Mark Pocan

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the 17th District of California for his words. As he mentioned, there are a number of provisions that you can start to drill down to. In the giant volumes that make up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, there are provisions that I think the American people have no idea about. In fact, I would argue there are some people in Congress who have no idea what is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Just one of those provisions that Representative Honda mentioned is the investor-State dispute settlement process, the ISDS provisions, where you have a three-person tribunal of unelected, unaccountable people, people who are corporate lawyers one day and then fair arbitrators of the law another day, that set up this separate legal process from the American judicial system that international companies, multinational companies, can access if they want to sue a local government for a law that they have passed that they think affects their future profits. Think about it. Everyone else in the country has to follow the court system we have in the United States, but if a multinational company, because of the provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, decides that they want to go around that system and go to three corporate lawyers who form a tribunal under this ISDS provision and they want to challenge that law, they can sue for monetary damages. Think about it. For example, if the State of Wisconsin, where I come from, were to pass a higher minimum wage than the Federal minimum wage and it would be challenged, potentially, by a multinational corporation saying that is going to affect their future profits, they could sue the taxpayers of Wisconsin over that law. This isn't just something that we are dreaming up. Over and over again, we have seen countries in trade deals be sued by multinational corporations because of environmental law and other laws that they have passed that they have said affect their future profits, and it doesn't happen in the American legal system. Now, as bad as this sounds, to skirt the American legal system, a special system for multinational corporations, let me tell you what is even worse about that provision. It is only a tribunal for those corporations. But the parts of the trade agreement that affect labor law or environmental law don't have access to the same provisions. They have to go through the normal legal court system. Recently, there was a labor dispute with the country of Honduras with a company, and it took us 6 years to get that resolved. So for environmental law, for labor law, for things that are going to affect most people, we still have to follow the court system, which is the way it should be. But for multinational corporations, they have a special, streamlined process with, basically, their own arbitrators making the decisions, allowing you to sue taxpayers within a local government or a State government that may pass a law. Clearly, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. That is just one of those provisions that is a real problem. Another thing that Mike Honda from the great State of California said, he talked about some of the human rights violations. There are explicit human rights violations with some of the countries that don't respect things like single mothers, who don't respect the LGBT community, and those are things that we absolutely can't allow. Our country has done so much to work with other countries to raise human rights standards, and yet, in this bill, this trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it does not have those things in place to make sure that we have got those protections for so many different people and so many different provisions. So what he mentioned are just a couple of the provisions. Let me mention something I think that people don't know about. As I mentioned at the very beginning, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is made up of countries that are going to make up for 40 percent of the world's gross domestic product. Now, it is one thing to have a trade agreement with a country that is very similar, like Canada, or a country like Japan that also has a lot of similar goods that they are producing; but we also have countries in here like Vietnam, where they don't allow trade unions, where people make, on average, 65 cents an hour. As you can tell, there is going to be a huge difference in a trade agreement that you have with a country like Canada and a country like Vietnam. But in this trade agreement everyone is lumped together, and there is a long lead time that Vietnam would have to try to get their act together, especially just around issues like having a trade union, much less around those wage issues. But you can just imagine that if you open that door to have trade preferences for a country like Vietnam, at 65 cents an hour, yes, I will contend that we will lift their wages ever so slightly; but I will also tell you, based on evidence we have seen from past trade deals, that you will further depress our wages here. You will keep the wages flat because that is what happens with these trade agreements, and more jobs that are done here in the U.S. will go overseas. I say this from someone who grew up in a very industrial town. I grew up in Kenosha, Wisconsin. We made autos for the entire time I grew up in that town. When I was growing up, it was American Motors Company. We made Pacers and Gremlins and some cars that people actually bought. But thousands of thousands of people worked at those auto plants and supported their families with good family-supporting, middle class wages. That is the type of jobs that we need here in this country, but those jobs aren't going to happen under these trade agreements. I have watched in my hometown of Kenosha after American Motors sold to Renault, and then Renault sold to Chrysler. Chrysler made engines for Jeeps. At some point, finally, they went away, and we lost what was over 5,000 jobs at one time