Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this poem in honor of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who was presented with the Congressional Gold Medal, on September 19, 2012. This is a poem written by Albert Carey Caswell. The Daw of Freedom The. . . The Daw of Freedom. . . On this day. . . As from across the oceans, your courage so reaches out to all of us in so many ways! As a Freedom Fighter, whose fine heart so all ignites us in so many ways! All in your struggle for democracy and human rights this, all in what your peaceful fight has so conveyed! As over the years, as we have all so watched you all so here, and for you Daw Suu have all so prayed! As all in such awe, at what we so saw. . . all in what your courage against such oppression so had to say! Just like all of those great Freedom Fighters who have so come before, names like Gandhi and King who through non violence had so implored! Happiness, Democracy and Freedom for all the more! As now your gifts this, now stands etched in Woman and Mankind forevermore! and with that presentation of your Noble Peace Prize, you but brought such tears to our eyes! For Burma has but a bright future so ahead, as long as she so listens to what Champions of Freedom, like you Daw Suu have so said! So on this day, we kneel and pray. . . all in respect for that great battle you so wage! As upon you this Gold Medal we now so place. . . As your fine life has but brought such light to even the darkest of all days. . . As now we so march with you all in our hearts and souls, all in this your great battle and crusade that we behold! Of your life and your times, and your great quest for freedom and her rhymes, of this all of our children must be told!

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend and colleague, the ranking member, for yielding me this time. With just days to go before the majority adjourns until after the election, there are numerous pressing bills we should be completing, but it seems that nothing will stop my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from the opportunity to spend time criticizing our President with a political stunt bill once again. I would think that an effort to move at least 20 percent more--that's 20 percent more--people from welfare to work would be applauded by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That's right, an increase in employment among TANF recipients under the proposal by the President. But, instead, that bill we're considering today actually stops people from moving towards work. Now, I know there has been a resistance to passing a jobs bill by this majority, but this is absolutely ridiculous. It's one thing not to have a jobs bill on the floor, but to have a bill on the floor that would actually say ``don't incentivize more people to find work opportunity'' just really is ridiculous. The truth is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem much more interested in attacking the President than in truly working to improve programs and policies, as evidenced by the unfinished work that they are leaving behind. I hope my colleagues will see through this charade on both sides of the aisle and will all vote ``no'' on this bill so we can get back to work on serious issues and not political gamesmanship.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, 11 years ago today. For the Nation, September 11 marks the day that the course of history in the United States was changed forever. For New Yorkers, 9/11 was the day our great city suffered a grievous blow, leaving behind a hole in the heart of lower Manhattan, and an even bigger hole in all of our hearts. While many of the structures destroyed or damaged by the attacks are being rebuilt or renewed, the families who lost their loved ones can never replace the husbands, the wives, the fathers, the mothers, the brothers, the sisters, and the children who perished. We can also never replace the brave first responders who rushed in to the burning buildings, giving their lives for others. Not one single day goes by that families don't think of their loved ones who were lost, and we must ensure that 9/11's sacrifices are never, ever forgotten. Today, we stand together in honoring their memory and saluting their courage, which they so richly deserve. Johnny, we miss you.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Aung San Suu Kyi has urged a decrease in international pressure on Burma. But by renewing this bill today and keeping this measure on the books even as we are open to new flexibilities, we will help send a strong signal to those in Burma that the United States will continue to focus on the need for the immediate release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, an end to violence against all minorities, including the Kachin and the Rohingya, and the adoption of genuine democratic reform in Burma. I stand in strong support of this bill, and I urge its immediate adoption.

