Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the Iranian plot to carry out bomb attacks in our Nation's Capital and to praise our law enforcement officials who have once again stepped in to thwart terror and preserve our safety. Two days ago, law enforcement officials revealed Iranian participation in a plan to assassinate a foreign ambassador on U.S. soil by blowing up a busy D.C. restaurant. They also cited plans to attack Israeli embassies in Washington, DC and Argentina. Without the efforts of our law enforcement agencies, these attacks could have killed possibly hundreds of innocent bystanders right here in our Nation's Capital and elsewhere. This plot goes beyond a handful of individuals; it once again displays the Iranian regime's cruel disregard for innocent human life. Iran continues to sow violence and instability in the Middle East, to traffic weapons, to pursue the acquisition of nuclear capabilities and to brutally suppress its own people. This is the country whose leader threatened to ``wipe Israel off the map.'' This latest attempt to murder diplomats and citizens in D.C. and abroad is proof positive that Iran remains a serious danger. Last year, I helped lead the effort to pass sanctions on the Iranian regime--to end its ability to finance repression and terrorism. This attempted attack on our homeland demonstrates the world must do more. China and Russia, in particular, can do a lot more--for too long they have avoided applying tough pressure on the Iranian regime. But we too can do more. Iran remains a threat to U.S. national security and to global peace and stability, and it is time to increase U.S. and multilateral pressure even further.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on October 11, 2011 I voted ``no'' on House resolution 425, I intended to vote ``yes.''

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, we are now more than 275 days into this 112th Congress, and the GOP leadership has put forward zero American jobs bills and outright rejected consideration of President Obama's jobs proposal. So if jobs aren't at the heart of the Republican Tea Party's agenda, what is? Passage of anti-labor legislation to weaken the rights of middle class workers and encourage the shipping of jobs overseas. Check. Passage of anti-middle class legislation to raise taxes on hardworking families. Check. Passage of anti-environment legislation to roll back clean air standards. Check. Passage of anti-education legislation to slash Pell Grants for middle-income students to afford college. Check. And later today, passage of its seventh anti-women's health measure. Today's bill will put the government in the middle of American's health choices and allow hospitals to refuse life-saving treatment to women. Every day it feels more and more like the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' I wake up hoping it will be something different, but it's the same scene played over and over and over. The Republican Tea Party agenda stuck on repeat might satisfy the extreme right wing, but it neither satisfies nor helps hardworking Americans. It is time for the GOP leadership to learn a lesson from ``Groundhog Day''--the only way out of it is to do better. The American people don't want token legislation, extreme partisanship, or sideshow politics. They want real solutions, real jobs, and a real vision. They want a vision for America. A vision for America. And like the movie, they are desperate for a new day.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I rise today in support of this agreement between the United States and Korea. I especially want to thank my colleague, Mr. Levin of Michigan, for his tireless efforts to improve the agreement, along with Chairman Camp and Congressman Brady of Texas in a bipartisan way. A lot of credit for the concept of this agreement should also go to President Obama. The Bush administration was willing to submit an agreement that heavily favored Korea, but the Obama administration held out until we got a better deal--a more fair deal, a more fair agreement. For a long time, our roadways have been home to cars named Hyundai. Now, because of this agreement, South Korean roadways will see more American cars on them. It's only right that Fords and Chevys have the same access that Hyundai has here in America. This agreement will not only break down barriers for American car manufacturers, but American services and goods, such as insurance, legal, finance, television, and movies will now be available in South Korea. Korean services companies have always had the right to operate here, but this agreement is about making sure that American companies have the same ability to operate in South Korea. That's good news for American businesses and good news for American workers. For a State like mine, which depends so much on the service industries, it is important that we are able to export our products throughout the world. It is no secret that the number one reason to support this agreement is that it tears down barriers for U.S. exporters and will create jobs right here in the United States. But the number two reason is just as important. I have often discussed with my Korean American constituents back in Queens and in the Bronx the importance of there being a strong South Korea. This is as much about diplomacy. This is as much about our geopolitics. South Korea is in an area of the world that is dangerous and unpredictable. America needs strong allies in this region, and this agreement acknowledges South Korea as a friend and stalwart ally of the American Government and, more importantly, of the American people. Since we stood shoulder to shoulder during the Korean war against the advancement of Communism to our joint efforts today to stop terrorism throughout the world, South Korea has been a true ally of the United States. This agreement sends a message to countless other countries around the world that, if you want to be treated like South Korea, act like South Korea.

