Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Now, I could understand if Republicans in Congress were working on a national plan to ensure that every American who works their whole life could have some form of guaranteed income in addition to--and not as a replacement for--Social Security. But you don't have one. You never have. I won't say you never will, but you don't have, and you never have yet. Then maybe there would be some justification for the action you are taking today, but that is not the case. In fact, Republicans in Congress have done nothing to protect workers or retiree benefits, and they are the party that wants to privatize Social Security. But today, with these two bills, they go one step further to eliminate the ability of millions of workers from even the potential to enjoy some financial comfort after a lifetime of work. It is time for a progressive agenda for America that puts America's workers first and their families first.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, we need to tackle a challenge that is threatening the financial security of the middle class and those who are working hard to remain in it. That is not just in New York City, that is throughout our entire country, but particularly in my home city and my home State, and that is a savings and retirement security crisis in America. The word ``crisis'' is no exaggeration, Mr. Speaker. Nearly half of U.S. households do not have a savings plan. Less than one-third have a cushion to cover basic expenses for just 3 months if a layoff or other emergency leads to loss of income. The status for retirement savings is even more dire, Mr. Speaker. Remember, one out of every two Americans going to work today doesn't have a retirement plan provided by their employer. We are seeing a new generation of Americans growing up with little or no savings to help them climb the economic ladder or simply weather a difficult time. Younger workers are trying to save for their children to go to college. They are trying to buy a home or build the emergency fund they will need if their car breaks down. Others are wondering if they can afford to start their own business or have the financial security to leave their job for a better opportunity. Older Americans are looking at retirement and if they will be able to support themselves and maintain a good quality of life without working. We know that savings are the path for middle class families to achieve the American Dream, yet that dream is increasingly being put at risk. We can turn this around, Mr. Speaker. We can put building a college savings account, a nest egg, and a retirement plan back in reach for millions of American families. That is why I have put forward a plan of action entitled ``Building Better Savings, Building Brighter Futures.'' You can read my action plan on my website at crowley.house.gov. This plan is a comprehensive approach to ensure no American who works their whole life will spend their retirement in poverty. But to get to that point, we need to stop wasting time going backwards. So let's allow States and local governments to continue to do what they are doing to help those workers who are being left behind now. Oppose these two bills that target workers' retirement savings, and let's work towards positive solutions to address the real problems of America's working families. We can do that with my proposal, Building Better Savings, Building Brighter Futures.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio, for being here this evening to have this Special Order to speak on an issue of such magnitude, of importance to we the people of the United States, important to the world, that we never forget what took place: the horror, the utter destruction of humankind during the Holocaust, but, in particular, the focus of that destruction upon the Jewish race. It is important because we are seeing a rise, quite frankly, of anti- Semitism not only around the world, but right here in the United States. It takes different forms in different places, but, in the end, has the same result of targeting and hurting one of the historically most vulnerable groups in our world: the Jewish people. One of the things that has been the most concerning to me is the minimizing of the suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. Frankly, it is really outright disturbing--I don't know if that does it justice--that the White House of the United States of America, the home of our President, our present administration, representing the same country that defeated Nazi Germany, the same country that bore the Greatest Generation, the same country that led the fight against anti- Semitism worldwide, while recognizing from time to time it had to douse it here in the United States, our country, this same White House that I referred to deliberately refused to mention that the Holocaust was designed to eliminate the Jewish people from the face of the Earth. Not a single mention of the Final Solution. The Final Solution was to obliterate, eliminate the Jewish people off the face of the Earth. Yes, many people died in the Holocaust, as the gentlewoman made reference to so eloquently--disturbingly, but eloquently. Of the tens of millions of people who died, we know of them historically, but no race or religion was designated for elimination like the Jewish people were. The Final Solution was about ridding