Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 24 and 25, 2017, I was absent for recorded votes 407 through 413 because I was attending my son's induction into the Naval Academy Preparatory School in Rhode Island. Had I been present, I would have voted: On rollcall 407 I would have voted ``no'' On rollcall 408 I would have voted ``no'' On rollcall 409 I would have voted ``yes'' On rollcall 410 I would have voted ``no'' On rollcall 411 I would have voted ``no'' On rollcall 412 I would have voted ``no'' On rollcall 413 I would have voted ``yes''

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 July 12, 2017, due to a family commitment I was absent for recorded votes No. 347, No. 348, and No. 349. Had I been present, on rollcall No. 347, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 348, I would have voted ``no''; and on rollcall No. 349, I would have voted ``yes.''

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 for yielding. Much of the same rhetoric we are hearing right now from the other side of the aisle is similar to the same rhetoric we heard back in the 1840s, 1850s, and 1860s against the Irish when they came to America. We heard it said about Italian Americans in the 1880s and 1890s. We continue to hear the same type of rhetoric about African Americans in our country in terms of the percentage of criminal activity that takes place. What we have seen happen is the further incarceration and enslavement of African Americans in our Nation today because of similar rhetoric. I want to make it very clear: ``Immigrant'' and ``criminal'' are not synonyms. You make it out to be that way by the passage of this legislation. Talking about law enforcement, in New York City, James O'Neill, the police commissioner, has said this law will make New York City less safe than it is today. I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 9/11 happened in my hometown, in my city. Since then, there have been no major incidents of terrorism in New York City because they have been able to collect information--much of it from the undocumented community in our city--to prevent similar events from happening again. That is why this bill is so egregious. The first responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect its citizens from foreign invasion, foreign attack, terrorist attacks. This bill will withhold terrorism money from New York City. It will prevent the city of New York from continuing to collect the information they and other cities around this country need to protect their citizens, to develop the trust that the community has to have in its police department and the police department in its communities. That is how law enforcement works, that is how they catch the criminals, and that is how they help the Federal Government deport criminals who have committed criminal offenses in a city like New York.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee here in the House of Representatives for moving this bill and helping to put this bill on the floor today in a bipartisan spirit. I would also like to acknowledge the majority and minority staff who have been very helpful to my office in this effort. True, this is not the first time this measure has been considered. It passed the House during the last Congress, but the session ended before it could be moved forward in the Senate and into law. It was then, as it is now, a bipartisan bill. I would like to acknowledge all of the Members who are cosponsors. In substance, the bill would, as has been said, name a small parcel of the land in Washington, D.C., as Robert Emmet Park. Emmet was honored by the United States over 100 years ago when a statue of his likeness was donated to the Smithsonian Institution. That statue was welcomed by no less than President Woodrow Wilson himself. After 50 years, the museum moved the statue to the land where it rests now, an unnamed parcel of land. The rededication committee counted many key leaders, including then-Speaker of the House John McCormack, Senator Everett Dirksen, and Senator Mike Mansfield. Even President Lyndon Johnson conveyed his pride in Emmet, stating: ``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.'' So it is clear that, on a bipartisan basis, Congress has long recognized the significance of this statue and its role in keeping alive not only the memory of Robert Emmet, but the ideals for which he stood. At present, the statue of Emmet is the only statue on this small piece of land. This bill would take the next logical step by naming the land for Emmet. It is a fitting tribute since, for generations, many American schoolchildren learned the words of Emmet's famous speech, which became known as the ``Speech from the Dock.'' I often wonder what Abraham Lincoln was taught as a boy. We all learned the Gettysburg Address, but, in fact, Abraham Lincoln could recite the ``Speech from the Dock'' by memory. It couldn't have been an easy speech for Emmet to give when one considers that he was expected to be executed after giving that speech. Emmet had been an Irish independence leader who was deeply influenced by George Washington and the struggle for American independence. He was inspired by the American fight for democracy and self-determination. But after a failed effort to achieve independence, he was captured by the British, as were many others over centuries of struggle. In his speech, Emmet said: 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. Shortly after giving that speech on September 20, 1803, Robert Emmet was hanged, drawn, and quartered. But Emmet's words lived on. In fact, groups named the Emmet Monument Association were founded in the United States. Their stated purpose was to build a burial monument to Emmet, one that would, of course, include an epitaph. But because Emmet called for Ireland to be free before his epitaph was written, these groups were actually Fenian freedom organizations. They and other American groups were quite active in the United States for many years all across our Nation. They came before subsequent American roles in the struggle for Irish independence, and their presence played a major role in American political life for many decades. So I respectfully urge the passage of this bill. It does not require spending funds, and it does not alter the park or the park system. It would basically include the name Robert Emmet Park to a small piece of land where the Emmet statue rests. Many Americans, as well as our government, have long recognized the significance of the park and statue in keeping alive not just the history of Robert Emmet, but what he stood for. I am glad that continues today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank the majority and the minority members of the Natural Resources Committee as well as their staffs. Their support made it possible for this measure to once again be on the floor today. I would like to thank the hardworking staffs of the Smithsonian Institution and the National Park Service who have taken care of the Emmet statue and park for these many, many years.