Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Daniel ``Danny'' Dario Villanueva, a dear friend, successful athlete and businessman, and champion of the little guy. Danny passed away unexpectedly at the age of 77. His death is a deep loss for Myrna, his wife, his sons Danny Jr. and Jim, and his extended family. Losing Danny brings equal sadness to all who believe in the American Dream and seek role models willing to answer that call to duty. In reflecting on Danny Villanueva's accomplishments, the list is long. The better question to ask is: what didn't Danny accomplish. From his humble beginnings in Tucumcari, New Mexico--the ninth of twelve children of migrant missionary workers--and throughout the rest of his life, Danny pioneered a remarkable path in professional sports, the broadcasting industry and the investment and philanthropic world. As a kicker for the Los Angeles Rams, Danny was one of the first Latino players in the National Football League. His successful and record-breaking career there, and later with the Dallas Cowboys, helped open the door to a sportscaster job with the KMEX television station in Los Angeles, which at the time was a fledgling Spanish-language broadcaster. Today, KMEX serves as the West Coast flagship for the Univision network. But Danny didn't just stand in front of the KMEX camera, he stood behind it as a journalist, a news director, a general manager and its President. He eventually became an owner of KMEX and the network which we know as Univision. In all those roles, he committed himself to serving the community of Los Angeles. Whether it was broadcasting that was happening in the city through a Latino lens or raising funds to help new immigrant families, or victims of natural disaster, Danny was their voice and their advocate. And, putting his money where his mouth is, he became one of LA's true philanthropists. Even after he retired from broadcasting, his passion for philanthropic work continued through his founding of an investment firm focused on helping small and family businesses and the establishment of a scholarship fund at his alma mater New Mexico State University. He and Myrna remained actively involved in many charitable causes throughout his life. Danny was a leader, an innovator, a loving husband and father and an incredible example to many of us of a man determined to do good as he did well. Without Danny, the Spanish-language news and broadcasting industry in the U.S. would not be what it is today. Without Danny, there would be no Univision, no Telemundo or many of the other broadcasting giants that exist today. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and share some of Danny Villanueva's successes because they are not just his, they belong to us all. For anyone who aspires to the American Dream, Danny's life and legacy show us that with hard work, compassion and a sense of humor, anything is possible. Danny will remain in our hearts not only as a friend, but as a champion to his family, his community and to all the little guys who believe in hard work and relentless effort. To Myrna, Danny Jr. and Jim, we extend our warmest affection and gratitude for sharing with us this champion of America. Through our collective success we will do justice to the memory of Daniel Dario Villanueva.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the third anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program established by President Barack Obama and which has transformed the lives of over half a million young people in our country. The DACA program has given aspiring Americans of immigrant heritage across our country the chance to more fully contribute their talents to our society and aid in our nation's economic recovery. I think of DREAMers like Jose Garcia, a young student from Los Angeles who was just accepted to Harvard University and is a DACA recipient. Because he was able to apply for DACA, his hard work in school paid off and now he can pursue a college education in the only country he has ever known. Since the DACA program began in 2012, there are more than 261,000 young women and men in California, who like Jose, have been approved for DACA. Today, on the third anniversary of DACA, we are here to say that we are ready and waiting for that opportunity to help all of these families who want to come out of the shadows. We're ready for the President's executive actions on expanded DACA and the Deferred Action Program for Parents (DAPA) to move forward. We're ready--estamos listos. Y le digo a nuestras familias inmigrantes que se preparen, porque ya llega el dia. [We're ready. And I want to tell our immigrant families to be prepared, because the day is coming]. Ojala, en estos proximos meses, podemos darles a todos las buenas noticias que estos programas vitales del Presidente van a seguir adelante. [Hopefully, in the coming months, we will be able to convey the good news that the President's vital programs will be able to move forward]. Mr. Speaker, our families and our communities look forward to progress on the President's executive actions as well as the day when we finally enact comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this trade promotion authority legislation, as we have heard, is all about writing the rules, writing the rules on trade. It is about who will lead or who will retreat on assisting on free and fair trade. This TPA legislation sets forward the instructions on how we will write the rules in any trade agreement. Okay. So who is going to lead in writing the rules? On currency manipulation, where countries, not just the companies, but the countries themselves that want to trade with us are cheating by manipulating their currency to make the value of their goods look less expensive than American products in the same area, when those countries are cheating, what are we going to say should be the rules when it comes to currency manipulation? Under this TPA, we can't say anything because we are prohibited from including anything in a trade agreement that will deal with currency manipulation. You then have to ask a second question. You are telling me that countries that are going to sign these deals are going to be allowed to cheat when it comes to how they manipulate their currency so their products will look cheaper than ours? We are supposed to depend on those same countries that are cheating to now enforce the rules in these agreements against companies in those countries that are cheating? What kind of instruction is that? What about when it comes to letting people in America know what is in these deals? What if we want to know where the products that are going to be bought and sold in our stores come from? Shouldn't we have the right, if we want, to know the country of origin of a particular product? I have heard about tainted milk coming from places around the world. We have heard about toys that have dangerous chemicals in them that our kids play with. Don't we want to know where these products are coming from? That is all we are saying, just to know where they are coming from, not that we are going to degrade the place where they come from; we just want to know if it is made in the USA or made somewhere else.