the Jewish people from the face of the Earth. It is that simple. It is imperative that this moment does not pass without some clarity. What is clear is that the White House purposely removed the reference. They are proud of it. They doubled down. They tripled down. They removed the reference to the Jewish people in its statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Why does this matter, you may ask? Well, first and foremost, it feeds the extremists. We know they exist. Let's face it, extremists have welcomed this White House statement. They love it, they glorify it, not just theoretically, but literally. Literally, White supremacists have welcomed the White House decision to leave any mention of the Jewish people out of the Holocaust remembrance. Secondly, it matters because a lot of people in the world today either don't know that the Holocaust happened or don't believe that the Holocaust happened--not just theoretically, but literally don't believe that the Holocaust took place. Literally, a 2014 global survey of anti-Semitic attitudes found that 35 percent of people around the world have never heard about the Holocaust. Maybe you can understand that. But an additional 32 percent, more importantly, believe it is a myth or greatly exaggerated. Thirdly, it matters because there are many Holocaust survivors--I know them and their descendents--in the United States and throughout the world. The actions behind the statement were just downright cruel and inhumane to them, not just theoretically, but literally cruel and inhumane. Literally, groups that are dedicated to this issue are deeply, deeply disturbed. The Anne Frank Center and others have raised their voices. This is not just coming from Democrats. I don't want to mislead here at all. There are a range of Republican leaders--and there are four of them--and Republican groups that have expressed their anger at the White House position on the Holocaust, but one entity. We will come back to this House in a moment. The White House hasn't seemed to have heard their outcry, but the gentlewoman from Ohio and I, the Democratic Caucus, we have heard. What has taken place is wrong; simply wrong. You would think that the President would correct the situation. In fact, today, he had the opportunity to condemn anti-Semitism at his press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he didn't do it. In fact, when he was asked on this very subject of the failure to mention the Jewish people of the Holocaust, he used the opportunity not to clarify his position, but to make reference to how great his election victory was. In watching that press conference, as disturbed as I was about the answer from our President, I was more than a bit disappointed, quite frankly, by Prime Minister Netanyahu's failure to challenge the President on that. I wish Prime Minister Netanyahu would have asked President Trump to change his statement; not to whitewash what was done, but to change his statement on the Holocaust. I still hope that the Prime Minister does that in the time that he is here. So this Special Order tonight will help us set the record straight, not just on behalf of the millions of Jewish Americans across this country, but to send a clear message to all those who engage in this type of behavior. I ask this question: Where are our Republican colleagues on this issue? Do you hear that? Silence. We have given them opportunity after opportunity to speak out against what the White House has done, but our Republican colleagues refuse to criticize the White House for the omission of the Jewish people in the Holocaust resolution. Could you imagine for a moment what the outcry would have been had President Obama accidentally omitted this, putting aside purposely omitting it, but the outcry if he had accidentally omitted the mentioning of the Jewish people in his annual statement? He never did that, though, nor did President Bush, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has pointed out. This was no mistake. It was a willful omission. Yet still, nothing from our Republican colleagues. The gentlewoman from Ohio knows that I have offered a resolution. We will continue to ask our Republican colleagues to join us on that resolution asking the White House to set the record straight and to include the mentioning of the Final Solution and the attempt by the Nazi regime to eliminate the Jewish people from the face of the Earth. We will use every legislative mechanism possible to do that, whether it is a motion to discharge, whatever that will be. I am putting my Republican colleagues on notice, because they must raise their voices. They must raise their voices to what has taken place in this White House. Whether it is Steve Bannon and those who work within the cellar, the deep cellar of the White House who came up with this resolution to purposely omit the mentioning of the Jewish people, our Republican colleagues will either have to answer for the White House and defend it or condemn it. You can't have it both ways. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio once again for bringing us together. It needed to be done. We will continue to raise this question until the White House comes to its senses and sets the record straight and does no longer continue to enable Holocaust deniers. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for holding this Special Order this evening.