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 2017, I voted Yes during Roll Call 321 on the Davidson of Ohio Amendment No. 5 to H.R. 2842; I intended to vote No.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The majority thinks they have finally found the right combination of political giveaways to pass their bill, a bill that we have to remember still kicks 24 million Americans off their healthcare coverage. It still charges seniors more. It still takes away some of the most basic protections of your health plan that it should cover. Despite what you hear, this latest Band-Aid amendment is not going to change any of that. That is just what we know so far. Since this bill was built by backroom deals and haphazard guesses, we don't even know how much this bill will cost America--not just dollars added to the deficit, but the human cost of how much more damaging this bill will be. It is the height of irresponsible governing, not just rushing something through without full and fair consideration. Frankly, we are getting used to that on our side of the aisle. But to force through a bill that you know is going to hurt 24 million Americans is more than irresponsible; it is just plain wrong.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I want to recognize the bipartisan support for this resolution. It heartens me. I know of the great work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass) for quite some time, as well as others on the other side of the aisle, on this issue. She, along with the Sudan Caucus, the Africa Subcommittee, and the CBC Africa Task Force have been working every day in a very tenacious way to draw attention to this issue and demand a strong international response. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this is a crisis. I agree with my colleague and friend from New Jersey (Mr. Smith): it is a manmade crisis. The United Nations is reporting that the current situation in a number of countries in Africa and the Middle East constitutes the most serious humanitarian crisis since its founding over 70 years ago. In South Sudan alone, 100,000 people are in a state of famine as we speak, and up to 5 million more are in serious danger of being in famine. These are men, women, and children who are in danger of not having enough food and water. The simple fact is, without international aid and assistance, people will die--many people will die. But it doesn't have to be this way. The world is smart enough and resourceful enough to ensure that the worst of this tragedy can be prevented before the situation gets further out of hand, but it is going to take a full-court press by this administration, by the State Department, and by the international community. I grew up in Queens, New York, in an Irish-American family. At an early age, I learned of the Great Hunger in Ireland that killed more than 1 million people and forced more than 2 million more to flee. Those Irish didn't have to die just because a potato crop went bad. In Ireland at the time, food was actually being exported out of Ireland while people starved. So it was starvation not only because of food loss, but also because of politics and repression--very much the same situation that exists in parts of Africa and in Yemen--and only politics could ultimately change the underlying conditions in Ireland. Now, we need both aid and political pressure to help stop this famine and all of the ongoing famines now. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. I urge that the State Department: Seize the bull by the horns and take action. Don't let history look back on America and say: Why did you not do enough while millions starved? Let history reflect the goodness of the heart of the American people, which I know exists. To this day, the people of Ireland remember the sultans from the then-Ottoman Empire that helped. They remember the Choctaw Nation, who gave $700 during the 1840s to help the starving Irish. Let America be that shining country in the future when Africa looks back and says: Who was there to help? Let it be America. That is the American way. Working with our allies, America will succeed in preventing this famine if we move expeditiously.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and service of James ``Jimmy'' Lanza. Jimmy passed on April 6 of this year, surrounded by his family, friends, and beloved brothers from the Fire Department of New York City, after a noble battle with brain cancer. An esteemed member of the Woodside community, Jimmy's life was characterized by a tireless dedication to others in keeping with the highest tradition of service to our country. Jimmy gave perennially of himself, serving in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War, where he was a member of a crew of flying airborne early warning and control systems. After his tenure in the Navy, Jimmy went on to serve as a firefighter, devoting three decades to the FDNY with Engine 53, Ladder 43, in East Harlem as part of ``El Barrio's Bravest.'' During his time with the FDNY, Jimmy devoted countless hours to the search and recovery mission at the World Trade Center in the aftermath of September 11. After Hurricane Katrina, he traveled to New Orleans with his FDNY comrades to assist in their rescue, search, and recovery mission. As a volunteer with the Red Cross, he stood ever-ready to lend a hand to suffering communities in the aftermath of devastation. Jimmy also served on the executive board of the FDNY Fire Family Transport Foundation, an organization devoted to providing care and comfort to the families of firefighters during times of great need or bereavement. Jimmy was also deeply involved with charitable work on behalf of wounded veterans and their families. He made numerous trips to Washington, D.C. to visit veterans in military hospitals, and assisted in many sponsored events for vets and their families. A lifetime member of the American Legion, Jimmy served as the Commander of Post 1836, at the Boulevard Gardens in Woodside, Queens. In that role, he helped to educate the community on the profound sacrifices made by those who choose to