Mr. BECERRA. Under this TPA, we can't ask those questions. We won't be able to find out where a product is made because someone else--a tribunal, not an American court--will decide whether we can label a product as made in the USA or not. Right now, these international tribunals that have no American jurists or judges sitting on them get to decide for us if Americans should have the right to know where a product is coming from that they are buying from a store in their neighborhood. How does that lead to making sure trade is free and fair if we can't even put a label on a product coming from some other country that has in the past sent us tainted products? We can do much better. We have over two or three decades of experience in writing trade deals. We know what works; we know what doesn't. The thing we know most is that enforcement is the most difficult aspect of trade because most companies in faraway places don't follow American law and American rules and they cheat and they think they think can get away with it. We can do much better. Let's get a better trade deal that is free and fair. This TPA doesn't give us that. It doesn't give us the right rules. Reject this TPA legislation.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Trade is pretty simple. We do it every day, whether you are trading in the old car for a newer car, or whether it is the largest economy in the world trading with the rest of the world. We do it every day. At the end of the day, what we want is a fair deal. I give you something; the benefit of the bargain is I get something back. Any country that wants access to our markets needs to play by the rules. We can't allow cheating to hurt our workers, their wages, our businesses, or our economy. And the American people get it. That is why they are so apprehensive about any trade deal this Congress puts before it, because they want to know, will we lead on their behalf? Or are we going to let the special interests dictate the rules? Will we retreat from our responsibility to make sure that if some foreign company is going to have access to our markets, they are going to play by the rules? When I take a look at this trade promotion authority legislation, I ask myself, how can you ever get a good trade deal out of this when the rules are rigged against America? One simple example. Everyone agrees we have had a bipartisan consensus in this House--more than 230 Members have signed on to a letter in the past saying, We have got to stop countries that manipulate their currency to try to make their products produced by their companies look cheaper than American products. Yet, this legislation would prohibit us from going after the countries that are cheating to prevent the companies in those countries from cheating. So how are we going to stop the companies that we know are pirating, that are stealing, that are cheating against us, how are we ever going to stop them if the rules require us to go through those countries to try to get those companies to abide by the rules? When the country is cheating, I guarantee you, the companies are going to cheat. And that is not the way you get foreigners to access our market. We can do much better. We have to do much better because the American people want us to lead, not retreat. That is why we should vote this down and get a better deal that the American people know and feel is the right thing for America.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call votes 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call 319, ``no'' on roll call 320, ``no'' on roll call 321, ``no'' on roll call 322, ``no'' on roll call 323, ``yea'' on roll call 324, ``no'' on roll call 325, ``yea'' on roll call 326, ``no'' on roll call 327, ``yea'' on roll call 328, and ``no'' on roll call 329.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call votes 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, and 260. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call 253, ``yea'' on roll call 254, ``yea'' on roll call 255, ``yea'' on roll call 256, ``yea'' on roll call 257, ``no'' on roll call 258, and ``no'' on roll call 260.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call votes 264, 265, 266, and 267. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call 264, ``yea'' on roll call 265, ``yea'' on roll call 266, and ``no'' on roll call 267.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let's make sure we get something straight. I don't think there is a Member here on the floor who doesn't agree that we want to invest in research and development so that we keep that innovation here at home and create jobs that pay well here at home. We all want to incentivize that job creation. We all want to make sure that the economy grows in the future. That is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is that this bill sends exactly the wrong message about our commitment to invest not just in our future but in our children and in what we call the middle class and the American Dream. See, there is a cost involved in doing research and development tax credits. That is a tax break. We are willing to give companies a tax break that the families who are up in this gallery won't get. When they file their taxes, they won't get to write off some of their costs for doing certain things because they are not companies, and they are not doing research and development. We, as a community, as a country, are saying it is valuable to give a country a tax break to do that research that gives us the next invention. Great, but there is a cost. How much? $180 billion. It ain't free. We have got to pay for it. So it is not an issue of not supporting research and development; it is wanting to be responsible and wanting to be honest with the American people in saying let's pay for it. Democrats are saying we can pay for it. Let's close those tax breaks that are essentially tax loopholes that everyone in America would agree are not fair. Use the money you save from closing tax loopholes to pay for something we all want, which is research and development tax credits. Now, this isn't free. If we don't pay for it, what happens? Guess what? You don't want to pay for it? You know this is going to cost three times more than what we spend on our veterans. So we are going to say, Veterans, you shouldn't get any services because we had to do this research and development tax credit, and we didn't pay for it. Perhaps you want to tell that to all of those folks who are looking for the cure for cancer or for the cure for diabetes. Guess what? We are spending about three times as much with this research and development tax credit--unpaid for--than what we pay for all of that medical research we do through the National Institutes of Health. This is not free. Student loans. How many folks have to worry about paying for their student loans for their kids to go to college? Guess what? The cost of this bill is about what it would cost to continue the programs that we have in place for our kids who go on to college so we can keep the cost of student loans low. You want to eliminate that so people have to pay a lot more--market rate interest rates--for those student loans? Guess what? That is what we would have to do. There are consequences. If we are going to get away from deficit spending, you have got to pay for things. If you think it is a priority, then let's pay for it, but don't act like you can do these things for free. They cost money. All we are saying is let's pay for what we all agree is important--a research and development tax credit for companies that will do that research here in America. Let's not try to hoodwink the American public. This is not free. It is the right thing to do. Just about every American family would say, Guess what? Maybe I have to pay a few more dollars in taxes, but I am keeping that American company here, investing in innovation here, creating jobs in America. Priorities. Let's make the tough choices. Let's vote against this and vote for a bill that actually pays for the cost of something we want to do with the research and development tax credit.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Father Gregory Goethals, a member of the Society of Jesus and the president of Loyola High School in Los Angeles, to the United States House of Representatives. We thank him for delivering today's opening prayer. Father Goethals is one of Los Angeles' finest public servants. He has dedicated his life to educating our country's next generation of leaders. Loyola High School, an all-boys school in the Pico Union area of Los Angeles, ranks as one of the finest institutions of secondary education in America. At Loyola, under Father Goethals, young men are motivated to become ``educated'' in the full sense of the word. Not only do students at Loyola go on to complete college at the finest universities in America, but they graduate Loyola having donated more than 1.5 million hours of community service to inner city schools and neighborhoods over the past 25 years. This year, Loyola High School will celebrate its 150th anniversary, making it the oldest continually operated educational institution in southern California. Under the visionary stewardship of Father Goethals, Loyola is poised to graduate yet another era of American heroes and leaders. For that, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me to applaud Father Gregory Goethals for his dedication to his faith and to our leaders of tomorrow. We will remember his words of prayer this morning.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call votes 208, 209, and 210. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call vote 208, ``no'' on roll call vote 209, and ``no'' on roll call vote 210.