Mr. CROWLEY

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

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that the previous question and the rule should be defeated not just because it is designed to undo the protections that help the American people but because voting for this will prevent Congress, this Chamber, this body from clearly rejecting some of the White House's worst behavior. Just over a week ago, the White House issued a statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. That statement failed to mention that 6 million Jewish people were killed in the Holocaust. It never mentioned them. It is deeply troubling because the United States has, until now, been at the forefront of the fight against efforts that would deny the extent of Jewish suffering and death during the Holocaust. And yes, there are still many deniers of the Holocaust who traffic in conspiracy and claim the whole thing never happened. It should be a shocking omission coming from the White House, but, frankly, not all that surprising for an administration based on a campaign that trafficked in anti-Semitism. But you know what? I thought to myself: maybe they will fix the statement; maybe this is all a misunderstanding, an accident. But no, they didn't fix it. They doubled down and they defended it. Not only that, we found out that the White House purposely took out the language stating that Jews died in the Holocaust. So it was not an error. It was purposeful from beginning to end. Now, I know this: the White House thinks it is living in a post- factual world. They think that they can get away with saying anything they like and anything they want and that people will just believe it. But the truth is, what they say has very, very real consequences. Even after our parents and grandparents, the Greatest Generation, fought and worked so hard to defeat Nazism, now we see a public dinner party held right here in this city where people were doing the Nazi salute. Even after there has been so much work to stop targeting religions, now we are seeing a resurgence of swastikas across the country and around the world. Even after law enforcement has worked hard to protect our people, now there is a wave of bomb threats against synagogues. This is what is happening. This is fact. Frankly, those now feeling emboldened were inspired by the President, first in his campaign and now in his Presidency. We all know that one of the President's members of his National Security Council led a website that fosters extremist views. So don't count me amongst the surprised when the White House issues a statement like this, but don't expect me to accept it either. None of us, Democrat nor Republican, should accept it. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this previous question, against this rule, to allow consideration of a resolution that states this Congress' clear position against Holocaust deniers. We need to restate the truth as clearly as we can. The White House was wrong on this issue, and here are some more facts. Yes, the Holocaust happened. No, the Jewish people weren't simply another group of people in a long list of targets. The Holocaust was designed to eliminate the Jewish people from the face of the Earth. Other groups of people were targeted and killed, but anti-Semitism was at the core of the Nazi ideology of a Final Solution. As the late Nobel Peace Prize recipient Elie Wiesel said, while receiving the Congressional Gold Medal from President Ronald Reagan: ``It is true that not all victims were Jews, but all the Jews were victims.'' I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this measure so that we can, in a bipartisan way, express the truth. If people aren't going to tell the truth about this then we are all lost. Truthfully, I found the White House statement to be shameful. It needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. This is your chance to lend your voice to the record. Will you stand with me? Will you stand against Jewish Holocaust deniers? Don't be enablers. This is your opportunity. There may not be another to repudiate what the White House has done. Vote ``no'' on this previous question and vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. CROWLEY

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

Mr. CROWLEY

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

Mr. CROWLEY

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

Mr. CROWLEY

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

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on January 10, 2017 I was absent for recorded vote No. 26. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No'' on Roll Call No. 26.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 36, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CROWLEY

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

Mr. CROWLEY

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

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. ``Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.''