serve our country in the armed forces. A lifelong Woodside resident, Jimmy devoted his time after retirement from the FDNY to improving his local community. He served as the President of the Boulevard Gardens Co-op Board for 15 years, the longest anyone had ever held the position. During his tenure, he worked to improve communication between the local precinct, the community board, and the Co-op board in order to assure that issues were dealt with in a timely manner. Jimmy was also instrumental in the fight to bring fair assessment to property values for co-ops across New York City. Over his tenure as President, the Boulevard Gardens community saw a marked increase in the quality of life and overall safety, as well as the financial standing of the co-op. Jimmy Lanza lived his entire life in service of others. His was the highest ideal of a life devoted to one's community and country, and should serve as an example for us all to aspire to. He was a truly great man, and also a dear friend of mine. He was a devoted family man, and is survived by his beloved sister Marian, his nephews Keith and Michael, niece Stephanie, grand-nieces Emily and Eva, grand-nephews Brandon and Andrew, countless friends, and all of the lives he touched over the years. Mr. Speaker, Jimmy's commitment to both community and country was, and will continue to be, an inspiration to all of us. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and legacy of James J. Lanza. May he rest in peace.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bad policy built on horrible process. Twenty-four million Americans will lose their coverage if this bill becomes law. Premiums and out-of-pocket expenses will skyrocket, especially for older Americans because of the age tax, as hardworking Americans are forced to subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy. It is no wonder this bill was crafted in the dead of night behind closed doors. It is so bad, even Members of the Republican Party are rejecting this bill, but President Trump and Republican leadership insisted they need to repeal ObamaCare at any cost, even if the price will be making health care out of reach for veterans, for seniors, and many of the hardest-working Americans. So the majority made it worse, and then they made it worse again. Now they have taken away the bare minimum requirements for insurance like covering emergency room visits or prescription drugs. It will crush any protections for preexisting conditions. There is no guarantee the treatment you need for your condition will even be covered under this bill. Image that: healthcare coverage that doesn't cover your health. Insurance that insures absolutely no peace of mind for what life may bring you. This body blow to critical health protections was done just to win votes, like so many of the other provisions and political favors, like the Empire State kickback, the Buffalo bribe, and the Syracuse sellout. I call it simply a political ploy. That provision, which will cut $2 billion from only New York State, has been blasted by newspapers from The Buffalo News to Newsday on Long Island. They have called it a train wreck. They have called it bloody money. Like everything else in this bill, it represents the worst kind of backroom, shady maneuvering. This bill is bad for New York, bad for the democratic system, and bad for America. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed of themselves. I know many of you are. But this bill is appalling, and I urge everyone in this Chamber to vote it down. And, Mr. Chairman, I know that 2.7 million New Yorkers will lose their health care if this bill becomes law.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 2017 I was absent for recorded vote No. 170 and No. 171, as I was delayed while leading a critical discussion with Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly in my capacity as Chair of the Democratic Caucus. I would like to reflect how I would have voted if I were here: On Roll Call No. 170 I would have voted yes. On Roll Call No. 171 I would have voted yes.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. It is about America, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President shall immediately disclose his tax return information to Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is worth expressing, once again. Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives, the President shall immediately disclose his tax return information to Congress and the American people. I want to thank Mr. Pascrell from the Ways and Means Committee for leading this issue in that committee and here on the floor, as well as Anna Eshoo from the Energy and Commerce Committee, and more to come in the weeks to come.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, the form of the remainder of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, in the United States' system of checks and balances, Congress has a responsibility to hold the executive branch of government to the highest standard of transparency to ensure the public interest is placed first; Whereas, according to the Tax History Project, every President after Richard Nixon has disclosed their tax return information to the public; Whereas, tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because they contain highly instructive information including whether the candidate paid taxes, what they own, what they have borrowed and from whom, whether they have made any charitable donations, and whether they have taken advantage of tax loopholes; Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns could help those investigating Russian influence in the 2016 election understand the President's financial ties to the Russian Federation and Russian citizens, including debts owed, and whether he shares any partnership interests, equity interests, joint ventures, or licensing agreements with Russia or Russians; Whereas, it has been reported that President Trump's close senior advisers, including Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and General Michael Flynn, have been under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their ties to the Russian Federation; Whereas, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Interfax, a Russian media outlet, on November 10, 2016, that ``there were contacts'' with Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, and it has been reported that members of President Trump's inner circle were in contact with senior Russian officials throughout the 2016 campaign; Whereas, according to his 2016 candidate filing with the Federal Election