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. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it could be very confusing trying to understand what is going on. I see in today's gallery a lot of young Americans--our future leaders--and they are probably wondering: Is this something that might affect me in the future? Because I think everyone in America has this dream, this hope that our country makes available of making it in America, we all aspire to do well. I know my parents--my father didn't get more than a sixth grade education--aspired to see their kids do more. I know they are very proud of what their children have been able to accomplish. Make no doubt, we all want to make sure that we make it in America. We all want to make sure that we have what we need to buy that first home, to send our kids to college, to save up enough for retirement. Most Americans would say: I have made it. That is the American Dream. If I can guarantee those things and know my kids are going to have an opportunity to be better than me, that is great. Can I do more? I would love to do more. I don't think that most Americans say that we have to give a tax break not to the wealthy, not to the megawealthy, not to the ultra- megawealthy, but to the uber-mega-ultra-superwealthy, a tax break that would cost all us taxpayers $270 billion because this bill is not paid for when, at the same time, that $270 billion would pay for the same amount of coverage for the entire National Institutes of Health to do all the research that we expect it to do to help us cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, lung cancer, and heart disease. All that research that the National Institutes of Health is doing with all those great scientists and all those universities today in America costs for 10 years the same amount that this bill would cost to give not 1 percent of the wealthiest--one-tenth of 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans--a tax break that costs $270 billion.