Mr. CROWLEY

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

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the winner of the 2016 Veterans Day essay contest from New York's 14th Congressional District. George Rivera, a student from I.S. 61 in Corona, Queens submitted the winning essay on the topic, ``What Veterans Day Means To Me.'' George's essay reads as follows: Veteran's Day is a public holiday in the United States and it is celebrated on November 11th. On this day, we honor those who fought for our country and thank them for all they have done. The U.S. Armed Forces risk their lives every day for us. The Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and the Navy, all make up the United States Armed Forces. Taking time out of our day to honor them is the least that we can do compared to what they have done for us. This holiday is not only for those who served in our military, but also for the ones who are still serving today. Many people take for granted what they do for us; not only this, but some people even forget about them without realizing that without them, we probably would not have the freedom that we have today. These soldiers sacrifice so much for the people they don't even know; they leave their families to fight for our country. Many people enjoy their freedom without knowing that soldiers are dying behind the lines for them to keep their freedom and rights. All of the soldiers show love to our Nation through this big sacrifice. There are U.S. soldiers located all around the world and I know they miss their families but continue fighting for us. My brother is currently serving in the U.S. Army. Right now he is in Guam which is an island near Japan. I know he misses us but he still strives to keep people from taking our freedom. Throughout U.S. history, many soldiers have lost their lives. In World War I, nearly 11 million military soldiers died, and in World War II even more soldiers died to save our world from tyranny; they wanted to keep the United States safe. At least two soldiers, on average, die each day trying to fight for our country. Imagine, that is between 600 and 800 soldiers that die every single year, leaving their families with tears. It is really not that hard to honor these men and women; all you can do is take a little time out of your day to visit a Veteran's nursing home and thank all the veterans there. Families worry every single day and hope that their sister, brother, son, daughter, mother, or fathers are okay. On Veteran's Day, I honor my brother and all U.S. soldiers that are serving. My brother has made me grow as a person, many soldiers have to face struggles and sometimes they have to kill just to keep the rest of us safe. Would you kill someone to keep other people you don't know safe? Not everyone can be a soldier so we should thank and love the soldiers who keep us and our families safe. Without them, our lives would be completely different and probably more dangerous. Even the soldiers who are located in the United States on the borders should earn the same respect as the soldiers who fight in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Every soldier has the same duty and mindset to keep danger away from the United States. That is what Veteran's Day means to me and I think all the soldiers who have served in the past and who are serving now deserve our respect and gratitude.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on September 26, 2016 I was absent for recorded votes Number 557 and Number 558. On Roll Call Number 557 I would have voted no, and on Roll Call Number 558 I would have voted yes.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again I want to reiterate, I do appreciate working with Mr. Paulsen on this issue, and there is really no opposition from me in terms of the policy that we are attempting to put forward here on the floor today. We all agree on the merits of the bill. It is a good bill. I think you have heard that from the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and you also heard it from the gentlewoman on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Ms. Eshoo. Obviously, Mr. Paulsen and I both agree that this bill has merit. It is a good bill. But I don't believe this will become law today. This bill, the one we are actually debating and we will have a vote on today, in and of itself, will not be enacted in its form today. We need to enact good policies but not punish our next generation with new debt. That is something I have been reiterating over and over again. So I will vote ``no'' today on this bill, even though I am the cosponsor of the bill. That is not the only reason why I will not support the underlying bill today, not just because of placing the debt and the burden of that debt on my children, our children, your grandchildren and great- grandchildren, but because of the fact that there are a number of crises going on in our country today that the Congress, the Republican Congress, simply can't get their hands around, and some are questioning whether they want to get their hands around them at all. Here is a shocking statistic. Back in June of this year, it was reported by the CDC that 234 women in the 48 States, the continental United States, 234 women had contracted the Zika virus--pregnant women. I am sorry, pregnant