Commission, the President has 564 financial positions in companies located in the United States and around the world; Whereas, against the advice of ethics attorneys and the Office of Government Ethics, the President has refused to divest his ownership stake in his businesses; Whereas, the Director of the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics said that the President's plan to transfer his business holdings to a trust managed by family members is ``meaningless'' and ``does not meet the standards that . . . every President in the past four decades has met''; Whereas, the the Emoluments Clause was included in the U.S. Constitution for the express purpose of preventing federal officials from accepting any ``present, Emolument, Office, or Title . . . from any King, Prince, or foreign state''; Whereas, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., has hired a ``director of diplomatic sales'' to generate high-priced business among foreign leaders and diplomatic delegations; Whereas, the Trump International Hotel could receive up to $60,000 from the Kuwaiti government for a party it held at the hotel on February 22, 2017; Whereas, the President used a legally dubious tax maneuver in 1995 that could have allowed him to avoid paying federal taxes for 18 years; Whereas, the public still does not have a thorough understanding of the influences and conflicts President Trump has due to his various foreign and domestic business interests; Whereas, on January 30, 2017, President Trump publicly issued an executive order announcing that pipeline makers in the U.S. must use American-made steel in their projects; Whereas, on March 3, 2017, President Trump quietly reversed himself, issuing an order allowing the steel for the Keystone pipeline to be imported from foreign countries; Whereas, without direct knowledge on the conflicts this President has due to his business interests, he could be advancing policies that create an uneven playing field for working Americans; Whereas, the public should be able to examine his business interests, relationships, and conflicts to ensure that all policies put forward by the Trump administration solely benefit the American public and not his corporate business partners; Whereas, the most signed petition on the White House website calls for the release of the President's tax return information to verify compliance with the Emoluments Clause, with 1,082,000 signatures as of the date of this resolution; Whereas, the Chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee, Joint Committee on Taxation, and Senate Finance Committee have the authority to request the President's tax returns under Section 6103 of the tax code; Whereas, the Joint Committee on Taxation reviewed the tax returns of President Richard Nixon in 1974 and made the information public; Whereas, the Ways and Means Committee used IRC 6103 authority in 2014 to make public the confidential tax information of 51 taxpayers; Whereas, the American people have the right to know whether or not their President is operating under conflicts of interest related to international affairs, tax reform, government contracts, or otherwise: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives shall: One, immediately request the tax return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006 through 2015 for review in closed executive session by the Committee on Ways and Means, as provided under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, and vote to report the information therein to the full House of Representatives; Two, support transparency in government and the longstanding tradition of Presidents and Presidential candidates disclosing their tax returns.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer my resolution.

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, under rule IX, clause 1, questions of the privileges of the House are ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.'' I would argue there is nothing more of a threat to the integrity of the House of Representatives than ignoring our duty to provide a check and balance, as our Founders expected of us, of the executive branch. To restore the dignity of the House, we must use our authority to request President Trump's tax returns and give the American people the transparency that they deserve. The American people know full well the scope of the President's financial background, as related by television and the media; but they don't know the details. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution includes a clause prohibiting foreign emoluments to the President. The Office of Government Ethics has warned us about the President's decision not to divest or set up a blind trust, and there is a need to fully understand the President's ties to Russia. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the President saying one thing, such as mandating the use of American-made steel on American pipelines, then quietly reversing himself to allow the use of foreign-made steel on the Keystone Pipeline, which is being built by a Canadian company. The resolution I am offering can provide the transparency to help ease the concerns of Americans in every corner of our country. The Internal Revenue Code includes language laying out a path for the Ways and Means Committee to obtain the tax returns and review them in a respectful way. There is the precedent that I have stated earlier that provides for this to be used. A growing number of Members and Senators from both parties have been saying we should have the President's tax returns. One of those is Congressman Steve Knight of California who announced to his constituents that the President's tax returns should be made public, so I look forward to his support of this resolution. The House must demonstrate that its Members are listening to our constituents' concerns. The House must demonstrate that it cares about protecting the integrity of the House, of our government, of our Constitution, of our system of checks and balances. Let's shine a bright light on the President's conflicts together. We, as the elected Representatives of our constituents and the broader American public, can judge whether his decisions are being made for himself, his business, or for the greater good of the American people. At the end of the day, if President Trump has nothing to hide, then he should be willing to do what every President since Richard Nixon has done, and that is, release his tax returns.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think I have been toeing that line very closely.

