Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, this bill's proposal on user fees is tantamount to telling the police department: You must provide that service for people to be able to have their funeral service, but you will not get compensated for your police officers being pulled from their regular duty of protecting our streets to help with that funeral service. It is inane. It is crazy to do that. So rather than do bills that are going to go nowhere, let's get our job done. We get elected to do some very important things. On the tax side, we certainly could do what Mr. Doggett mentioned earlier. Let's go after those Benedict Arnolds who decide they are going to leave the country not because they want to go live somewhere else, it is that they don't want to pay taxes in America. So they are going to leave their place of legal residency as America. They are still going to have their home here, but they are just going to call home somewhere else for legal purposes so they don't pay taxes. Billions of dollars we are losing, we know, as a result of corporations and all our wealthy individuals incorporating in places like the Cayman Islands. Secondly, all the money that is being spent in campaigns today is being done by what are called not-for-profit organizations that we used to think used to do social welfare. Now guess what they are doing? They are spending their money on campaigns. We need to stop that as well. That is what we should be doing--doing our job, not taking money out of an agency that is trying to make sure that we do this the right way for everyone who pays their fair share of taxes.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, one of the easiest things you can do to get people to cheer for you is to bash someone or something that everyone loves to hate, as you have heard it said before. I don't know if there is a better example of this than the IRS. Everyone loves to hate the IRS. At the end of the day, though, if you want to have our troops paid, if you want to have our security handled at our airports, if you want to make sure that our national parks are protected, you need to have the revenues; and so we need the IRS so that all of us who voluntarily are supposed to pay our taxes do so and pay our fair share. Again, we could all point to the story of the case where the IRS flubbed it, didn't do a good job, and so it is easy to pile on. If we could create a pinata that looked like the IRS, I guarantee you it would be the hottest selling pinata in the history of pinata making. So let's just put that on the table. Let's grant that to everyone. It is easy to bash the IRS. Let's go to this bill, though. What will this bill do? First, it does some really strange things, and then it does some really harmful things. But worse than that, it is never going to become law. So we are spending time talking about something that is never going to become law. But on what the bill does, let me give you a clear example of why it is so unfortunate that we do this IRS bashing. One of these provisions tells the IRS that it cannot retain the dollars it collects as user fees for having provided services to individuals or corporations that seek out special services from the IRS. You have got a big corporation; you just broke it up into pieces; you want to make sure you are filing your taxes correctly. You need a special advisory opinion from the IRS, which isn't something they typically do for most Americans, so they say: Well, that is extra stuff; we are going to have to charge you a user fee for having done that for you. Principally, these user fees come from wealthier companies or wealthier individuals who have more complicated tax filings that they have to submit. We charge them that because not every American has to request that kind of service from the IRS. IRS collects that fee. This bill says: IRS, you don't get to keep the money, even though you had to provide the service and pull your resources and your personnel from doing the regular taxpayers' filings and examining those to do this special work. You cannot keep that even though you expended resources to do that work. The best way I could compare it is to a situation I encountered recently. I participated in a funeral service, and it was a very dignified service. At the end of the service in the place of worship in the church, we all caravanned together with the hearse and the family of the deceased individual to the cemetery. It was a long line of vehicles. It was a great service. A lot of people showed up. We were fortunate to have the assistance of police officers who directed traffic because we went through a whole bunch of intersections. We had to make sure that, to the degree possible, we didn't disrupt traffic a whole lot and we didn't have a whole bunch of accidents on the way to the cemetery. It all worked out perfectly. At the end, once we reached the cemetery, the officers left. Now, the officers did that job not because that is the usual course of business for police officers in our cities and our counties. They did that because the police department offers that service so that we don't disrupt the greater activity around our city when there is a funeral. That way you offer the dignity to that family as well in the services for that deceased individual. You pay for that service to the police department because you pulled police officers off their regular beat to do that work. That is a user fee.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call vote number 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, and 123. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call vote number 114, 115 and 123. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on roll call vote number 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 122.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call vote number 111, 112 and 113. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on roll call vote number 111, 112 and 113.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, today, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall vote No. 130. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 130.