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend and colleague from Washington for yielding his time, and I want to thank all those involved in bringing this important legislation to the floor and doing it, albeit maybe a little late in some components, but getting it here all the same. And I understand it was not necessarily the House of Representatives that was the reason for the holdup, but I am very pleased to be here today. I also want to make note of the baby steps we may be taking here in terms of bipartisanship, Chairman Camp, as well as my colleagues on my side of the aisle. I think those watching today may see a little glimmer of hope that more can be accomplished in the weeks to come before the elections. I, for one, am not necessarily holding my breath, but I want to make the offer that I'm interested in seeing that happen. But even though they are baby steps, it should not diminish the importance of the legislation that we have before us today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan measure. Part of the legislation is a provision that I introduced to maintain the ban on imports from Burma for 1 additional year. Its passage will demonstrate America's ongoing commitment to the advancement of human rights. When I traveled to Burma last January, I was the first Member of Congress to officially travel to that country in 12 years. I saw the possibilities for change with my own eyes. I saw the families of political prisoners hoping for a genuine and permanent freedom. I saw ethnic minority leaders expressing the belief that reconciliation was possible. And I saw the tremendous courage of Aung San Suu Kyi, a leader so dedicated to her people that she was undeterred for nearly two decades of house arrest. No, she did not demand that this bill be passed into law. In fact, Aung San Suu Kyi has urged a decrease in international pressure.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. How are my colleagues who represent Fort Dix in New Jersey going to vote on the Republicans' Tax on Our Heroes Act? My colleagues who represent Fort Bragg in North Carolina? Fort Detrick in Maryland? Fort Monroe in Virginia? Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois? Beale Air Force Base in California? Today, the choice is clear. Stand with Democrats and the President who have put forward a plan that simply asks America's wealthiest to support this great land.

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8. The reason I oppose this bill is because this bill will impose taxes on hundreds of thousands of U.S. military families, our heroes. That's right, of the millions facing a tax hike, hundreds of thousands are U.S. military families. Let's call this bill what it is, the ``Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes Act.'' Now, I know those on the other side of the aisle will come down here one by one and claim they are extending tax cuts for everyone, but you're extending cuts for people earning over $1 million a year and raising taxes on families earning under $45,000 a year. This bill scales back tax breaks put in place by President Obama and directly aimed at benefiting working families. Let's take a moment to put a face on the 25 million Americans whose taxes will go up, including hundreds of thousands of U.S. military families. If you're an Air Force Staff Sergeant with 8 years of service, a spouse and three young children here stateside at home, the Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes Act will raise their taxes by $1,100. A new recruit, a private in the U.S. Army in their first year of service earning a little over $18,000 a year--$18,000 a year, men and women on the front line defending our freedom--if they're married with an infant child at home, they will see an increase under this bill of $273, a tax increase under the Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes Act. It begs the question, how are my colleagues who represent Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn going to vote on the Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes Act? Are you going to stand with your military family constituents or with the 2 percent?

Mr. CROWLEY. I want to be very clear about this, Mr. Speaker. The earned income tax credit under the Republican bill would only be $2,390. Now when I do the math, that means that under the Republican bill, that sergeant and his or her family would have a $1,118 tax increase. You can't get around it. Those are the facts. Those are the numbers. They speak loud and clear. And not a single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuted that. We have refuted the $250,000 issue as it pertains to small business owners. The reality is, the men and women on the front lines defending this democracy, defending our freedom, defending our way of life, allowing for small businessmen and -women to prosper in this country, they're not worth a tax break. Your bill increases taxes on our military men and women. There's no getting around it. A vote for the Republican bill is a vote to increase taxes on military men and women. A vote for the Democratic substitute is a tax cut for our military men and women.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute on this tax provision. I have tremendous respect for Chairman Camp and the members of the Ways and Means Committee, but I would like to note that not a single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuted what I spoke about before, about the fact that if the Republican tax bill were to pass, as opposed to the Democratic tax bill, there would be an increase in taxes on 225,000 military men and women, many of whom are in Active Duty overseas as we speak. I mentioned in my remarks that under the Democratic bill, the EITC rate, the earned income tax credit under the bill would afford a sergeant in our Army today with 8 years of service, married and with three children, and has a basic pay of $34,723, would receive under the Democratic plan an EITC benefit of $3,508.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, Republicans in the House will once again bring up a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. We've seen a lot of repeal from them, but not as much with respect to their so-called plan to replace. I think I've figured out what the GOP wants to replace the Affordable Care Act with. Here is what I assume must be the Republican plan for health care in our country: chicken noodle soup. Chicken noodle soup? Many of our mothers and grandmothers have told us that chicken noodle soup is a cure-all for anything, but I think the Republican plan takes Grandma at her word a little too literally. Can't afford health care coverage and need medical care? Have some chicken noodle soup. Have you been diagnosed with a serious disease and can't afford the prescription drugs you need to treat it? Have some chicken noodle soup. At least you can rely on good old-fashioned chicken noodle soup. Have a preexisting condition like diabetes that lets your insurance company deny you coverage? That's okay. Have some chicken noodle soup and you'll feel better in the morning. The truth is, it won't be all better in the morning. That's why we enacted the Affordable Care Act, to ensure that people could get the affordable, quality coverage they need; that seniors can afford their prescription medications; and that an insurance company can no longer deny you coverage because you have a preexisting condition. I don't know why Republicans want to go back to the day when chicken noodle soup was the only option for hardworking families who couldn't afford care. The truth is, chicken noodle soup might be mmm, mmm good for lunch, but as a health care policy, it is mmm, mmm bad.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding this time. I listened to my friend from Indiana a moment ago quote President Lincoln. I would like to think that if President Lincoln were President today he would have supported this legislation, the Affordable Care Act, and that maybe we would call this LincolnCare today. I would say myself that I would call it President LincolnCare as I call it today President ObamaCare. I notice my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very much on target in terms of their talking points today. Each and every one has repeatedly called it ObamaCare, a pejorative, bringing down not only the legislation we're talking about, but diminishing the office of the President of the United States. I remind them that we have many people listening to the debate today, including young people. We should be beholden to the office of the presidency. That's why I call it President ObamaCare. But this morning, the Speaker of the House, when asked why we're wasting time and energy on another repeal vote said: ``We are resolved to get rid of a law that will ruin the best health care delivery system the world has ever seen.'' Resolved to get rid of the best health care system the world has ever seen? That is what we had before the Affordable Care Act? I think my constituents--and I would daresay some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--would disagree with that. Do you want to go back to a time when insurance companies could deny coverage for arbitrary reasons that put bottom lines ahead of patients' needs, back to a time when families worried about how they were going to afford coverage and lived with the fear that a single medical emergency could send them into bankruptcy, back to a time when seniors were overwhelmed by prescription drug costs with no relief in sight? No. Americans don't want to go back to that time. In fact, when we passed the Affordable Care Act, President Obama and Democrats in Congress were resolved. We were resolved to actually improve our health care system. We knew that the status quo was not working for far too many Americans. We were resolved to ensure that everyone had access to affordable health care coverage. We were resolved to guarantee that that coverage would work better for patients and for families.