Mr. CROWLEY. At the very least, even if he continues to hide behind the phony excuse of being under audit, he should release tax returns for 2016 as those are not under audit. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not about partisanship. It is about America. No, you are not listening to your constituents, my colleagues. It is about America, my colleagues. They want to see these tax returns. The American people expect more from the promise than heckling back and forth. They expect their Representatives from both sides of the aisles to demand these tax returns.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give tribute to a colleague and dear friend, New York State Assemblyman Michael Den Dekker. I have long admired his devotion to improving the lives of others. I know I am not alone in this admiration. Everyone who has worked with Mike has boundless respect for him, and truly enjoys knowing him. He is cheerful, he is kind, and he is a friend to all he meets. Mike and I go back decades. On September 12, 2001, I went down to Ground Zero for the first time. The past twenty four hours had been some of the most harrowing of my life. As I stepped out of the car, the first thing I laid my eyes on was Mike Den Dekker. He was there, broom in hand, cleaning up. No other story more clearly shows what kind of man Mike is. He does not shy away from hard work, he does not waver in his devotion to others. I have nothing but the deepest respect for my longtime friend and colleague. Of course, Mike is no stranger to tough work. He worked his way up in the sanitation department, eventually becoming supervisor, and going on to serve the city as a public information officer at the Office of Emergency Management and a facilities manager for the New York City Council, until he ran for State Assembly in 2008. Since then, he has fought tirelessly to improve the lives of New Yorkers and to create a state where everyone has the chance to work hard and succeed. His work is being recognized on March 13, 2017, as he receives the Charles Stewart Parnell award from the American Irish Legislators. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate him and declare my joy in his receiving of this award. The award is given each year to an Irish legislator in commemoration of Charles Stewart Parnell, the uncrowned king of Ireland, a brave soul who fought for the people. Mike is unwavering in his devotion to others, and has spent his whole life making his community safer, cleaner, healthier, and happier. It is only natural he should receive such an award to commemorate a lifetime of work. As we Irish say, luck may rise with you, Maith thu, and Go n-eiri an t-adh leat, Michael.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, sweetheart deals? Since when is it a sweetheart deal to have a modicum of retirement for working poor and middle class people? That is a sweetheart deal? All I hear from the other side of the aisle is people talking about government overreach, executive orders, and unnamed bureaucrats. So it is surprising that today the Republican majority is creating a manmade roadblock toward helping working Americans save their own money for their own retirement. We have all heard about the olden days when, if you worked for a company for life, you could retire with a guaranteed pension. Now, with the exception of union workers, the days of a guaranteed pension plan for most private sector workers are a thing of the past. Captains of industry don't offer them anymore. They line their own pockets instead. Some employers have tried to fill that retirement income gap by offering 401(k) retirement savings plans. Not a bad thing, but it was not the answer that everyone thought it was going to be, the panacea that everyone made it out to be. But for far too many companies, they don't offer any retirement package to their employees at all. Today, half of all Americans going to work are not offered a retirement plan from their employer, meaning these workers are not accumulating any nest egg outside of Social Security for their retirement years. To address this growing retirement savings crisis, the Obama administration made it easier for States and large municipalities to sponsor their own 401(k)-style retirement plan for their residents who work in the private sector, but are not offered any retirement plan from their private sector job. They are not offered by their employer that 401(k) plan. They have nothing, no opportunity. These rules do not require employees to participate, so the captains of industry who don't offer their employees a retirement plan, under the Obama administration rules, would not even have to participate. These rules do not require any employer contributions. What these rules simply do is create a pathway for States and large cities, if they choose, to enroll private sector workers into a retirement savings vehicle so they can start saving early to enjoy the benefits of a more financially secure retirement. And what is wrong with that? It is a universal fact that the most successful way to get people to save for their retirement is to enroll them in a retirement plan through their workplace and have a percentage of their pay taken out automatically and invested for the long-term future and for their benefit. So these Obama administration rules were actually adopting best practices to help workers who had been offered no opportunity to save for their retirement, to start to build their own nest egg with their own money for their own future, potentially even investing in a private 401(k) plan down the road. The cruel irony is, if these two bills pass, congressional Republicans will have prohibited States and local governments from trying to help those workers who have been forgotten about by some in the Federal Government and ignored by the private sector marketplace. What ever happened to local government being the laboratory of democracy?

Mr. CROWLEY

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