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. So last week, 186 Members of this House and 39 Senators from the Senate filed an amicus brief. We filed it before the Supreme Court in this very case that is being discussed, United States v. Texas. But we filed it without using taxpayer dollars. We filed it individually, separately from our official duties. The brief that we submitted supports the actions which President Obama took because he is our Nation's chief executive and he has the right to try to make our laws work as best as possible. In the case of our immigration laws, everyone agrees that they are broken, they are fractured, and it is a system that does not work coherently. There are more than 4 million people who will be impacted by the decision that the Supreme Court reaches in the case of United States v. Texas. President Obama took his actions exercising his authority under the Constitution to execute and implement the laws of the land. So here we are today. Speaker Ryan and my colleagues on the House side, on the Republican side, will force this House to vote on a resolution authorizing the House to file a similar type of amicus brief, albeit in this case opposing the President's position in the case of United States v. Texas. But there is a big difference between the amicus brief that was filed by 186 Members of this House and 39 Members in the Senate and what the Republican majority in the House is intending to do today--a big difference. They are looking to use taxpayer money to push forward their political partisan agenda and their position in this case of United States v. Texas; so they are injecting every American who pays taxes into this fight, even though most Americans support a comprehensive fix to our immigration system. Why would we want to use taxpayer dollars to go litigate? These days it seems that my Republican colleagues in Congress spend more time and taxpayer money filing partisan lawsuits and legal briefs than working to pass the country's must-do legislation. We have got a budget to do. We should be passing jobs legislation, and, yes, we should be fixing a broken immigration system by passing comprehensive immigration reform. Congress doesn't need to file a legal brief lobbying the Supreme Court to fix our broken laws. Most Americans know from their high school civics classes that the Constitution vests the Congress with the power to make or change any law without having to hope or wait for the Supreme Court to bail out Congress for not doing its work. In fact, today, Speaker Ryan said: ``The legislative branch of government needs to be the branch making our laws, not the executive.'' He is absolutely right. So rather than doing legislation to file a lawsuit, let's do our job, which is to make the laws. This Republican Congress, unfortunately, is completely out of step with the interests and expectations of the American people. It is time to legislate, not to litigate.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call vote number 102. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on roll call vote number 102.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call vote numbers 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call vote numbers 95, 96, 97, 98, and 101. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on roll call vote numbers 92, 93, 94, 99, and 100.

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, there are pockets of Americans who might like the tax break here for corporations or the tax break there for wealthy folks who want to donate some of their IRA. But for the 320 million Americans in the country, and particularly for the 147 million Americans who file Federal tax returns, my guess is they are more concerned about their security and that of their children--their personal security, our national security, and our economic security. After San Bernardino, Colorado Springs, Charleston, and Newtown, where Americans were senselessly gunned down in our schools, at work, and in our places of worship, the American people want job one of this Congress to be security--personal, national, and economic. So why, 2 weeks after 32 Americans were terrorized and 14 of them killed in San Bernardino, would we make this massive, $600 billion tax break giveaway and charge it to the government credit card--because remember, it is not paid for--the first major legislation to come before this House for a vote? We can all agree that the FBI does important work keeping us safe, tracking down terrorists. We all agree that they need to do more. So why would we be voting for this bill, which will rob funding for everything from the FBI to food safety to college Pell grants? The cost of this bill would fund the FBI for the next 73 years-- because, remember, these tax breaks are not paid for. We have got to pay for them somehow. If you were to add up the cost of this tax break bill, it could fund the FBI for 73 years. And why would we use the credit card for people who can give up their IRAs, when most Americans can't even put enough money into one basic IRA? This is wrong-headed. These are not the American people's priorities. We can do this right. We can reform the Tax Code. But this is not the reform that the American people are asking us for. They are asking us, first and foremost, to keep our eye on the prize: our security, my kids' security, your kids' security, our national security, and our economic security. You give away this money to corporations, you give it away to wealthy folks, and guess what? Can that person who has to think about the job and worry whether he or she is safe at the job or their kids are safe at school or can you go worship safely, are they going to be able to send their kids to college, buy that home, and retire in security? Think about it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I have been introducing taxpayer rights legislation since 2004, and today I am proud to introduce the Taxpayer Rights Act of 2015, a bill that contains important provisions to improve services for and protect the rights of American taxpayers, particularly those with modest incomes. Senator Cardin, who previously helped lead efforts in the House to pass the original Taxpayer Bill of Rights, is introducing companion legislation in the Senate. Many of these provisions are based on recommendations from the National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson, who has long been a champion of improving taxpayer services and tax administration