in the city of Kenosha, Wisconsin, and the ripple effects of the industries that fed into that company because, all too often, we watched those jobs go to Mexico, to Canada, to other countries because of wages. Another thing, for almost three decades of my life, I have had a specialty printing business. One of the things that we do is screen print T- shirts. So I have been buying T-shirts and goods like that for nearly 30 years. Over the years, I have watched the U.S. mills go away, and more and more of those jobs have gone to countries, literally, that are paying wages that are subpoverty. I have gone to El Salvador and met with people who work in the sweatshops where people make $3 a day; and because that sweatshop area is in a special free trade zone that is not near where people live, they spend a dollar of that to get there. Now, this is, granted, a couple of decades ago, but the wages are still severely depressed. Those jobs that were in America now are going to countries--in fact, one of the things we are hearing out of this trade agreement is Central American countries are afraid they are now going to lose jobs to places like Vietnam because they can have even lower wages. None of those things are going to help the American worker. So there is a reason why this fall, when you talk and hear from candidates who are running for office--we have two Presidential candidates in the major parties both opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership as it is currently written. We have candidates across the country, for Congress and the Senate, running ads talking about a better vision for what trade should be. With all of that going on, it makes no sense whatsoever that we would take this up after the November elections, between that little period of time between November 8 and the end of the year, when we are going to have a new Congress sworn in in January. To take that up with a Congress of people that may not be serving here and may be looking for jobs from the very companies that advocate for these sweetheart multinational deals is a huge, huge mistake. So that is why the 90 organizations today are having a day of action; tens of thousands of calls coming into Washington, D.C., to try to make sure that Congress does the right thing around trade. That means making sure that we have trade deals that protect American jobs and, hopefully, grow American jobs; ones that protect our wages and hopefully grow our wages; ones that protect us when it comes to things like food safety; ones that protect us on things like pharmaceutical prices. We want trade agreements that make sure that you don't have a country--you can have the best language in a trade deal, but if you still allow currency manipulation, you can make that language virtually meaningless. And there is nothing in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that addresses currency manipulation, which is a huge, huge problem. So those are some of the things that we are trying to get done, much less international human rights provisions that should be in any meaningful trade agreement. So many of us are going to be talking about this over the next few months. But tonight I would like to yield to another one of my colleagues who has been one of the leaders in Congress on this issue. He represents New York State's 20th District. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. POCAN. This is my second term in Congress. You have been here a little longer. One of the questions I have is when I was elected 4 years ago I remember New Year's Eve when you were all voting during a lameduck session on things. Tell me more about this lameduck session portion. I think that is the real question. Some people might be amenable to what is in the TPP which we still have arguments about, but to do that in a lameduck session certainly sets up problems. Could you explain a little more about why that is a problem? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POCAN. You mentioned there are a lot of areas that we clearly need to make changes on. There are areas of concern around labor rights, environmental rights, consumer protections, the ISDS provisions, and other things. Why not simply amend the trade agreement to fix those things? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POCAN. Again, I thank you so much for all your work on this.

Mr. POCAN. The net effect by suing for financial gain will do exactly that if someone is going to have to pay damages. There is an ISDS provision that happened in Peru over an environmental law change by a company that had toxic contamination. That company is now, because of that change to environmental law in Peru, demanding $800 million from the country--$800 million because they are saying that that is somehow going to affect their future profits and because of a violation of a trade agreement. These are real. This is just one of many, many examples. Canada and other countries have been sued through these provisions. But now we have the experts in the United States telling us not to do that. So this is something that clearly is one of the biggest problems that is in there. As we said, you can't amend it out. We are not allowed. As Congress, we gave up our ability to amend that section out. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POCAN. I thank the gentleman. As much as this is the Progressive Caucus Special Order hour, and many of us are working against this, I see Republicans in the room. I know Republicans are just as concerned about the sovereignty of this country. When you have the ISDS provisions that you have, you take away that sovereignty. So I don't care if you are a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent, you want to make sure that if we have a legal system here it is a legal system for everyone and there is not a special system set up for a few multinational corporations that no one else can access with their own players arbitrating these decisions. That is the real problem. Mr. Speaker, I will close our hour just by repeating a few of the things that I think are really important for our people who are watching to understand. This is a day of action, and 90 organizations have had calls coming into Congress throughout the day. Tens of thousands of calls have come into Washington, D.C., to ask people not to support TPP, but especially not to support a vote on the Trans- Pacific Partnership in a lameduck Congress. Don't let people who have just been rejected by the voters make a decision that could impact this country for decades in the future. Don't allow a vote that is going to take away more American jobs and further depress our wages here. That is what people have been calling us all day about. I think that an important question for anyone who wants to serve in this body is: are we going to give up those sorts of sovereignty issues? Are we going to give up the very concerns we have around things like food safety and prescription drug prices; around labor standards and environmental standards? Are we going to give all of that up through one giant trade deal that has 40 percent of the world's gross domestic product wrapped into it and think that any agreement we have with Canada and Vietnam are identical? I don't think anyone really believes that is in the best interest of America. That is why we had this Special Order tonight. That is why so many people called in today. We thank those people for watching, and we hope that they will get active on this issue as well. It is important that we have trade, but we need fair trade, not just free trade. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, Congress has earned its longest summer recess in more than 3 decades. I mean, this session we have done so much. Take, for example, our quick response to the Zika health crisis. Oh, wait, not that one. Well, what about how Congress provided emergency funding to the people of Flint, Michigan? Oh, wait. Scratch that. Republicans blocked that measure as well. But at least we were able to pass commonsense gun violence prevention laws that 9 out of 10 Americans favor. Mr. Speaker, I think I brought the wrong list up here because the GOP majority blocked those bills from coming to the floor as well. The reality is the Republican majority has done little to nothing to deserve this 7-week recess. Hardworking Americans elected their Members of Congress to do their job on behalf of the American people. It is shameful and embarrassing to leave town with these critical items unfinished.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and thank HeadCount, a nonpartisan organization that uses the power of music to register voters and promote participation in democracy. They reach young people and music fans where they already are--online and at concerts across the country--from Dead & Company to the Dixie Chicks. Their message is not about what political party you support or what issues you care about but, instead, that, as younger voters, you must be heard. Let's face it. The single greatest determining factor to whether or not you vote is likely age. That means older people often get heard on issues that are important to them, which can be different than those of younger voters. Whether you care about commonsense gun violence protections, global warming, or equality for everyone, HeadCount is a platform to help people get heard. Thank you, HeadCount.org, for all you do in broadening our democracy.

Mr. POCAN

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

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I believe climate change represents one of the greatest threats to our economic livelihood, our national security, and the health of the planet. To help combat this growing threat, on February, 19, 2015, the President issued a historic executive order which requires that the Federal Government commit to key sustainability goals. This executive order builds off of ongoing low-cost efforts throughout the administration to reduce emissions, save energy, and achieve key sustainability goals. The efforts bolstered by this executive order have already helped Federal agencies save $1.8 billion in cumulative energy costs. Surely we can all agree that the Federal Government, as the country's largest consumer of energy, should be a leader in cutting energy costs and saving taxpayer dollars, which is exactly what this executive order enables us to do. Specifically, the executive order directs Federal agencies to ensure 25 percent of their total energy consumption is from clean energy sources by 2025 and reduces energy use at Federal buildings by 2\1/2\ percent per year between 2015 and 2025. These are worthy realistic goals to strive for because the consequences of not acting are dire. Unmitigated global warming will reduce our global gross domestic product by almost a quarter in the next 80 years. As a professor at Stanford University said, we are basically throwing away money by not addressing climate change. And to be clear, Mr. Chairman, this isn't something that only environmental groups are concerned about. Citigroup issued a report that found that minimizing temperature rises could reduce the global gross domestic product loss by $50 trillion. While climate change will have catastrophic long-term consequences, the effects of our warming planet are already being felt in our own backyards. Given the nature of this threat and the modest, yet worthy, goal this executive order sets to help combat the economic security and health risk climate change poses to us, I hope we can push through these commonsense measures. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman may have a little confusion and not be as concerned about funds that are expended, but really funds that are saved--the $1.8 billion in cumulative energy costs and the billions of dollars we will save by addressing climate change. I know in 2015, in the gentleman's home State of California, they had the worst water shortage in 1,200 years, which has been intensified 15 to 20 percent by global warming. In my home State of Wisconsin, farmers are facing more pests and widespread disease from higher humidity and warmer winter temperatures. I would argue that this isn't about spending funds. This is about saving taxpayer funds, which is what I thought people on the other side of the aisle also would want to do. I hope that the gentleman might change his mind and support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 3179, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act, a bill my colleague, Representative Bonamici, has been a leader on. A college degree remains one of the best investments a person can make to improve their skills and widen economic opportunities. At the same time, the decision to go to college also represents one of the most expensive decisions families can make. Many students and their families go into this process without the proper information to make this choice. The student debt crisis is, in part, a crisis in financial literacy where students lack knowledge about repayment plans that can help them affordably manage their student debt. Through legislation passed by Congress and regulations implemented by President Obama, most students taking out loans today can already cap their loan payments at an affordable 10 percent of their discretionary income. Yet students are often unaware of these repayment options. H.R. 3179 is a critical step in the right direction, filling a financial literacy gap faced by too many student aid recipients. This act provides better upfront, ongoing, and exit counseling information on financial aid and student debt so that students can make more informed choices of how to finance their education and always know how much they will owe. This legislation also allows borrowers to receive important counseling that private loans are not as generous as Federal loans and are informed of their rights as a consumer when taking out a private loan. There are many steps which need to be taken to address college affordability, and I am pleased to support this commonsense measure. I appreciate the leadership of my colleague from Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 5528, the Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act. Last year, Representative Doggett of Texas and I led a letter to then-Secretary Duncan regarding the importance of prior-prior year FAFSA. Allowing students to use prior years' tax data means a student can apply for financial aid at the same time they apply for college. This means that students will get information about financial aid, which will help them make their college choice much earlier. This is especially helpful for first-generation and at-risk college students who need an accurate picture of a college's price tag well in advance in order to make their decision. In September, I was happy to see President Obama take executive action to allow for the use of prior-prior year tax data for students. The bipartisan bill before us would make this executive action permanent and is an important step toward making college more affordable, ensuring future students are afforded the opportunity to use prior year tax data when filling out the FAFSA form. Additionally, the Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act will also direct the Department of Education to develop a mobile app for using FAFSA. This will allow millions of Americans who do not have broadband access but do have Internet connectivity on their phones to have access to an electronic version of FAFSA. Finally, this bill will also encourage the Department of Education to study how the Department of Education can better reach out to students with limited English language proficiency when filling out the FAFSA. These are commonsense reforms which need to be made in order to streamline the process for students applying to college. While there is a lot more we can do to tackle college affordability, I am pleased we are moving forward with this important, bipartisan legislation today. I thank the financial aid office at the University of Wisconsin- Madison for first raising this issue to us, and I also thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck) for his leadership on this issue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce you to Caroline Nosal. Caroline was described by her friends as wonderful and sassy. She had a sharp wit and would say exactly what she thought. Friends said she was a vibrant friend with a great smile. Her parents said she was curious, caring, and kind. She loved books. She wasn't a bookish person, but she loved books, all kinds of books. Once with a friend shopping in a used bookstore, she picked up an old, well-read copy of an 18th century animal husbandry book, a subject she knew nothing about but just wanted to get because it was new to her. She did that a lot. She was passionate about animals as well. Once while driving to work, she accidentally hit a bird. She stopped, put it in a box, and took it to the Humane Society on her way to work. Even though she was late to work, she knew she had done the right thing. But in early February of this year, in Madison, Wisconsin, Caroline Nosal was shot to death by a troubled, disgruntled coworker who used to harass her and who had just bought a gun 24 hours earlier. Only months before this tragedy occurred, Governor Scott Walker and the legislature in Wisconsin changed a decades-old Wisconsin law that had required a 48-hour waiting period to buy a handgun, a measure that, if in place, might have saved Caroline. You see, the assailant got fired, went out and bought the gun with the plan to immediately shoot her; but since he had never fired a gun, instead, he took it to target practice so he could learn how to shoot it. He bought the gun on Monday, and on Tuesday used it to shoot Caroline Nosal in the chest and in the head. Later, after police picked him up, he said it was easy to kill Nosal, that he was angry with her. He said: ``I'm glad I didn't hit her. I don't know what else, I guess I'm sorry, but . . . I don't know if I am sorry, I'm