women, 234 pregnant women. While we were here in Congress in the month of June and July and then we broke for 7 weeks in August, and there was no work here done on the floor to address the issue of the Zika virus, as of the middle of September, of this month, in the U.S., 48 continental U.S. States, 749 pregnant women now have the Zika virus. That is three times as many people in a 3-month period. Now, I don't suggest that possibly it would be, in 3 months from now, three times higher than it is today. In fact, I would argue it is probably a lot higher if we continue down this road of not addressing this issue at all. But I would have to be one of the 515 women who contracted the Zika virus at the end of June and--why were we here in Congress and did not enact Zika legislation all through July, all through the month of August into September? If I am one of those 515 women who is now pregnant, I have got to wonder: What is my government doing? They may have gotten it anyway, but at least the government may have been making an attempt to prevent them from contracting the virus. If I am one of those women, I am saying: The government didn't do anything. The Republican Congress, who controls the House of Representatives and controls the Senate, didn't do anything and, instead, forced the President to move money around the NIH, taking from cancer research, taking from the Ebola issue, taking those resources to try to stop the water from coming out of the dam, putting a finger in the hole. And that is a euphemism. I mean, at the end of the day, if you are one of the 515 women, there is no answer for it. There is no agreeable answer to them. They are living a nightmare. And let's think about the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of children under the age of 9 in Flint, Michigan, who have been exposed to horrific levels of lead poisoning in their drinking water, unbeknownst to them and their families. Imagine you are the mother of that child or the father of that child, and you were giving them that drinking water, the guilt you must feel because you didn't know that there was lead in that water. You didn't know that your local government, your State government had let you down, and now your Federal Government is letting you down because we are not doing anything for them. When the call is to do something and there are negotiations going on, we are not going to have to pay for the tax cuts; but folks in Michigan and Flint and folks in Florida--and now Texas has to be concerned, the southern tier of the United States--we are going to have to find an offset to address your emergent issues. A tax cut for a bill that I think is worthy, we don't need a tax cut for it. We don't need a pay-for for the tax cut. But for an emergent crisis like Zika, like what happened in Flint, we have to find an offset. How would you feel? How would you feel, America, if that happened to you? How would you feel about the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives and the Senate if that happened to you? I know how I would feel. I know how I feel. I feel disappointed. I feel let down. I feel like the Republican leadership and caucus in the House and the Senate doesn't have your back, doesn't have my back. That is how I feel about it. That is how Americans feel. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the time. I first want to recognize Congressman Erik Paulsen, my colead in drafting the Empowering Employees through Stock Ownership Act that we are debating today here on the floor. I appreciate his work in helping to draft this and our offices working together to do that. We have drafted up a bipartisan bill that, on the merits, should be able to pass the House with an overwhelming majority--overwhelming majority. But I must state my disappointment with the majority--and not necessarily with the sponsor of this bill, but the leadership of the majority--for refusing to allow a simple up-or-down vote on my amendment, joined by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), to offset the $1 billion cost of this bill over 10 years, so that we could empower workers without saddling our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren with more debt. Now that, in and of itself, is problematic in terms of hoisting additional debt on our children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren, if it weren't for the fact that we also have crises facing America, including the Zika virus. I wonder how the women who today are pregnant and have the virus in them feel about the fact that we are doing a tax bill today, unpaid for, and yet are requiring an offset or a pay-for for money to go towards Zika virus, or the fact that we have been here for over a year and have not yet found the wherewithal to help the good people of Flint, Michigan, unless we find a way to pay for that assistance and that help; but somehow we are able to do this worthy bill on its face without a pay-for. With respect to the underlying bill, I think all of us are growing increasingly concerned that far too many American workers have not been sharing in the success of the companies that they helped make successful. This bill aims to address that issue by promoting employee ownership, very egalitarian, something I know many on my side of the aisle are very