at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). As former Nixon Treasury Secretary William Simon said, ``The nation should have a tax system that looks like someone designed it on purpose.'' As we look for ways to improve the tax code to make it fairer and more transparent for all taxpayers, it is critical that ideas to help improve IRS service and accessibility are included in this conversation. Every year, millions of taxpayers file their returns with the IRS and inevitably issues of tax administration come to the forefront. These issues range from taxpayers not knowing their legal rights when interacting with the IRS, to taxpayers enlisting unscrupulous or poorly-trained preparers to help them complete one of their most important financial transactions of the year. This legislation aims to help prevent taxpayers from finding themselves in these avoidable situations, and to build on and improve taxpayer services provided through the IRS. The centerpiece of this Act is the requirement that Treasury publish a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights is a simple and straightforward statement that enumerates all taxpayers' rights and obligations. As the National Taxpayer Advocate explained in her 2011 Report to Congress: ``In a time when the IRS will feel pressure to bring in additional tax revenue, it is crucial to provide taxpayers with strong protection for their rights.'' Currently, these rights and obligations are scattered throughout the tax code and Internal Revenue Manual, making them neither accessible nor written in plain language that most taxpayers can understand. This Act also helps improve the quality and accessibility of tax preparation services and advice available to taxpayers in several different ways. First, it clarifies that the IRS has the authority to regulate tax return preparers. Ensuring tax preparers are trained, competent, and current on tax law developments will go a long way towards helping taxpayers during one of their most important financial transactions of the year. The Act also helps ensure moderate income taxpayers access qualified tax assistance by supporting a grant program for free income tax assistance services, like those offered by the Koreatown Youth and Community Center in my district in Los Angeles. It also allows IRS referrals to Low Income Taxpayer Clinics, which provide representation to modest income taxpayers in their disputes with the IRS. In addition, the Act puts new protections in place to ensure taxpayer information remains confidential, and increases penalties on preparers of fraudulent tax returns. Finally, this bill includes several provisions that would improve IRS taxpayer services. One important provision provides greater protections for taxpayers when they are faced with a Notice of a Federal Tax Lien filing (NFTL). Filing of an NFTL can result in significant, longterm hardship to a taxpayer, and may adversely affect the taxpayer's credit, thus impairing his or her ability to conduct financial transactions or secure employment. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act requires the IRS to make individualized determinations before the filing of an NFTL, and also requires consideration of hardship factors and a taxpayer's history of compliance before these determinations are made. Many of the issues identified in this bill have caused confusion and undue hardship for taxpayers across the country. I encourage all of my colleagues to support these common sense provisions to promote taxpayer rights and services for all Americans.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, the safety of our fellow Americans, and America itself, is and must be our number one priority, our number one responsibility here in this Chamber. The people of America have a right to expect--indeed, demand--exactly that. Our national security screening and background system for refugees is the toughest in the world. That is why so few refugees from Syria have ever been able to receive their clearance to be accepted into this country. But then Paris, November 13, happened. Terror reigns and fear spreads, including here. We are reminded of 9/11. If I believed that this rushed legislation made our toughest of refugee screening systems work better, I would vote for it. If this rushed legislation only adds another layer of bureaucracy that makes our screening process look tougher and then results in denying women and children who are fleeing the very terrorists we seek to keep out a chance to seek that refuge here in this country, then I cannot support that. Our tradition and our values open our door, as in the past, to those who fled Europe to start this country in the first place. It is up to us to do this courageously and do it right, not with rushed legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), on his nomination by his colleagues. At this time, as chairman of the Democratic Caucus of this House, I wish to place in nomination the name of a proven leader for the Office of Speaker of the House of Representatives: A leader who has accomplished, in this Chamber and for this country, what few can match; A leader who, as Speaker of this House, secured passage of landmark economic recovery package legislation in 2009 which transformed a diving economy, losing 800,000 jobs each month, to one which has now created more than 13 million jobs over the last 67 consecutive months of job growth; A leader who, as Speaker, accomplished what 70 years of Congresses could not, enactment of our lifesaving health security law, which has put 18 million more Americans in control of their and their children's health care; A leader who had the foresight, in 2008, to fight for the biggest investment in our troops since World War II, with the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and the largest investment in our veterans' health care and benefits in the 77-year history of the VA; A leader who was not afraid to take on the challenge of fixing our broken immigration system and secured passage of the DREAM Act in 2010. Mr. Speaker, leadership is about making the tough choices and getting things done. It means knowing how to build a majority, not just with the members of your own political party, but with the 435 elected Members of the House of Representatives so we can get things done. This leader