Mr. CROWLEY. South Korea has strong labor and environmental laws. South Korea is committed to a representative democracy, and South Korea recognizes that trade is a two-way street that must benefit Americans as well as South Koreans. I strongly urge the passage of this agreement.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honor to offer my best wishes to the millions of Indian-Americans and to Indians around the globe on this Gandhi Jayanti, India's national holiday celebrating the birth of Mohandas Gandhi. Political prisoner, freedom fighter, father of a nation--Gandhi shaped modern India and has continued to shape the world we live in by inspiring some the greatest leaders of our time. A champion for the rights of all people, he fought apartheid in South Africa, colonial rule in India, and oppression and injustice in all its guises. In doing so, he has inspired our world's greatest leaders from Nelson Mandela to Cesar Chavez, Aung San Suu Kyi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It was Dr. King who once said he owed his inspiration to fight injustice to God and his method--nonviolent resistance--to Gandhi. The American civil rights movement, from lunch counter sit-ins to the Montgomery County bus boycott, was influenced by Gandhi's foundational principle of Satyagraha, or nonviolent civil disobedience. Today, modern India is a leader as the world's largest democracy, among the world's largest economies, and as our close friend and ally. The U.S.-India friendship remains a growing and essential part of U.S. foreign policy, and working together our two countries are a powerful force for positive change in the region and in the world. On this day, I join the Indian-American community and friends around the globe to remember and celebrate the life of this fearless man who led a nation to gain independence for his people from the British Empire. Gandhi's life was a testament to invincibility of truth over injustice. As he said, ``When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it, always.''

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I'm not opposed to keeping our government up and running. In fact, I want desperately to support a bill as simple as keeping the Federal Government up and running. What I'm imposed to is, I believe, ugly, out-right partisan politics, especially at a time when Americans want to work constructively together to address the serious problems that we're all facing. But bipartisanship is not at work here tonight, and it has not been here for some time. Since President Obama announced the American Jobs Act, my colleagues on the other side have held zero hearings, not a single hearing on that plan. Since Solyndra announced it was going out of business, the majority has held three hearings, and there are more scheduled to come. Let's be clear. We should get all the answers, every answer about Solyndra's failings. But I'm sorry. That is not a comprehensive agenda that will produce one single job. Time is ticking because, while we stand here tonight quibbling about how to pay for the day-to-day functions of government, and how best to assist American communities hurting after hurricanes, flooding, droughts, and wildfires, Europe and China are working overtime to outcompete us on every front. President Obama and the Democratic Party have a plan for keeping the U.S. competitive on the global stage. We have a plan for keeping American businesses, workers, and industries stronger and better than our foreign competitors. It's Democrats who got engaged and saved GM and Chrysler. It's Democrats who created the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, a program that has created almost 40,000 auto manufacturing jobs in less than 2 years. And it's Democrats who have led the way on green energy. By contrast, the GOP agenda can be summed up in one word: ``roadblock.'' Not road building, roadblock. Republicans aren't focused on producing jobs. They oppose trying to put Detroit back on its feet. They are opposed to bringing President Obama's bills to the floor. And in the very bill we are debating right now, they are making cuts to the very manufacturing program I just cited as a job creator. My colleagues, there are Americans across the country who are hurting. They've lost jobs, been foreclosed upon, and have endured extreme natural disasters of all kinds. They cannot accept a Congress that isn't willing to put them first. They cannot accept a Congress that insists upon offsets for aid to rebuild America, but not for aid to rebuild schools, hospitals, and roads in Iraq and Afghanistan. They cannot accept a Congress that holds more hearings on the failure of one company, but not one hearing on a job plan for America. I'm sorry, but this is not acceptable. Vote ``no'' on this bill and reject the GOP's roadblock agenda.