under a law meant for not-for-profit social welfare organizations. These organizations get tax-exempt treatment and don't have to report the donors of their dollars. The result is this: What was meant to be for a social welfare organization, organizations we would recognize, like voluntary fire departments or the NAACP, all those organizations are now being used as cover by other organizations which are using the Tax Code to be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars driving our elections every year now; so much so that, today, those organizations that are so-called social welfare organizations are spending more money than the political parties, the Democratic political party and the Republican political party, spend combined. In 2006, these so-called social welfare organizations spent about $1.5 million campaigning, politicking. In 2012, our last Presidential election, these so-called social welfare organizations spent more than $257 million, more than the two political parties spent in 2012 for the Presidential elections. Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in this bill that would prevent the IRS from giving guidance to make sure that no one is abusing the Tax Code to influence our politics, and I simply have an amendment that would strike that provision, so that the IRS could tell us what is a social welfare organization and what is really a political organization, so we don't give special tax treatment to these so-called social welfare organizations that are really politicking and we don't let them hide behind that particular tax provision to hide the names of their donors. We have no idea who is giving this money and, Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to have transparency and openness in our election system, not hide this. Secret money is killing our elections. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to my friend from Illinois and some of his comments, and my friend from Oregon. The Clinton Foundation, great that you raise that because, see, the Clinton Foundation has raised a lot of questions in the minds of some. At least, some are trying to politicize it, whether you agree or don't agree with the money that came, because some money did come from foreign sources. This bill would terminate the need for the Clinton Foundation to report any sources of its income. So, if you are concerned that the Clinton Foundation has gotten some contributions from foreign sources, this bill makes it worse because, under this legislation, the Clinton Foundation wouldn't have to report any of those contributions anymore. And so that is the craziness of this legislation. It is not speculation to say what will happen. We have gone from virtually zero spending by social welfare organizations that are tax exempt for political purposes to, now, these social welfare organizations spending more than the political parties spend together. So it is not speculation. The expert from the Joint Tax Committee said so himself. This is what will happen, could happen, if we pass this legislation. Please reject this bill.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, the parties spent $255 million in 2012 politicking because that is what they are there to do. They have a partisan position, so they are using their money that people contribute to politick. And by the way, when you make a contribution, you have got to report it when you make a contribution to that political party. $257 million in 2012 was spent by these social welfare organizations on politicking, and under this bill, if it becomes law, guess what? Those contributors won't have to be identified; and so whatever your motives, you get to influence our elections without the American people--who can't do the same thing, because if they give a contribution, they have got to disclose it--without the American people knowing who you are. I don't believe that is where this country wants to go. And I don't care under what good-government kind of window you try to frame this, what you are doing is you are opening the door for secret money to influence our elections--as if it isn't bad enough how much our elections are influenced by people who have wealth and do much more than the average American can ever do. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not a time to do that. Let's vote for openness. And if you vote for openness, you have to vote against this bill.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think it is, first, important to clarify this legislation impacts tax exempt organizations under the Tax Code, section 501(c). Many of these tax exempt organizations we recognize as charities, like United Way and so forth, foundations. Social welfare organizations, they come in any variety. A social welfare organization, typically when we think social welfare, it means, essentially, organizations that are promoting the common good and the general welfare of the people of a community. Social welfare organizations. What the problem, then, here is that we have seen so many social welfare organizations, the 501(c)(4)s, become not promoters of social good, but some of the biggest campaign spenders in our election process. They use the loopholes in the Tax Code to be able to collect a whole bunch of money that usually Americans think goes to do social welfare and instead is now being used to drive our campaigns. So this is now the problem with this particular legislation. This legislation says: You know what? Those organizations right now have to document who is giving them money, who is contributing the dollars to them, if it is bigger than a $5,000 contribution. This bill says no longer would any of those 501(c) organizations, those tax exempt organizations, have to file the name of the contributor. At a time, right now, when so many Americans have become skeptical about our government's ability to promote the interests of our citizens first, at a time when so many believe our government is driven by special interests, we should be asking for more openness in our government, not less in how we do business. Secret money is hijacking our American democracy. This bill would prohibit the disclosure of substantial contributions and promote special interest secrecy. What do I mean by that? This bill becomes a license to secretly influence our elections. How? A foreign government doesn't like where American policy is going, so guess what? They want to influence who gets elected. What do they do? They don't make a contribution to a candidate because they can't under the law. What did they do? They now give to one of these social welfare organizations and let them use the money to politic in our campaigns. And guess what? If this bill becomes law, you will never know the name of that foreign government or foreign government official who makes that contribution. It can be a $5,000 contribution. It can be a $5 billion contribution. You never have to report it if you are one of these tax exempt organizations. What else? Say there are drug traffickers who don't like that we may be getting tough on our drug laws. They don't like it. They want to elect people who won't be so tough. Because a drug trafficker won't give it directly to a candidate, they give it to one of these social welfare organizations. The social welfare organization, under this bill, won't have to report the contribution, the name of the contributor. If that drug trafficker gives $5,000 or $5 billion, it is never disclosed. Who else? We are right now fighting ISIS. Say ISIS wants to make sure somebody gets elected to be the next President or a Member of Congress. They don't like somebody else. How do the they influence our elections? They get one of their wealthy contributors to give money to one of these tax exempt organizations. And guess what? That ISIS contributor never gets disclosed. Since when do Americans want us to have a system in our elections where contributions can be made to influence our elections if we don't know who is doing it? If you don't believe it is true that that is going on, let me give you this statistic that will blow your mind. Four years ago, in our last Presidential election, the parties--the Democrat Party and the Republican Party combined, the parties that we know are there for politics--spent a quarter of a billion dollars in the 2012 elections. Guess how much these social welfare organizations spent in that same election? More than the two parties combined.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call vote number 155. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call vote number 155.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, just as we expect our doctors to act in our best interests, so should the financial advisers, whom we pay to help us make those very important investment decisions for retirement. There is nothing strange about this rule. It is just trying to bring us up to speed with the times. This rule says that the saver's best interest comes first before the financial adviser's commission can be taken into consideration or before that financial adviser can make decisions based on his or her association to a particular type of investment. Thirty years ago maybe this was not such a big issue because, 30 years ago, folks, like my parents, used to get their retirement savings through their pensions. You paid into it through your work, and you knew how much you would get out. It was fixed. It is what we called defined benefit plans. Your benefit was defined because you kept contributing while you worked. Those are pretty much gone. Today it is all about 401(k)s and IRAs, and all of a sudden, you, the worker, have to make decisions on your investment because you do not know how much it will return once you retire. It is all based on what the market does; so now you have to make sure that your money that is in this 401(k) goes to the right investment vehicles. The best thing to do is to go to someone who can give you advice. Too often, some of these advisers are advising you not based on what is in your best interest, but on where they can get extra commissions or if they have associations with particular investments. This rule simply says to make your decision in the best interest of the saver, not in your best interest as the financial adviser. That is all it says. It is a big rule. Why? Because the financial services industry said: Wait a minute. You just can't say that. You have to say it in ways that don't affect the way we have a relationship with that saver. So all of those accommodations were made to try to deal with it so we would always have investment advisers who would want to deal with American savers. Remember, the problem here is that a lot of Americans don't have a lot to save, and a lot of investment advisers say: You are not worth my time. What we don't want to do is restrict those investment advisers from talking to the average American who doesn't have all that much to save for retirement; but, by God, we don't want to say to that investment adviser to go ahead and take advantage of that saver. This is a best interest rule for the saver. We should vote against this rule which rejects the Department of Labor's rule.