understands that and knows how to get things done, even while serving in the minority in this House. That is why, less than 24 hours ago, this leader succeeded in breaking through the gridlock in this House and secured the votes needed to avert a senseless government shutdown and a perilous default on the payment of America's bills. Thanks to this leader, 16.5 million seniors will not suffer a $55-per-month increase in their Medicare premiums and Congress will not cut the Social Security benefits of 11 million disabled Americans by 20 percent. Mr. Speaker, that is leadership, and that is what Americans expect from those they elect. That is why it is my privilege, as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and as directed by the colleagues of the Democratic Caucus, to nominate for election to the Office of Speaker of the House of Representatives, from the 12th District of the great State of California, the Honorable Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. 1.4 million troops, 4 million disabled veterans, more than 30 million children who participate on a daily basis in school lunch programs, and small businesses all over the country are some of the Americans who will pay the price if Republicans refuse to authorize our government to pay all its bills. There are only 8 legislative days left for Congress to avoid defaulting on paying America's financial bills. Yet, our House Republican colleagues show no signs of putting serious business first and trying to work with their Democratic colleagues to pay our Nation's bills on time and in full. This bill isn't a solution. It is a sham. First, it instructs our government to pay foreign creditors ahead of paying our troops or paying our veterans, who have honorably served our country and have earned their benefits. Second, our Republican colleagues propose under this bill to borrow new money to pay for previously borrowed money and to say that the previously borrowed money won't count on the books. Borrowing money off the books to cover debt sounds a lot like a Ponzi scheme. This is simply default by another name, bringing our economy closer to the brink. Maybe some people in this Chamber have forgotten 2011. When the Republicans brought us to the brink of default in 2011, the stock market plunged and the S&P downgraded our credit rating for the first time in our Nation's history. In 2013, our Republican colleagues proposed default threats, and the government shutdown that followed cost us 120,000 jobs and $24 billion in slow GDP growth just as the economy was taking hold. The Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Lew, said in a letter last week: ``There is no way to predict the irreparable damage that default would have on global financial markets and the American people.'' Madam Speaker, you wouldn't constantly run your small business on the edge of default. So why would Republicans try to run the largest economy in the world this way? We need to move forward. We have 8 days. Let us defeat this bill and get our real work done.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call vote 508. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call 508.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the ranking member, Mr. Schiff, for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, the goal of America and the international community in our negotiations with Iran is and has been to prevent Iran from producing and possessing nuclear weapons. By all accounts, Iran had already reached a point where it was perhaps just months away from crossing that nuclear threshold--I repeat, months away; not years, not decades--months away. So few votes can be taken more seriously than one intended to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. That is why this Congress and the American people should support the agreement negotiated to prevent Iran from producing and possessing nuclear weapons, and we should vote here in this Congress against any of these congressional measures attempting to thwart its implementation. The negotiated agreement provides for inspection and verification, a regime which Iran had to consent to and it must now submit to. That regime for inspection and verification is not just credible, it is enforceable, and those who have conducted nuclear inspections will tell you that. Ask those who deal with nuclear materials, and they will tell you that. And ask those who have butted heads with and had to negotiate with Iran, and they will tell you that. Our ability to respond as well, should Iran decide to regress from its obligations, is real and it is robust. Nothing in this negotiated agreement is based on trust. The inspections, the penalties, they all are mandatory and unambiguous in their terms. No deal is perfect. We can all think of ways of making a deal better. But thinking is not doing, and speculation won't stop Iran from reaching a nuclear weapons capability. It should escape no one's notice that every measure, every economic sanction in place today against Iran has failed to stop Iran's lurch towards a nuclear weapon--remember, perhaps only months away from that nuclear threshold. It was time for America and our international partners to take this to another level before the only alternative available to all of us was the use of military force. This is why the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, and China joined together to force and drive Iran to the negotiated agreement. How often, these days, can we utter the names of those six countries together working for the same cause? This agreement constitutes a meaningful and enforceable check on Iran's nuclear ambitions and any intentions it might have to cheat. Back in July when this agreement was reached, I stated that it ``must constitute measurable progress in halting nuclear proliferation, driving the region and the world further away from nuclear Armageddon.'' The negotiated agreement meets that test, and with the support of Great Britain, Germany, France, yes, even Russia, and, yes, even China, we will hold Iran to that test. And that is why we should support the negotiated agreement.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call votes 467, 468, and 469. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call 467, ``yea'' on roll call 468, and ``yea'' on roll call 469.