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the full declaration of Armenian independence on September 21st, and to acknowledge the numerous contributions of Armenian-Americans to the history, society, and culture of the United States. The legacy of the Armenian people is one of strength, resilience, and determination, and we pay tribute to those who struggled for and won their independence twenty years ago today. The thorny path to freedom is difficult for so many throughout the world, and I am proud to stand alongside the Armenian people as they continue to consolidate the gains of independence. Over the past two decades, Armenia has moved toward a modern, dynamic economy, reduced poverty and inequality, and built a vibrant civil society. I personally experienced the warmth and generosity of the Armenian people first-hand during my visit there. Here in the United States, the contributions of Armenian-Americans are innumerable. Hundreds of thousands of Armenian-Americans have contributed to the strength, prosperity and creativity of this country by leading the way in diverse fields such as medicine, literature, business, the arts, human rights, and science. The contributions of the Armenian-American community to the United States--and in particularly to life in New York--cannot be fully appreciated quantitatively. It can only be realized by those who walk the streets of New York and interact with the Armenian-American community there and throughout the country. All those of Armenian heritage throughout the world rightfully celebrate this national day with pride in their hearts and hope for the future. It is my honor to send congratulations to the people of Armenia, along with best wishes for a peaceful and prosperous year ahead.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Let me just make one point. There is partisanship. There are those who would use this opportunity to divide. Not here in the United States, not Republicans and Democrats, but around the world. This is a world forum we're talking about in the U.N., and what I want our allies to know and our friends to know is that we're watching-- those who will stand with the State of Israel and those who will not.

Mr. CROWLEY. I want to thank my dear friend and colleague from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about one of the most important issues in our world, and that is peace in the Middle East. For far too many years, many parts of the United Nations have been hijacked by states opposed to the ongoing existence of the State of Israel. Some states simply refuse or are not willing to acknowledge that Israel is a country surrounded by many who seek her destruction. They seem to believe that if the Israelis simply conceded, simply gave up, that peace would come to the region. That view doesn't only show a lack of understanding; it is simply wrong. The truth is no country in the world would ever take action that undermines its ability to defend itself and neither should the State of Israel. Day in and day out, the people of Israel face the threat of terrorism. From the moment that they wake up in the morning to when they go to sleep at night, Israeli citizens wonder if they or their families will be the target of attacks. Dozens of suicide bombings and attacks have been carried out over the past 10 years, and there is no doubt that each and every day Hamas is planning and preparing for even more attacks. Madam Speaker, we need peace in the Middle East, but these are not the conditions for peace. How can anyone make peace when enemies are seeking their destruction? And now we see this move at the United Nations to secure unilateral declaration of statehood. Instead of finally achieving the peace that is so desperately needed, so desperately wanted, this looks like a step to try to back Israel into a corner. Let me assure you, this is not the path to positive change. It is a grave error by Abu Mazen to demand recognition of statehood at this time. The fact is, the day after any vote, the situation on the ground in the Middle East will not have changed. All the same issues will remain in place. The difference will be the trust. Trust will forever be eroded, and for good reason. That's not the only difference, however. There is another issue that I believe we need to have more discussion about. I believe that what the Palestinian Authority is doing calls into question our funding for their work. The United States supported the Authority as a way to support peace efforts, but this statehood drive undermines those very efforts. American dollars are meant to support efforts by the Palestinian Authority to secure peace and to diminish violence, but this is not a blank check. We cannot support those who seek confrontation instead of reconciliation. I believe it is time for a very, very serious review of our policy, the United States Congress and the United States' policy in its funding, not only for the Palestinian Authority but for any nation that seeks to undermine the State of Israel within the U.N., not just the Palestinian Authority but any nation that would vote to undermine the existence of the State of Israel. I want to thank Mr. Deutch and Mr. Hoyer and all of my colleagues for putting this effort together tonight. I and my colleagues will continue to stand firmly with the people of Israel.