just glad I didn't hit her.'' Instead, he shot her twice to her death. Last Wednesday, House Democrats from across the country held a National Day of Action for commonsense gun violence prevention. I held a rally in Madison, Wisconsin, where a couple hundred people showed up to support commonsense changes. It was at that rally where I met Caroline's father, Jim Nosal. Jim and his wife, Jane, are reminders that gun violence can affect any family and that people have a right to be free of gun violence in their communities. The Day of Action followed our historic taking over of the House floor to demand action on gun violence, especially following the Nation's largest mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. We are urging Congress to act on commonsense gun reform, commonsense gun reform measures like expanded background checks and no fly, no buy. These ideas aren't necessarily progressive pipe dreams; they are the first necessary steps toward preventing gun violence. In a recent poll, 92 percent of respondents said they were in favor of expanding background checks. While the Speaker may claim that the House Democratic sit-in was disrespectful to the institution, what is truly disrespectful is to stand idly by and allow more tragic stories like Caroline's to unfold. In Congress, we have the opportunity to save lives and reduce the gun violence epidemic in our country. Instead, the majority has decided to trot out a toothless bill crafted by the NRA that does nothing to keep gun violence out of our communities. If the Speaker won't listen to the House Democrats' calls for real action to prevent gun violence, maybe he will listen to those of his own constituents. The night of the sit-in, we put out a call for comments, and over 500 people commented, including dozens from the Speaker's district and neighboring districts. Let me read just a few of those comments. Jane, from Racine, said: ``We've had too many moments of silence. It's time for action.'' Karen in Kenosha: ``It breaks my heart as a veteran teacher to now have to teach students to barricade doors and fight back against a person who is trying to kill them with a semiautomatic weapon. What horrible damage is being done to their young psyches as they try and learn with this threat of violence ever present? Please vote for gun control now.'' Jim, from Mount Pleasant, said: ``As a law enforcement officer, I support background checks. We've seen officers injured by people with legal guns.'' Gloria, from Racine, said: ``There's nothing worse than hugging a mom who lost her child to gun violence. I'm tired of going to those vigils.'' And, finally, Quinn, 9 years old, from Somers, Wisconsin: ``People don't want to get shot and die.'' Speaker Ryan, you don't have to listen to us. Listen to your constituents. Listen to 9-year-old Quinn, who doesn't want to get shot and die. Listen to parents like Jim and Jane Nosal, who want to spare other families the pain that they have had to endure. No more moments of silence. It is time for moments of action, Mr. Speaker. It is time for moments of action.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, as we grapple with the horrific events that took place yesterday morning in Orlando, my thoughts are with the families of the victims and everyone affected during Pride Month. The targeting of LGBT individuals in this heinous act of violence has reignited many fears and uncertainty in our community. As a country, we must stand together to denounce bigotry and hatred and embrace love and acceptance. President Barack Obama declared this an act of terror and an act of hate, an action perpetrated with a military-style assault weapon. Unfortunately, this week Congress won't do a thing about any of these issues. In fact, all too often actions and language here in Congress and on the campaign trail actually exacerbate would-be terrorists, and actions even on the floor of the House of Representatives all too often reinforce the hate of some people, including gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, this body is too chicken to address the epidemic of military-style assault weapons because that would upset the gun manufacturers and gun lobby. In the end, all we did, yet again, is have another moment of silence rather than a moment of action. That disrespects the lives of the people who were killed not just yesterday, but every day by gun violence. There may be blood in the streets, but if Congress continues to fail to act, we will have blood on our hands.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor His Holiness the Dalai Lama and welcome him to our nation's capital during his upcoming trip. I would like to recognize His Holiness for his outstanding commitments to promoting nonviolence, increasing religious tolerance, and advancing human rights around the world. For over 50 years, His Holiness has led the effort to preserve the rich and unique cultural, historical, linguistic, and religious heritage of the people of Tibet. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 and a Congressional Gold Medal in 2007 for his efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to the political situation in Tibet and promote non-violent methods for resolving the conflict. His advocacy and teachings on religious tolerance, non-violence, and peace are so needed in our current global community. His Holiness' unwavering commitment to preserving and protecting the human rights of marginalized communities around the globe is an example for us all. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize his Holiness the Dalai Lama today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mary Babula from Madison, Wisconsin who passed away at the end of last year. Mary dedicated her life to advocating for the rights of children and teachers in her community. While her presence in our district is sorely missed, her legacy lives on in our community. Mary Babula began her career in early childhood care as a volunteer at Christian Day Care Center in Madison while earning her Bachelor of Arts in Social Work at University of Wisconsin-Madison. After graduating, she became a teacher at the Christian Day Care Center and was later named its third Executive Director. Mary also served as Director of the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association (WECA), where she tirelessly devoted her time advancing positive policy changes for children by focusing on the needs of the professionals who provided child care for Wisconsin's families. Under Mary's leadership, WECA established the Wisconsin Child Care Improvement Project, which launched Child Care Resource and Referral agencies statewide. Throughout her time as director, Mary helped develop and refine multiple programs, including TEACH, REWARD, YoungStar Conference and Training, and the Food Program, which continue to provide support services to child care centers around the state. In her spare time, Mary was also a relentless advocate for the rights of children and early child care professionals at the local, state, and federal level. Mary's lifetime commitment to our community and her work as an activist has been invaluable to Wisconsin. Her legacy will live on through the services Wisconsin provides to its children and families. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Ms. Mary Babula today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her advocacy for every child in the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, last year we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, a good bill, but instead of figuring out how to fund this bipartisan bill through our budget and appropriations process, which apparently has broken down, we are here in a legislative deja vu redebating a nearly identical bad bill we passed just months ago that will take money away from our public schools. I am well aware of these attempts to divert money away from public schools and the failures of taxpayer-funded private schools. In the last 10 years, Wisconsin taxpayers have wasted $139 million of taxpayer dollars on private schools that were later terminated from the voucher program due to their lack of appropriate standards and accountability. Further, in Wisconsin, 79 percent of the students who received a taxpayer-subsidized voucher in 2013 were already attending private schools. The SOAR Act would allow kids already in private schools to receive this funding. That means taxpayer dollars are being used not to advocate education, but instead as a form of tax policy. What is worse is that the taxpayer-funded voucher schools both in my State and here in D.C. are not providing equitable resources to special needs students with disabilities. At the end of the day, this is also about results. Multiple Department of Education studies have concluded that the taxpayer-funded D.C. voucher program has failed to improve educational outcomes for participating students, and two U.S. Government Accountability Office reports have also identified its repeated management and accountability failures. Public funds should be used for public education which serves all students. It is that simple. I encourage everyone to oppose this bill.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this week represents another missed opportunity for Congress to take action on the challenges facing the American people. I understand that we are at this point because the majority can't pass a budget, they can't take action to combat the Zika virus, they can't help the people of Flint, Michigan, and they can't address the opiate crisis. Unfortunately, your right wing and your extreme right wing can't seem to agree with each other. Instead of taking real action, we are going to vote today to prohibit the IRS from hiring any new employees until the Treasury certifies that none of the agency's existing employees have unpaid taxes. This legislation is both unworkable and unnecessary. IRS employees have a tax compliance rate of over 99 percent, but a hiring freeze will hinder our ability to go after the real tax cheats in this country, and that is something we should all be able to agree on. Instead of arbitrary changes to the IRS, Congress needs to take action to make our Tax Code work for the American people instead of corporate interests, something that is conspicuously absent from your debate today. Let's talk about how we can close loopholes that allow multinational corporations to pay nothing in Federal income taxes while working class Americans and small businesses pay their fair share. Let's have a debate about the corporate tax dodgers who are able to shift their headquarters out of the country with a stroke of the pen, all while continuing to use our American infrastructure resources and customer base. Let's talk about the thousands and thousands of tax-dodging corporations, including the 18,000 corporations that are registered to a single building in the Cayman Islands, a building full of post office boxes. Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, but the share of Federal revenue from corporate taxes continues to shrink, dropping from 33 percent of the revenue in 1952 to less than 10 percent today. While many corporations complain about the 35 percent statutory tax rate, the reality is the effective tax rate is much lower. In fact, a 2013 GAO report found that U.S. corporations pay an effective tax rate of just 12.6 percent. A recent study from Oxfam found that U.S. corporations are currently hiding $1.4 trillion in profits from domestic taxation in tax havens like in Panama and the Cayman Islands. While corporations dodge paying their fair share in taxes, the burden falls to the middle class and the small businesses in all of our districts, and that is just wrong. That is the reality of why we are here with these useless bills in consideration this week. Once again, the majority can't pass a budget well past the required deadline. Let's have a serious conversation about how we can adjust our Tax Code away from the corporate interests and in favor of working families.