excited about. The Empowering Employees through Stock Ownership Act would allow workers at privately held firms and startups to defer the income taxes on their stock options up to 7 years or until a triggering event occurs that allows the stock to be sold, whichever occurs sooner. The proposed legislation is needed to address real-world situations where employees of privately held firms, who are provided the opportunity to become part owners of the company they helped build through the granting of stock options and shares, cannot exercise that stock without paying taxes on them as income, even though the options cannot be readily sold. For example, there is no market for them to be sold on. Businesses often offer stock to employees to share the value of their companies, recruit and maintain talented workers, and offer compensation in addition to a salary that they receive. Stock options also provide smaller startup companies the ability to compete with larger, more established companies in attracting top talent. Currently, when an employee exercises their right to obtain stock in their company, it is a taxable event and taxed in the same way as any other form of compensation they receive. In publicly traded companies, when employees exercise their stock options or shares vest, the employee is able to turn around and sell a small portion of that stock that is on the public market to pay the tax they owe, while at the same time continuing to retain shares and partial ownership of the company they work for. Unfortunately, for employees of private companies and startups, there is no market for employees to sell their shares to cover the tax liability that they are exposed to in the same way that a publicly traded company employee has those liabilities. This tax burden prevents employees of privately held companies from exercising their stock in the first place. That means they lose out on a share of their income, they lose out on the ability to become an owner in their company, and they lose out on part of their investment in their employer's long-term goals. This bill defers the taxes owed for employees of privately held companies for 7 years or until there is what is known as a ``triggering event,'' which occurs when a stock is sold. Examples of triggering events are stock buybacks, acquisitions, or the company itself going public. Besides making it easier for lower-wage workers to become owners in their company, this bill encourages companies to offer more stock to more workers. We do this by stating that, to obtain these important recruitment and retention benefits, a company must offer at least 80 percent of their full-time workforce the option to own stock. This 80 percent employee participation number excludes those who own 1 percent or more of the company as well as the CEO and CFO and the four highest- paid officers. In small startups, excluding senior management and mandating an 80 percent employee coverage test ensures that more employees and those further down the chain of command will be offered to share in the success of the company. It is a good policy and, as I said before, it enjoys bipartisan support. Because the bill is a tax expenditure, the Joint Committee on Taxation states that it would cost the Treasury and the American taxpayers $1 billion over 10 years. Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, an effort that was led by my colleague from California (Ms. Eshoo) and myself to ensure this good policy was enacted without further adding to the debt and the deficit and by adding debt to future generations, unfortunately, was rejected by the majority. It is unfortunate. While the Republicans in the Congress refuse to fund a billion dollars to help pregnant women in Florida, as I said before, fight off the Zika virus or provide clean drinking water to the people of Flint, Michigan, they are continuing their dangerous path of passing tax cuts that will explode the deficit. Indeed, just in 2016, Ways and Means Committee Republicans have passed almost $55 billion in tax cuts out of the committee, all of which, if enacted, would blow up the deficit. Let's be clear: Who will pay for this tab? Will it be us? No. We will pass the tab on to our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren to pay for our excesses. It all boils down to values, my friends. So while I oppose this legislation today--a bill that I am a cosponsor of--I am heartened by the fact that the Senate Finance Committee passed a companion bill to this bill just yesterday on a bipartisan basis. I don't know how they did it, but somehow they found an offset, Democrats and Republicans working together, which I attempted to do with my colleagues on the Republican side. They found an offset. It is remarkable the Republicans in the Senate thought it was important enough to pay for this and not add further debt to our future generations. I look forward to supporting this bill when it comes back to the House, fully paid for, when we take up the Senate bill. We know that is what is going to happen. I look forward to working with the Senate to enact this good policy into law, but without saddling our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren with the cost of this benefit. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my good friend and colleague.