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Hugh L. Carey, former Governor of New York, Member of Congress and decorated World War II veteran, who passed away on August 7, 2011. Governor Carey's life is truly indicative of what it means to be an American. His accomplishments were many, and I know he will be remembered as one of the greatest New Yorkers in history. Born to first-generation Irish immigrants, the Governor at an early age dedicated his life to serving his city, State and country. As a member of the U.S. Infantry's 104th Division during World War II, Carey and his unit courageously helped liberate the citizens of France, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as the prisoners of the Nordhausen concentration camp. After returning from the war, he finished his undergraduate and law degrees at St. John's University in New York City, and in 1961, Governor Carey was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he represented the people of New York until 1974. In addition to his many successes serving as a Congressman, most New Yorkers admire him for his role in saving the city and State of New York from fiscal insolvency during the economic crisis of the 1970s. During a period of great economic uncertainty, Governor Carey had the insight, fortitude and wisdom to make the tough decisions to repair New York's finances. Employing a system of shared sacrifice, Governor Carey brought labor, industry and government together to the negotiating table to hammer out an agreement that pulled the city back from the brink of insolvency. As a leader during some of New York's darkest times, his willingness to make the difficult choices and bring disparate parties to the bargaining table should be an example to leaders today. The Governor had far too many other accomplishments to list them all. However, a common thread connected all of his efforts--from his work to promote peace in the North of Ireland to his efforts at expanding aid to students in need, the Governor always put the people of New York first. Because of his commitment, his perseverance and his love of New York, the impact of his life is felt today by all New Yorkers. We will all miss a great American and true son of New York, Governor Hugh L. Carey.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Washington for yielding me such time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 66. This measure is a sign of how we can all work together on foreign policy when we put our minds to it. I want to acknowledge the bipartisan support, both here in the House as well as in the Senate, for human rights in Burma. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act and the Burmese JADE Act together have prevented hundreds of millions of dollars from getting into the hands of the Burmese military apparatus. By passing these bills into law and renewing them this year, we have ensured that the 65 million people of Burma see us, the United States, as an ally in their struggle for human rights, and we have helped send a signal to others around the world that the United States will not turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity. There is no question that Burma is ruled by one of the world's most brutal governments. Over the past year, we have seen ongoing abuses committed by the Burmese military, including rapes, torture and killings. Just last week, Human Rights Watch released a report, documenting how villagers are subjected to summary executions, torture and being used as human shields during conflict. The women in Burma live in constant fear of rapes by soldiers of their own military. For the leaders of the Burmese military, rape is a tactic of war--one used to torment and to intimidate entire populations, not just their immediate victims. In fact, just 2 weeks ago, on July 5, the Burmese soldiers carried out four more rapes against ethnic civilians. The innocent victims were of all different ages. One of those victims was as young as 12 years of age. That's right. A 12-year-old girl was raped by a member of the Burmese military. As a result of thousands of brutal rapes and other abuses, Burmese villagers continue to flee their homes into the jungle where they live as refugees or internally displaced people. As bad as these abuses are, this bill is not only about stopping human rights abuses. We must remember that the inspiration for this measure came from the remarkable woman, Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi. She led her political party to victory in Burma's last free and fair election in 1990. Many people call her the Nelson Mandela of Burma, and the U.S. House of Representatives voted to award her the Congressional Gold Medal. Up until last November, she was also the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and today, even though she is no longer under formal house arrest, the military has threatened her over and over again in an attempt to intimidate her into silence. She has called on the people throughout the world to take action saying, ``Please use your liberty to promote ours.'' She and the democracy movement in Burma have also called for us to maintain sanctions on Burma. This is similar to how the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela called for sanctions on South Africa in the 1980s. Passing this bill isn't all we must do. I want to urge the administration to fully implement the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act and Block Burmese JADE Act. The JADE Act gives the administration tools to implement tough bilateral financial sanctions on members of the Burmese regime and its cronies, and we should proceed as soon as possible. It's important to remember that the United States isn't the only country that has imposed sanctions on Burma. This is not a bilateral effort. It is a multilateral effort. While