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 gentlewoman for yielding. The man who killed Kathryn Steinle should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Perhaps more importantly, the officials who released the person who killed her--released this man from custody--dropped the ball, they should be held accountable. This bill punishes the police in my city of Los Angeles, the police in the city of Knoxville, and the police in Manchester, New Hampshire. It punishes police that had nothing to do with the crime that occurred in San Francisco. It takes away money from the police departments in Los Angeles, in Knoxville, and Manchester, when we need to put people and police on the street to protect all of us. This would deprive our cities of monies we have earned because we paid our taxes. Why? It is because the proponents of this bill say that our cities are violating the law. If we are violating the law, name the law we are violating. We are not violating any law. You just don't like the policy. Don't take the Donald Trump bait. Don't punish others for the crimes of someone else. In our country, you go after the person who is criminally liable; you go after that individual and lock them up forever, but don't tell the police in Los Angeles, Manchester, or in Knoxville, Tennessee, or other cities that are trying to have a working relationship between their police and growing immigrant communities that they won't be able to collaborate so we can go after the criminals--because that is what you are doing. You are taking money away from L.A., even though this crime did not happen in my city, and you are telling my police department and the men and women in uniform in L.A. that they will have fewer officers by their side because you are going to take money away because you don't like that some guy committed a criminal act. He killed someone; he should be punished for it, but we had nothing to do with it. Go after the folks that are accountable. This is not the way we do justice in America, and it is wrong. It is wrong for you to tell all these communities who have a working relationship between their police officers and their growing immigrant communities that they are now going to lose funds to hire more police officers. That is the wrong way to do it. That is the Donald Trump bait. Don't take it. Let's vote this down.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I took a look at the statute, the code section that the chairman cited as the authority that a law has been violated by San Francisco.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I will direct my remarks to the Chair. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if any of my time has been consumed as a result of the Chair's interruptions of my remarks?

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the Chair. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee made a statement that the law that had been violated by San Francisco, and the law that would be violated by places like Los Angeles that would cause this legislation to have my community of Los Angeles lose money for its police officers was a particular section in the code. I have read the code. I am looking it up right now. That section relates to information being provided about the immigration status of an individual. We are not talking about the immigration status of an individual. We all knew that this individual was not documented. We knew his status. The information that was not conveyed in this particular case is that the individual is going to be released from custody. This bill doesn't change that. There was no law violated by the city of San Francisco. Certainly, my city of Los Angeles didn't violate any law. The city of Knoxville, Tennessee, didn't violate any law. The city of Manchester, New Hampshire didn't violate any law. And I could name to you any number of other cities and towns in America who are trying to establish working relationships with their immigrant community who did not violate any law. But this bill would punish all those cities and towns simply because this legislation wishes to extract punishment for any city that has established a policy working with its immigrant community. There is no State or city law in America that supersedes Federal law. Federal law is the law of the land. The chairman knows that. We all know that. And so, to pretend that somehow cities are violating Federal law is a farce. It is the sort of attack that Donald Trump is using right now as he goes out and campaigns for President. We should not fall for that, and we should not deny our police departments funding because of a policy that some people don't like. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, for nearly 80 years, Social Security has helped protect and nurture the American dream. Americans know if they work hard and pay into Social Security, they and their families will receive Social Security's earned benefits when they need them, for as long as they need them. Congress has always honored that commitment, making adjustments and corrections to the law as needed, from time to time, so that all Americans receive the Social Security benefits they earned through a lifetime of work. Now Congress must act again. If we don't, 11 million Americans will have their Social Security benefits cut by 20 percent next year. Let me explain. Social Security is the heart of economic security for American workers, allowing them to earn birth-to-death protection against the loss of income from work, in one simple package. One seamless Social Security system insures American workers and their families (1) in the case of premature death, (2) if they have to stop working due to a disability or very serious illness, and (3) when they reach retirement. What many people don't know is that after we make our Social Security tax contribution through each paycheck, the law requires that it be distributed into in two different trust funds--one that pays for benefits we qualify for if a wage-earner dies, or when we retire, and one that pays for benefits we earn if we become too sick