Mr. CROWLEY. I'm not sure why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't share our resolve to make life for our constituents better today than it was prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. I don't understand the resolve to preserve what was an inadequate status quo by voting tomorrow to take a giant step backwards. My colleagues, our friends on the other side, have no vision. That's why we're here today talking about going back to the future.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker on Tuesday June 26, 2012, I was away from Washington. If I were here, the following is how I would have voted on the votes listed below. Rollcall 412 (PQ on H.R. 5972 and H.R 5973)--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall 413 (H. Res. 697--Rule for H.R. 5972 and H.R. 5973)--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall 414 (Democratic Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4348-- Mr. Hoyer)--I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall 415 (Republican Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4348-- Ms. Black)--I would have voted ``no.'' H.R. 5972--Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2013: Rollcall 416 (Connolly Amendment)--I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall 417 (McClintock Amendment)--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall 418 (Garrett Amendment)--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall 419 (Capps Amendment)--I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall 420 (Gosar Amendment)--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall 421 (Broun Amendment #1)--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall 422 (Broun Amendment #2)--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall 423 (Broun Amendment #3)--I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I, along with my colleague Mr. Royce of California, plan to offer a bipartisan amendment to the measure, but I understand this is subject to a point of order. I appreciate the chair and the ranking member for supporting an opportunity to say a few words since I won't be asking for a vote on the amendment at this time. My amendment is about the importance of cooperation on homeland security between the United States and India. I believe that one of the most important decisions the United States has made in recent years is to strengthen our relationship with the democratic nation of India. With that relationship, one of our most important decisions has been to cooperate and coordinate on matters dealing with homeland security. The fact is that both the United States and India face threats of terrorist attacks. The people of India will never forget the tragedy of 9/11. After all, many of those who were killed were of Indian origin. The people of the United States looked on in horror as terrorists carried out the brutal Mumbai attacks. In those attacks, terrorists killed not only Indians but Americans as well. 9/11 and Mumbai remind us of why it is important that we work together with India, and the people of our two countries remind us of why we must sustain and deepen that cooperation even further. So I want to urge the Department of Homeland Security to continue the important work that it is doing with regard to India to help ensure that both of our countries are safe from terrorist attack. I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Royce, who had planned to offer this amendment along with me. Support in this area is bipartisan, and we will continue to work in a bipartisan way. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question so we can consider Mr. Connolly's amendment that would give our constituents a chance to see whose side their representative is on. Since the Republican majority took office, they have repeatedly focused on chipping away at the protections afforded by Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Affordable Care Act. Yet many of these same Members are happy to claim these benefits for themselves and their families, even as they vote to deny access to these benefits for the very people who put them in office. The American people deserve better. We're saying to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle: if you're going to force your constituents to give up the right to access affordable insurance or retirement security, then you should do the same. Last year, I introduced a resolution that would require all Members of Congress to publicly disclose whether they participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. The reasoning was simple: if Republicans wish to take away quality affordable health care from Americans, then they can no longer hide their benefits from the taxpayers that subsidize their own care. The taxpayers are our employers, and they deserve to know which Members are keeping taxpayer subsidized health benefits for themselves and their families while they vote to deny those same health care benefits and rights to all American families. For all their talk of transparency and accountability, my resolution was met with silence from the other side of the aisle. Today, they have a chance to try again and say to their constituents: I won't take away your benefits unless I'm willing to give up mine as well. How many will take that promise? Everyone should. But I fear that their party's political promises will trump the promises they should make to help their constituents. I will vote to stand on the side of the American people, and I encourage every one of my colleagues in this Chamber to join me and vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives missed an opportunity to do right by millions of American students. This was an opportunity for us all to come together in a bipartisan way and ensure that college students would not see their student loan interest rates double in just a few months. But instead, Republicans chose to give our students a lesson in Partisan Politics 101. For all the rhetoric we heard about their desire to stop these rate hikes, they just couldn't pass up the chance to use one of their favorite tactics--dismantling the Affordable Care Act. They did this knowing full well that this proposal would never get the support it needs to become law. They made the calculation that they would try to score political points rather than help ensure that students can access an affordable college education. But these political tactics are not going to help families shoulder the cost of paying for college. They are not going to give more students the opportunity to achieve the American dream. And they are not going to help keep our country competitive in a global economy by training the best and the brightest in needed fields. What this maneuver would achieve is fewer disease screenings, weakened community health programs, and worse health for us all. Is that the country we want to be? We shouldn't have to choose between educating our next generation and making sure they're healthy. And if this was really about ``fiscal responsibility,'' then the Republicans wouldn't have chosen to eliminate--again--a program that actually saves money by preventing more costly disease. I went to the House floor hoping to be able to vote for legislation that would make a responsible effort to stop this interest rate hike. We could cover the cost by putting an end to unnecessary tax breaks for oil companies raking in profits. But instead, Republicans were intent on making this a political ploy at the expense of American families. I refuse to play these games with the well-being of hard-working Americans at stake, and I voted no on this legislation so that we can bring a better bill up for a vote.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I object.