every country has different types of sanctions, those that have taken action include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the European Union, and more. We should be doing all we can to expand these sanctions into an even greater multilateral effort. That's why in the Burmese JADE Act, we ask the President to appoint an envoy to work internationally on increasing pressure on the Burmese regime. Now that this envoy has been nominated, I urge our colleagues in the Senate to confirm him without haste, and I hope he gets to work right away on strengthening and implementing multilateral pressure. I also believe the administration should work proactively to establish an international investigation into crimes against humanity committed by the Burmese military. The Burmese leadership is clearly carrying out crimes against humanity. The sooner these abuses are investigated, the sooner they will end. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the right thing to do. I stand in strong support of this bill, and I urge its immediate adoption.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 8, 2011, I was absent for seven rollcall votes. If I had been here, I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall vote 525; ``no'' on rollcall vote 526; ``no'' on rollcall vote 527; ``no' on rollcall vote 528; ``no'' on rollcall vote 529; ``no'' on rollcall vote 530; ``yes'' on rollcall vote 531.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 18, 2011, I was absent for two rollcall votes. If I had been here, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote 601; and ``yes'' on rollcall vote 602.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that would eliminate section 18 of the underlying patent reform bill. Section 18 empowers the Patent and Trademark Office to review the validity of so- called business method patents. This language was drafted in close cooperation with the Patent and Trademark Office and the Department of Commerce. It also enjoys the wide bipartisan support of the Judiciary Committee, which defeated a similar amendment during committee consideration of this bill. Further, this amendment does not hurt any legitimate inventors. It only allows for the review of abstract patents issued since 1988 when a Federal court ruled that business methods could be patented--a ruling which the U.S. Supreme Court limited significantly last year. What are these business methods I'm talking about? In one case, a business method patent was issued for interactive fund-raising across a data packet transferring computer network. Once obtained, the patent holder sued the Red Cross for soliciting charitable contributions on the Internet, claiming that his patent covers this entire field. In another example, a patent was granted covering the printing of marketing materials on billing statements. These patents, and many others in this space, are not legitimate patents that help advance America. They are nuisance patents used to sue legitimate businesses and nonprofit business organizations like the Red Cross or any other merchants who engage in normal activity that should never be patented. In fact, this language will not go after any legitimate patent, but only allow a review of illegitimate patents, like those looking to patent the ``office water cooler discussion.'' No legitimate inventor needs to worry about a post-grant review. In fact, under this section, the PTO cannot even look at a patent unless they determine that it ``more likely than not'' would be invalid. That's a very high standard. Let's help America grow and succeed and oppose this amendment.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to strongly oppose the Gosar and Scalise amendments to the 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Not only do these amendments threaten the stability and well-being of our Nation's construction industry, they would seriously undermine the wages and benefits of hard-working construction workers across the United States. It's no secret that since November 2010, many conservative leaders have sought to crack down on the rights of public sector workers across America. From Wisconsin to Indiana to Ohio, public sector workers like teachers, police officers, firefighters and other middle-class Americans are seeing their right to participate in labor unions and collectively bargain taken away. However, what is less known is that many conservatives are simultaneously working, through measures like these two amendments, to drive down the wages and benefits of workers in a major private sector section of our economy: construction. The workers who would be severely hurt by these two amendments are not even employed by the federal government, but by private businesses. This means that federal law would be responsible for reducing the wages of private sector employees at a time when they can least afford it. The Gosar amendment would eliminate important protections guaranteed by the Davis-Bacon Act, one of our Nation's oldest and most important labor laws, which requires payment of local prevailing wages on federal construction projects. The Scalise amendment would prohibit funds from being used to implement Executive Order 13502, a measure which encourages executive agencies to enter into project labor agreements on large-scale federal construction