or disabled to work. All American workers contribute to both funds, with the vast majority of their contributions being deposited in the retirement and survivor fund. But in practice, Congress and the American public have simply treated the two funds as one unified financing system, which guarantees payment of all Social Security earned benefits. In fact, Congress has routinely rebalanced the allocation of workers' contributions between the two funds to ensure that all benefits can be paid. For example, in 1980 and again in 1983, Congress shifted funds from the disability fund in order to shore up the retirement and survivor fund, and then in 1994, the most recent reallocation, Congress shifted some of the incoming contributions back to the disability fund, ensuring that it could pay benefits through 2016. Now it's 2015. Social Security has an overall surplus of $2.8 trillion, which all workers helped build up. Those who receive Social Security due to a disability worked and paid into Social Security for an average of 22 years to earn their benefits, making a significant contribution to the surplus. But because Social Security is legally required to pay Social Security benefits earned because of a disability only out of the disability fund, the benefits of Americans who receive Social Security because of a disability will be cut by 20 percent unless Congress takes action to permit Social Security to use all its available funds to pay all earned benefits. Social Security is one unified system. It's wrong to separate out Social Security Americans qualify for because of a disability from the rest of Social Security. It's wrong to delay action on legislation to pay Americans the Social Security benefits they earned and need to live. Americans know we have one Social Security, and they are counting on Congress to act now to protect all of it, not just some pieces of it. Just like 168 million other Americans, I pay into Social Security with every paycheck. I make one contribution--just one--to earn Social Security's lifetime, all-in-one protection. I don't make different contributions for disability, for retirement, and for my survivors. It's all one--just one Social Security. When we begin our working lives, none of us knows what kind of insurance from Social Security we'll need, or at what stage of our lives we'll need it. Some workers will die young, leaving family who can rely on Social Security survivors' protection. The majority of seniors depend on Social Security as their primary source of retirement income. And no one expects to suffer a career-ending disability, but if they do, Social Security is there for them. There's one Social Security that covers it all. For millions of Americans, that one Social Security coverage--``there when you need it''--is a lifeline. Social Security's survivor insurance is the equivalent of a $476,000 life insurance policy for a worker with young children. More than half of workers who receive Social Security disability insurance payments because of a work-ending illness or injury would live in poverty without Social Security. Many will not survive to receive retirement benefits. Death rates for disability recipients are three to six times higher than for others their age. And unlike most other retirement benefits, Social Security is inflation- protected and cannot be outlived, which is why 44 percent of seniors who are 80 and over have little or nothing other than Social Security to live on. Today I am introducing the One Social Security Act to make sure we don't break Social Security's simple promise to every American worker-- if you pay into one Social Security, you and your family will receive your full earned benefits, of whatever kind, when you need them. The One Social Security Act would prevent the scheduled 20 percent cut in Social Security benefits for 11 million Americans by merging Social Security's trust funds into a single comprehensive fund. This would allow all American workers access to their fair share of Social Security's worker-generated $2.8 trillion surplus, to pay the benefits they earned. Except for preventing the cut, the bill would not change Social Security benefits or overall Social Security solvency, as projected in the Trustees Report released today. Creating one unified trust fund for one Social Security is just common sense, and long overdue. In fact, it was unanimously endorsed by the bipartisan 1979 Advisory Council on Social Security--a distinguished federal advisory panel that was charged with making recommendations to Congress on all aspects of Social Security. They found that there was ``no longer a need'' for separate trust funds. The Advisory Council concluded that the two-trust fund system, with its need for periodic reallocations, ``is cumbersome and can cause needless public worry about the financial integrity of the Social Security system.'' The bill has been endorsed by thirty-six organizations representing American workers, people with disabilities, and senior citizens. They know it's the right solution to protect Social Security. The earned benefits of 11 million Americans are not something we can let hang in the balance. They are a solemn obligation. We have only one Social Security. I look forward to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to honor that obligation, so that we can move forward and find the best way to preserve and strengthen all of Social Security for the generations to come.