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman, my friend from Michigan, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. There are a number of reasons to oppose this legislation. One, this bill is not targeted towards job creation. Frankly, it is not targeted at all. It will provide 99.6 percent of all businesses with a tax break, regardless of whether or not they create one American job or not. Two, this bill does not prevent businesses from taking a tax cut even when they lay off workers. Three, this bill fails to help the businesses most in need, such as new businesses or start-ups. They're not eligible for any provisions in this bill. Fourth, this bill will add billions to the deficit, which will hurt economic growth in America. Five, and most egregiously, this bill provides companies who are in the midst of offshoring jobs with a tax break. During committee consideration of this legislation, I offered an amendment to deny this tax deduction to any company that reduces the number of American workers and jobs while correspondingly increasing its foreign workforce. Additionally, the amendment stated if a company offshores U.S. jobs next year, after this 1-year tax expenditure expires, the funds would be recaptured or taken back by the Treasury. This is so a company cannot take the money this year and run away with American dollars and jobs next year and put them overseas. My amendment enjoyed the support of every Democrat on the Committee of Ways and Means. Unfortunately, it was not supported by one Republican on that committee. Americans and their taxpayer dollars should not be subsidizing the destruction of American jobs. Let me state: Democrats recognize we live in a global economy. We recognize that many of our companies need to operate internationally to remain competitive and expand their markets and market share. But Americans should not have their hard-earned tax dollars--$46 billion in this case, Mr. Speaker--taken away and used to subsidize this kind of business activity.