projects. Project labor agreements, like Davis-Bacon, are a cornerstone of the American construction industry and give cost and wage certainty to all parties involved in a construction project. Davis-Bacon and project labor agreements not only help hard-working construction workers make ends meet, they create a more skilled workforce that results in projects being completed with a high degree of quality and safety. At a time when we face unprecedented threats from abroad and are working hard to create good American jobs, removing these two mainstays of the American construction industry makes no sense at all. The men and women who build our Nation's roads, bridges and buildings have the right to make a decent living instead of facing deliberate attempts to not only undermine their wages and benefits, but drag the entire construction industry into a race to the bottom. I urge my colleagues to vote no on these two amendments.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support the Lowey-Crowley- King-Israel-Roybal-Allard amendment to restore funding to critical Homeland Security programs. Passage of this amendment is vital to sustaining our efforts to keep every U.S. city, state and landmark vulnerable to a terrorist attack safe and secure. The Homeland Security bill, which was passed out of committee without a single Democratic vote, slashes support for many of our Nation's most important safety and protection programs, including initiatives recommended by the 9/11 Commission. In particular, I am deeply concerned about the Republicans' cuts to the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). After the attacks on New York and Washington, DC on September 11, 2001, I spearheaded an effort to create a new program, the High Threat Urban Area Account Program, mostly commonly referred to as UASI. The establishment of this program was important because at the time, there was not a single Federal program designed to provide support to the areas in this country that are most at risk of a terror attack. The reality is that while terrorists may want to strike the entire United States, their efforts often target major cities like New York where they can inflict damage on the maximum number of people. We have UASI for a reason--to make sure that the states that are most threatened by terrorism have the tools they need to prevent and deter attacks before they take place. In New York, grant monies are used to train and better equip first responders and provide them with communication systems to assure preparedness, in addition to improving the monitoring of key infrastructure that is more likely to be targeted, including bridges, subways, skyscrapers and tourist sites. Multiple attempts to attack New York underscore the severity of the threat faced by urban areas, and we cannot diminish our commitment to protecting the American people. In the days following 9/11, I stood here with Democrats and Republicans alike as we pledged to do everything in our power to make sure that an attack like the one on 9/11 never happens again. Yet, here we are today looking at cuts to the very programs intended to keep us safe. The threat of terrorism remains very real, making it essential for cities that face the greatest risk to have the resources necessary to prevent attacks. I strongly urge the House to reverse these damaging cuts.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 2011, I was absent for 6 rollcall votes because I joined the President at a wreath laying ceremony in honor of victims of 9/11 in New York. If I had been here, I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall vote 293; ``no'' on rollcall vote 294; ``yes'' on rollcall vote 295; ``yes'' on rollcall vote 296; ``yes'' on rollcall vote 297; and ``no'' on rollcall vote 298.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, Mrs. Black, when someone comes to the floor and says, I'm going to speak now free of hyperbole, well, it will be so high up to your neck you don't have to worry about getting it off your shoe because the reality is that was all hyperbole. If what we were doing here right now was simply codifying existing law, there would probably be very little angst on this side of the aisle. But that's not what's happening. What this provision does is goes so much further. It only speaks to the ideological purge that you're on right now. Madam Speaker, on the 100th day of Republican rule of the House, I stood speechless on this floor at their failed campaign promise to focus on job creation and economic growth. It's said, ``Actions speak louder than words,'' and that is true. For all the Republicans' talk about putting Americans back to work, their actions demonstrate this is the least of their priorities. Instead, they have cut jobs, they have raised taxes, and reduced Americans' access to health care. The bill being debated today also has no jobs component whatsoever. Not a single job will be created because of this bill today. In fact, it will raise taxes and hamper the ability of small businessmen and - women to hire people. In their ideological zeal to restrict a woman's right to choose, the Republicans have prioritized a measure that the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce calls, and I quote, ``a slap in the face to small business owners.'' We just a few weeks ago removed the 1099 onerous provisions, and now we are going to further burden small businessmen and -women with this provision. It will burden them. It will not create a single job. It will only further burden the ability of small businessmen and -women to create jobs in America.