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

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my friends from California for bringing this bill to the floor today. I am not a member of the requisite committee, but I appreciate the work that was done to bring it to the floor. I thank them both for speaking in favor of this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we are here this week at the cusp of the grand opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture here in Washington, D.C.--a, rightfully, magnificent building here on The Mall of our Nation's Capital. I think, after listening to a few of the remarks I will make about this little piece of property here in Washington, it is a modicum in comparison to that, but it is, I think, worthy of our support. This is a bipartisan bill that is before us today. It has earned the support of both sides of the aisle. Specifically, it would name a small parcel of land in Washington, D.C., as the Robert Emmet Park. In some ways, the name can be considered a formality because, as has been mentioned by Mr. Denham, there is already a statue of Emmet that has been in the park for decades. It is the only statue in the very small park, and it is situated so that it is the main visible feature to visitors. I hope one doesn't mind my sharing just a little of the history here today. The Robert Emmet statue first came into the possession of the United States 100 years ago, when then-President Woodrow Wilson, other Cabinet members, diplomats, and Members of Congress joined in the acceptance ceremony. The statue was a gift from the Irish American community and was created by renowned artist Jerome Connor. After it was donated, it graced the rotunda of the National Museum of Natural History for its first 50 years. In the 1960s, it was moved to its current location in the park, and it was rededicated. The statue has stood there ever since and has been admired by millions of tourists, visitors, local residents, and passersby. But this is not just a statue. For many Americans, the admiration for Robert Emmet reflects a deep and abiding pride in Irish American history as well as the lasting, worldwide influence of our own American history. That is because, over 200 years ago, inspired by George Washington and the American Revolution, Emmet led an attempt to free Ireland from British rule. For this effort, he was captured and was ultimately executed. In the course of his execution, he gave one of the most famous speeches in history, known as the Speech from the Dock. His cause lived on not only because he paid the ultimate price on September 20, 1803, but because of his incredible and indelible words that he spoke that day. In his speech, Emmet spoke about how George Washington and the American independence struggle inspired his actions. He spoke about his desire for sovereignty and for independence for his own land. He spoke about his desire for freedom and uttered words that live on in the hearts of Irish Americans and of all freedom-loving people throughout the world. I quote from that speech: Let no man write my epitaph; for as no man who knows my motives dare now vindicate them, let not prejudice or ignorance asperse them. Let them and me rest in obscurity and peace and my tomb remain uninscribed and my memory in oblivion until other times and other men can do justice to my character. When my country takes her place among the nations of the Earth, then--and not till then--let my epitaph be written. It is dangerous to paraphrase a famous speech; but basically Emmet was saying not to write his epitaph until the struggle was won. He believed it ultimately would be won someday. The brilliance of his speech and the courage of his convictions had a profound impact on people throughout the world, but particularly in Ireland. Understand that he was subject to execution--he was hung, drawn, and quartered--and he knew that that is what he was facing; yet he had the ability to deliver one of the greatest speeches in the history of mankind. Scholars indicate that President Abraham Lincoln knew and recited the very speech I just alluded to. The American author Washington Irving wrote of Emmet, and many schoolchildren across our country memorized parts of the speech I just referred to. I, myself, learned of that passage during time spent at my high school, my alma mater, Power Memorial Academy in New York City. Emmet and his speech also had a real and concrete impact on our own American history. In fact, organizations called the Emmet Monument Association sprung up in the United States. Their goal was to build a burial monument to Emmet on which that promised epitaph, one day, could be written. Since Emmet had requested that Ireland be free before his epitaph were written, these were really Fenian freedom organizations. Over the years, these and other organizations were supported by countless Americans not only in New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C., but throughout our land, Irish and non-Irish alike. Their work was the precursor to later American roles in the struggle for Ireland's independence, and their presence played a major part in American political life for many, many, many decades. When the Emmet statue was moved to its current location 50 years ago, many leading American figures served on the bipartisan dedication committee, including then-Speaker of the House John W. McCormack and Senators Everett Dirksen and Mike Mansfield. They were joined by the Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and Rector of St. Matthews Catholic Cathedral, John Cartwright. President Lyndon Johnson also conveyed his admiration for Emmet in a message to the event writing, `` . . . the sheer patriotism and the gallant courage of Robert Emmet has inspired Americans no less than Irishmen . . . We Americans are proud to accord a place of honor here in the Nation's Capital to Robert Emmet, whose struggles and sacrifices bespeak the yearnings of mankind throughout the ages.'' Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Congress and the U.S. Government have long recognized the significance of this park and its central statue in keeping alive not only the memory of Robert Emmet but the ideals that he fought and what he was executed for. I hope we can continue that record and the bipartisan cooperation here today by passing this legislation. This bill doesn't require spending funds. It doesn't require undue efforts. It doesn't significantly rearrange any current setup of the park or the park system. It would simply attach the name ``Robert Emmet Park'' to the existing small piece of land where that statue rests. I respectfully urge its passage. In closing, I thank the members and staff of the Natural Resources Committee for their work and their support of this measure. I greatly appreciate their work in ensuring that this is on the floor and that the bill passes today. I can't do enough justice to the life of Robert Emmet, nor his brother, Thomas, for that matter, and all those who followed afterwards. He was an incredible inspiration, as I said, not only to Ireland but well beyond the shores of Ireland as well, including the United States of America.