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in the greatest, most capacitated nation on Earth, there is no excuse for so many crumbling roads and bridges and for the ever- growing traffic gridlock and congestion that we see every day that we try to get to work. There is no reason why hundreds of thousands of men and women in the construction industry today should remain unemployed because this Congress won't do its job of replenishing the highway trust fund. It is crazy. We know that when we repair a road or a bridge, we put an American to work, and we make it easier for all of us to get to work so we can be more efficient. But here we are for the 34th time doing a patch to the highway trust fund, which doesn't help any city or county in America because you don't build a road or build a bridge or retrofit a bridge with 2 months of funding or 5 months of funding. You need 6 years to know how much money you can rely on because that contractor doesn't buy cement or lumber for 2 months or 6 months. They buy for 4 or 5 years because, for them, time is money. We are costing the American people a ton of money by doing these constant patches. Why? Because we are not willing to do what we were elected to do: our job. Instead of just spectating, we should be coming up with the funds to have those roads built and repaired, those bridges built and repaired, to replace those aging buses and trains that stop us from being efficient. Mr. Speaker, it is time to do it the right way, the long way, a long- term fix, not this short-term patch.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for yielding, and I stand with her and what she has just said. Mr. Speaker, sometimes, we forget how privileged we are, the Members of Congress, who have a chance to stand in this hallowed Chamber. We are the representatives of the people. We get elected to speak for the American people. We get elected to act on behalf of the American people. Very few Americans, throughout the history of our country, have had an opportunity to stand right here where we are today and say that we actually can get things done, not just for the American people, for the people of the world, because there has never been a democracy like the United States of America. There has never been a country that has had an opportunity to do so much for so many, and there has never been a democracy that has a chance to prove to the world that we know how to get this done and do it right. Mr. Speaker, as we stand here in this Chamber, we have to admit, we have to be prepared on behalf of the American people to stand up, to step up, to do what is right, and to do what the American people expect us to do. Now, they know we have to speak for them, but they don't want us just to talk. The time to just talk on so many issues has come and gone. Mr. Speaker, I think the American public would agree that the time to just talk about what to do about the Confederate battle flag has come and gone. The time to just talk about what to do about the Confederate battle flag came 150 years ago when the chance to heal was upon us. As President Lincoln said in his second inaugural address: ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.'' If we needed to talk, Abraham Lincoln said it all. Lincoln wanted us to act, to move, to get things done for the American people. The time to talk came after one after another Black church was suspiciously burned down throughout this country, and we knew something was going on. That was the time to talk about what we needed to do. The time to talk was before a man, driven by hate and animosity, on June 17, entered Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, to carry out a vicious plan to start a race war--because we have seen these signs of danger growing for the disregard for life. That would have been a time to talk and heal, before that man, crazed with hate, walked into Mother Emanuel Church; but, Mr. Speaker, after nine innocent, God-loving, God-fearing Americans were taken from their families, from their church where they were praying, from their country, the time to just talk is over. It is time for us to step up. It is time for us to stand up because that is why we get elected, to do what the people expect us, on their behalf, to do. 320 million Americans cannot get up and say, It is time to remove the Confederate battle flag from any grounds where we reflect the governance of a democracy. They encharge us to do that, and the time to talk has ended. When we see on the floor of the House, last night, an opportunity for the Congress to register itself and say, We hear you, America, you want us to act, and you want us to take down that Confederate battle flag in whatever symbolic way we can, including selling that symbol here in the Capitol, we had an opportunity. In fact, we had an opportunity that was golden because it seemed like we had a bipartisan vote to do exactly that; but, in the dead of night, something happened. Some people decided to hide behind the dark cloud and change what we had just done. When we take to the floor here, we may only be talking, but as my colleague from New Jersey said, we are going to do much more because the time to talk has just ended. It is time to act. It is time to step up. We all have an opportunity. We all have an obligation to stand up. Tomorrow morning, at 10, the Confederate battle flag will finally come down from above the South Carolina Capitol once and for all. Mr. Speaker, the Confederate battle flag has no place but a museum in the 21st century. Let us all together, those of us privileged to be in this Chamber, along with our fellow Americans, forge a path forward as a Nation that celebrates our bright future, not our dark past. It is time to take the Confederate battle flag down. It is time for us to step up. It is not a time to hide behind procedural motions, behind votes in the dead of night, and it certainly is not time for us to assemble a bipartisan group of Members to talk about what we need to do about the Confederate battle flag. It is time to do the work of the people, and they want us to act. There should be no doubt about it. The American people are speaking very forcefully. Don't just talk; act. Mr. Speaker, I say with great pride, having served in this Chamber for many years, I believe the people's Representatives in the people's House are getting ready to act; and no act during the dead of night, no effort to derail this effort will succeed because the people have spoken and spoken in the words of the nine people who are no longer with us. We do it with grace, but we will do it with power because we understand this is not a time to just talk; it is a time to act--and we will act. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.