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Levin. I am a bit disturbed as well about the description of the individuals we're talking about here, as though everyone is trying to scam the system. I would just point out, in the bill H.R. 4994, which had bipartisan support last year--with every Republican but one--we passed it to eliminate the cliff and to eliminate the possibility of a massive increase in taxes on the middle class. So we have already addressed this. What your bill today will do is put that back in place. I would just ask my colleague Mr. Camp: What is it about the example I gave that's wrong? What is it about the example of a family of four, earning $88,000 a year? Based on their prior income taxes, they're eligible for the tax credits in the next year, assuming as they do, because they live a pretty dull life, a pretty hard life, trying to maintain their home, get their kids a quality education. Probably, at this point, maybe one of their kids is in college already; and by the way, they're probably accessing the Child Tax Credit, so they're used to taking tax credits. Now this is one other additional tax credit that they can avail themselves of--to do what? Not to get the $4,460 and take it and go out and buy a car, not to get the $4,460 to go on vacation or to scam somehow--but to buy what? Health care insurance for their families, health care insurance, which is something we all would want to provide for our families. What is it about this example? When they get the $250 bonus and they get pushed into the 400 percentile of poverty, that they now have to pay back their $4,460, what is it about my statement that's wrong? I haven't heard yet--because it's not wrong, because that family would be exposed to a massive tax increase, one that they cannot afford. So don't describe these people as dishonest. Don't describe the middle class worker as trying to scam the system. Not everyone tries to do that. By the way, you might find that in the lowest poverty level, and I would dare say the top 1 percent try to scam the system, I would probably think, all the time. So let's not disparage anymore the middle class that we already have by presenting this bill this morning.

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill not because I oppose the repealing of the 1099 reporting requirements. I do. I have a record of supporting 1099 repeal and relieving America's small businesses from onerous paperwork and onerous regulations. What I'm opposed to is paying for this small business tax bill by increasing taxes on working middle class Americans. And that is exactly what this legislation will do. Let's not kid ourselves. Democrats offered a different path. Last July, we put forward legislation to repeal the 1099 reporting requirements, and we paid for it by eliminating loopholes in the Tax Code that reward those exporting U.S. jobs overseas. And, the Senate has offered an alternative path as well. Last month, they overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan repeal of the 1099 reporting requirement, which did not include a tax increase on middle class workers. But my Republican colleagues in the majority here in the House, who have continually preached lower taxes, less regulation and fiscal discipline, have refused either of these alternative approaches. Instead, my Republican colleagues are forcing a vote today on H.R. 4, a measure that will impose a $25 billion new tax on middle class families. Yes, you heard that right. It is only 59 days since my Republican colleagues have assumed majority control of the House of Representatives, and they're already breaking their campaign pledge of no new taxes, a pledge that 234 of 241 sitting Republican Members of the House signed. And, no, Republicans are not taxing the wealthiest 1 percent to pay for this small business relief bill. They are raising taxes on middle class workers, like firefighters, police officers, nurses and teachers, the very American families who work day in and day out to make their financial ends meet, the very American families under attack today in Wisconsin, in Indiana, in Ohio, and across the Midwest. Now, the Republicans will not admit that embedded in H.R. 4 is a tax increase on the middle class. But the facts are the facts. The Joint Committee on Taxation says the Republican bill is a tax increase, citing how it will raise $25 billion in new revenue. That is congressional-speak for a tax increase. Even Grover Norquist, the author of the ``Taxpayer Protection Pledge,'' has said, ``Americans for Tax Reform has always followed Committee on Joint Taxation methodology.'' Yet, still my Republican friends deny and deny and deny. But, my friends, read my lips--Republicans are raising taxes. Just look at the contents of the bill. Under the Democratic health reform law, an American family of four earning $88,000 a year is obligated to pay no more than 9.5 percent of their income on health care premium costs. In this example, that is $8,360 that comes out of their pocket on a typical family policy valued at $13,000. So