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank my good friend, my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), for his good work on this issue. Tenacity does pay off. The gentleman has really kept his nose to the grindstone on this. Now, I don't want the gentleman to get a bad reputation for working with me on so many issues. I just want to point that out for the record. Today is a good day for American taxpayers as, hopefully, the House of Representatives will soon pass the Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Act to enact vital reforms to the Federal Government's civil asset forfeiture process. Civil asset forfeiture is an important tool for the IRS and for other Federal agencies. They use it to go after ill-gotten funds from drug dealers, human traffickers, terrorists, and other criminals. This bill will not weaken that vital law enforcement tool one bit. But this legislation will codify into law much-needed reforms to the process to stop abusive asset forfeitures--abusive seizures such as the ability of the government to take a person's bank account without ever charging them with a crime. The Oversight Subcommittee on the Ways and Means Committee, under the guidance of our chairman, Mr. Roskam, undertook a painstaking 17-month investigation. I think this is a good example of the committee process and how we can work functionally, unlike what we have seen in other committees here in the House. This investigation included holding a series of congressional hearings, meeting with officials from a number of Federal agencies, and continually keeping the pressure on the IRS to practically reach out and return any asset seized from people who were never charged with any crimes. In particular, Mr. Speaker, hearing from the victims themselves was incredibly moving and touching, I think, to Members of both sides of the aisle. These actions culminated in this bipartisan legislation that passed the Ways and Means Committee unanimously. This bill, the Clyde-Hirsch- Sowers RESPECT Act, aims to take what we have learned and fix the system to prevent the seizure of bank accounts of law-abiding citizens. Specifically, this legislation prohibits the IRS from taking any assets related to structuring unless the funds are from an illegal source or the funds were structured to conceal other criminal activity. Additionally, to provide due process to affected taxpayers, the bill requires the IRS to notify an account holder of a seizure within 30 days of that seizure. Once an account is seized, the bill allows the person whose assets were seized to seek a post-seizure hearing within 30 days. Now, even that, for some, can be onerous; but it is a start. We know that those engaged in illegal actions will usually not contest the seizure. They won't go to the agency and contest it. But for those who committed no crimes, this bill, in many respects, levels the playing field. But the passage of this bill isn't the last part of this fight. I know my colleague, Mr. Roskam, and I will continue to keep pressure on the Federal Government to quickly return the assets of those innocent taxpayers not charged with any crimes whose assets are still being held by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the passage of this legislation and correcting a wrong in the law that exists to help law-abiding citizens hold on to their hard-earned resources. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, Mr. Speaker, Congress has a chance to right a wrong in the law by passing this bill. We always say that, in the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty, but the civil asset forfeiture policies imposed by the Federal Government don't always reflect that basic premise. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill. But let me be clear. While we are correcting an injustice in one area, this bill reminds us of the importance of a larger discussion on much-needed criminal justice reform. I hope that this larger issue can also be tackled by this year's Congress. Just like the Clyde family and the Hirsch family and the Sowers family, whom we named this bill for, far too many American families have seen the U.S. justice system not work on behalf of them. We need to address that issue of criminal justice reform in the same bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Roskam and the entire Ways and Means Committee dealt with civil asset forfeiture. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how difficult it is to birth a calf. I am a boy from Woodside, Queens. I used to say we had no running water growing up where I came from. Well, we had running water in my home, but we didn't have any streams; we had no ponds, no lakes. The closest I got to the water--I want the violins to come out now--the closest I got to the water was Rockaway Beach in Queens. But my wife is from Montana, and she grew up on a ranch. She may certainly have an inclination how difficult that is. But let me say, on behalf of the American people, we want to apologize--though it is not necessarily our place--for the entire Federal Government. We didn't impose this on the Clyde family or the Hirsch family or the Sowers family, but they do deserve an apology, not just from the IRS, but from the American people as well, all taxpayers. But the Clyde family, the Hirsch family, and the Sowers family, I don't know where their families came from. I do not know their ethnicity. I do not know their political persuasion. I do not know what religion they practice, if any at all. But what I do know is they are American citizens, so they deserve to be treated with justice under the law. In these particular cases, they sought justice and were denied it; and we are restoring that today with the passage of this bill, not only for them, but for all Americans who find themselves in this situation. For that, I am grateful for my friend from Illinois, for his tenacity; but I am also grateful for the tenacity of these families to not sit back and allow this to happen not only to themselves, but to potentially future victims. That is what their legacy will be. I hope their families are proud of what they have accomplished. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.