Mr. BECERRA. Every time a proponent of this measure gets up and says, We want to protect the family farmer, they have to say, Well, we mean the one-tenth of 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans who may be a family farmer. I guarantee you that guy is not going to have callouses on his hands if he is a family farmer, and he is one-tenth of 1 percent of the richest Americans. Let's be real. We have priorities. We want to make it in America. We want to buy that house; we want to send our kids to college, and we want to be able to retire securely. You don't have to be the one-tenth of 1 percent richest Americans, at the cost of $270 billion to all the other Americans, especially every one of those folks sitting in this gallery today, to say we have got to give a tax break to the uberwealthy. Let's not vote for this bill. I see in the gallery of this Chamber tomorrow's leaders. They have dreams and they have priorities for their future. The American people are pretty straightforward about what their priorities are. Having the opportunity to buy our own homes, send our kids to college, and having a secure retirement are parts of the American dream that we all aspire to. Thanks to the decisive actions taken by Congressional Democrats and President Obama during the Great Recession, our economy is on the rebound: Over the last 61 straight months our economy has created over 12 million jobs, the longest consecutive period of job growth on record. Wages have grown by over 5% over the last year. The high school graduation rate is at an all time high. Despite these gains, for too many families the American dream is still out of reach. Congress's number one priority should be to build on this foundation to boost wages and economic growth. It should be to strengthen investments in the middle class. It should be to ensure our tax code and economic policy rewards hard work, not just wealth. The legislation we are considering today does none of these things. It won't benefit any middle class Americans. It won't make investments in our education or our infrastructure, it won't create ladders of opportunity into the middle class, and it won't put the American dream within reach for working class families. Instead, this legislation is a special giveaway to the wealthiest estates. At a time when the wealthiest 1% of Americans hold more than 40% of the nation's wealth, it would widen the wealth gap even further. And we're not even talking about ``the 1%'' today--the group that benefits from this legislation is even more exclusive. This bill would only benefit uber-mega-ultra-super wealthy estates. This bill would give a mere fraction of the richest 1% estates a special tax break of over $3 million each, and leave working class families to pick up the tab. This bill only benefits fewer than 2 of every 1000 estates and costs $270 billion. What other investments could be made with this money? 100% of school nutrition programs, which provide nutritious meals to 31 million children every day; 100% of Social Security survivor benefits, 3/4 the cost of providing Pell grants to more than 9 million students a year over the next 10 years; 31 times the funding for Head Start for FY 2015; 39 times the funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for FY 2015; 104 times the funding for the Food and Drug Administration for FY 2015. Health Care: You could fund NIH's budget for 2015 9 times over. FY 2015 estimates: 461 times NIH Alzheimer's funding, 394 times NIH breast cancer funding, 50 times NIH general cancer funding, 894 times NIH stroke funding, 265 times NIH diabetes funding, 1929 times NIH Parkinson's funding, 221 times NIH heart disease funding. The bottom line is that this bill fails to help the middle class get back on their feet. It doesn't make it easier for the hardworking small business owner and it doesn't make it more affordable for a hardworking family to send their kids to college. It's time for Congress to get to work and ensure that we put the American Dream within reach for every American, not just the wealthiest few.