the family would pay, out of their pocket, $8,360 in annual premiums for their health care coverage, and the Federal Government would provide a tax credit--not a subsidy, not a subsidy, a tax credit--valued at $4,640 to cover the rest. These are not subsidies, but tax credits to working people. They work exactly like the child tax credit or the tax credit to make college more affordable. How many of all of our constituents use those tax credits? Do they believe it is welfare, a form of welfare? I don't think so. They understand the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit. These are not subsidies for the middle class. They are tax credits for the middle class. These are tax relief measures for the middle class. The Affordable Care Act also ensures that the Federal funding going towards a family's health premium is paid directly to the insurance carrier, to the insurance company, not to the family. In short, the family receiving this tax credit will never, ever personally touch that money, not a single dime do they feel. It never transfers through them. However, under the Republican bill, H.R. 4, if that very same family that earns $88,000, the breadwinner of the family is called into the boss's office and the boss says: You know what, you're on your track to management. You're doing such a great job, we're going to give you a $250 bonus. Take the family out to dinner. It's the holiday season. And you're overjoyed. You go back to your family and say, I am management material. I got a $250 bonus. I'm taking everybody out to dinner tonight. Well, here's the rub: you would go from the 398 percentile of the Federal poverty level to the 401 percentile of the poverty level. When that happens, you would then owe the Federal Government for that $250. In April of the next year the Federal Government would say: Not so fast, you owe us $4,640 to make up for your having accessed those tax credits. That's right, they would have to pay back every single dime that went directly to that health insurer, to that health insurance company when a dime never crossed their fingers. Not a single dime crossed their fingers. Say it ain't so, Joe--that's what families back home in my district are saying. But I can't; it's true. Republicans are raising taxes. The 1099 provisions should be repealed. I agree with that, but not on the backs of middle class workers and middle class Americans.

Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate the comments of my friend from California, and I don't question his motivation. But I would suggest that if the assumption is that we believe everyone cheats, I think that's wrong. What I hear from the other side--not from the gentleman from California, but generally from the other side--is that the belief is the middle class cheats; the middle class cheats, and that's why we have to impose this upon them. And I would use an example of a middle class business man or woman. That business man or woman who files an individual fax tax form as a small business person no longer will have to file the 1099 forms, but if they make $88,000 a year and they are 397 percentile of Federal poverty and they have an unexpected increase in income, they will be subject to the $4,460 middle class tax hike.

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I wonder if my friend from Kentucky heard from his middle class taxpayers. I know he's heard from the small business owners. We've all heard from them. But has he heard from the middle class? When they get imposed this tax upon them, have they said, ``Don't put this tax on me''? No, because, quite frankly, they don't know what's happening. They wouldn't dream that you would do this to them. They wouldn't dream that somehow you might possibly inflict and impose upon them a $4,460 tax. If your constituents earning $88,000 go over by one penny--one cent-- over the 400 percentile of poverty--one penny--they have to pay back $4,460, which they never ever physically touched, which they never received. It went to the insurance company. The insurance companies get taken care of. They get their money. They're fine. By one penny over the Federal poverty level, your middle class families have to pay back $4,460. Does that sound fair to you? Now, maybe for one penny over, they have to give a little something back. Maybe for every dollar over, they'll have to give a little something back. But to pay back $4,460 so they can provide their families with health care? I'd say to the boss, Do me a favor, don't give me the penny bonus. Don't give me the $250 bonus. Don't reward hard work. Don't reward me for doing good work because if you give me the bonus I'm going to have to pay $4,460. Does that make any sense to you? What about making pay work? What about asking Americans to do their jobs, to do them well; and if you do it well, you'll get a bonus, and you'll get ahead, and your families will be taken care of? Under this bill, this is a nightmare for the middle class families--a nightmare--because they're not going to be able to pay that. It totally subverts the intention of what we tried to do in the first place, and that is to provide health care to the middle class.

Mr. CROWLEY. Does the committee report get to waive the House rules? The committee report? That's the evidence to waive the House rules? That's a new low standard.