Mr. CROWLEY. Democrats worked hard while in the majority to end the practice of incentivizing the offshoring of U.S. jobs in the Tax Code. We killed a number of perverse tax loopholes and reinvested the revenue into initiatives focused on creating U.S. jobs and assisting America's small businesses. Defeat this bill. It is immoral. We should not be spending U.S. tax dollars in this way.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be reiterated once again that the sponsor of the underlying bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), believes that we need to find pay-fors. We need to pay for it and not add to the deficit when it comes to disaster relief. Let's put that in perspective. A hurricane hits, wipes out a town. The American government cannot go and rescue and help those people and pay for that without finding a pay-for in order to substitute for that payment. When tornados hit middle America and peoples' lives are destroyed, their homes are destroyed, and cities and towns are eviscerated, the Congress has to come up with pay-fors in order to help in that disaster relief, but not when it comes to a tax break for companies that will offshore American jobs. Those tax breaks we don't have to pay for. Mr. Cantor doesn't believe you have to pay for those. But for disasters that hit America and cities and towns that are annihilated, they must be paid for. I just think that needs to be pointed out to the American people. The Levin bill is a far superior bill. It incentivizes growth within small businesses without burdening the American taxpayer at the same time. Whose money are we talking about? This is not the small business person's money. This is money that otherwise would be revenue to the country. This is the American taxpayer's money that we're just giving back to millionaires, hardworking Americans who work and toil every day to give a tax break to millionaires. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to solemnly recognize Holocaust Remembrance Day--Yom Hashoah. This date marks the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, when thousands of Polish Jews, faced with deportation and certain death, launched the first urban-uprising in Nazi-occupied Europe. Surprised by the makeshift, yet effective, resistance they encountered, German troops systematically leveled the ghetto building- by-building and killed or deported to death camps tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. We look back with sadness at the terror and despair these victims must have felt and with admiration at the courage and strength they summoned. And from their heroics, we are called to remember how much we lost, as well as what we gained, from this unprecedented tragedy. The Nazi killing machine slaughtered millions of people--law-abiding and productive members of society--because they were Jewish. We will never know what scientific discoveries these people or their children would have made, what businesses they would have started, what books they would have written, what music they would have composed and what trophies they would have won. Their loss has left a void not only in Europe, but throughout the world, and our lives are diminished because of it. Let us honor the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust by remembering their suffering and bravery, standing by our friend and ally Israel, and fighting for justice and peace.

Mr. CROWLEY

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

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

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to H.R. 3309. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses a problem that has come to light over the past 2 years. It's a problem that's a concern for parents, a problem that is a concern for families. It's a problem that's a concern for law enforcement. And I believe that my amendment will help to address this problem. Here's what we have learned. Many families do not know that the baby monitors that they purchase to help them take care of their infants and their children can be easily accessed by potential intruders. It's possible for someone, anyone at all, to purchase a normal baby monitor at the store and use that monitor to see and hear inside a family's home, quite literally making it possible to monitor other people's children and their lives. In fact, recent investigative news stories by NBC in New York and throughout the Nation found that one can even drive down the street with a baby monitor receiver and monitor every child on that street whose family uses an analog baby monitor. Outsiders waiting hundreds of feet from a home or canvassing a neighborhood can quickly and easily see an image of a young child or an entire room, the same image seen by parents inside their home. The concerns don't end there. Potential intruders could also identify whether the parents or children are home at all, helping create conditions for burglary. And a potential kidnapper or abuser could easily identify the location of a child within a home, as well as the easiest point of entry to abduct or cause harm to that child. This is a situation that is deeply concerning to many parents who know of the problem. But equally as alarming is the fact that so many others don't even know about the problem to begin with. This amendment would direct the FCC, when ruling on baby monitors, to require companies producing analog baby monitors to include warning labels on packages so that parents can make fully informed decisions about the potential risk of their purchases. Parents have no greater concern than the well-being of their children and their families, and they deserve full information about the products they are purchasing. It comes down to making sure that parents are aware of any potential dangers. A clear warning on the monitors will help arm parents with the information they need to make the best decision for their family. I have written to the FCC about this issue, as well as the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. There is, indeed, an interest in addressing this problem, and I hope passage of this amendment will send a clear message to the agencies with jurisdiction over these products that we need to find a way to move forward and get this matter addressed. I ask for support for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.