Mr. BECERRA

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

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, for nearly 80 years, Social Security has been the bedrock of economic security for American families. Generations of Americans have contributed to Social Security with every paycheck, earning birth-to-death protection for themselves and their families. As a result of their contributions--$16.1 trillion over Social Security's lifetime--Social Security currently has a $2.8 trillion surplus. Social Security benefits are modest--about $15,000 a year for an average senior and even less for a disabled worker--but for most recipients, their Social Security paycheck is more than half their monthly income. As a representative of those Americans and the Ranking Democrat on the Social Security Subcommittee, I believe we have no more important responsibility than to make sure that Americans receive their earned Social Security benefits on time and in full. That means protecting Social Security beneficiaries from criminals and fraudsters who try to scam them out of their benefits, and it also means protecting Social Security's trust funds against fraud and errors so the money is available to pay earned benefits. And it means doing so in a way that does not delay needed benefits for honest, hard-working Americans. On occasion Social Security will provide a recipient more than they are entitled to. That overpayment rate is only a fraction of one percent (0.22%). Most of these overpayments are due to errors, but a small part is due to fraud. Social Security employees believe--and I agree with them--that we could do more to safeguard Social Security. Recently the Social Security Administration uncovered fraud conspiracies where Social Security contributions made by honest Americans were stolen to pay benefits to people who didn't earn them. In one of the conspiracies, the ringleaders even instructed people to pretend they were disabled as a result of the tragic events of September 11. Social Security's fraud investigators have also uncovered rings of criminals who electronically divert Americans' Social Security checks into their own bank accounts. The good news is, when you invest in training highly qualified employees to protect Social Security, it pays off. Social Security's front-line employees uncovered those recent cases of fraud. With the help of Social Security's trained investigators, the ringleaders have been charged with felonies, the beneficiaries have been made whole, and Social Security has begun the process of recovering the money stolen from the trust fund. But the bad news is that these conspiracies show that Social Security is a tempting target for those willing to break the law. Recent Republican budget cuts have made it harder for Social Security to develop and use effective tools to fight them. That's why, over a year ago, my colleagues and I decided Congress needed to do its part to protect Social Security. We introduced the Social Security Fraud and Error Prevention Act. Our bill would have given Social Security new tools to find fraud and errors, recoup money that should be in the trust funds, and thrown the book at people who steal from Social Security. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in Congress failed to act on our proposal and continued to shortchange Social Security's budget. This lack of leadership has had consequences for Americans. For example, Republican budget cuts mean Social Security has fewer fraud cops on the beat than it had five years ago. Our bill would guarantee Social Security's fraud-fighting budget, expand SSA's special fraud-busting investigative units to cover all 50 states, and increase prosecutions of people who steal from Social Security. Social Security has lost more than 5,000 front-line workers to budget cuts. And Republicans in Congress blocked hundreds of millions of dollars that the Budget Control Act authorized for SSA's most cost- effective methods of preventing waste, fraud and abuse. Today, we are reintroducing the Social Security Fraud and Error Prevention Act, which would provide SSA with guaranteed funding for its most effective strategies to prevent fraud and errors. The bill will also provide additional resources to recoup benefits that shouldn't have been paid, along with penalties, if the payments were the result of fraud. Our measure would demand something in exchange for the guaranteed money: complete transparency and accountability. Social Security could only use the dedicated funds for the most important and effective strategies. SSA would have to report annually to Congress how much was spent and what savings their efforts generated for Social Security's trust funds. And the new funds would only be available for additional fraud and error fighting--not to replace what SSA is already spending out of its regular budget. Our bill isn't the complete answer to protecting Social Security's trust fund. As we consulted Social Security employees, managers, experts, and beneficiary advocates, they all told us the same thing: the best defense against fraud and errors is a well-staffed, well- trained SSA. And for that to happen, Republicans in Congress have to agree to fund SSA's overall budget. But providing guaranteed funding to fight fraud will at least spare SSA from having to choose between preventing fraud and processing applications so that Americans receive the benefits they earned on time and in full. I hope we can work together in a bipartisan way to enact this bill and protect Social Security.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call votes 113, 114, and 115. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 113, ``yea'' on roll call vote 114, and ``yea'' on roll call vote 115.

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. 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. BECERRA. 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.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. 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.

Mr. BECERRA

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

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. 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. BECERRA

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