Mark Pocan

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of a respected advocate and relentless fighter for public education in my district. For nearly half a century, John Matthews has been at the helm of Madison Teachers Inc. (MTI), steering the union through such volatile events as the 1976 teachers' strike, the recent public uprising against Act 10 and everything in between. It is a testament to John's work and what his union has continually done for them that in November, Madison teachers voted overwhelmingly to recertify their union. Today, when a pregnant teacher does not have to resign her job as her pregnancy begins to show--something she once had to do in Wisconsin-- she can credit John, who successfully fought that policy all the way to the Supreme Court in 1971. That was precisely the kind of battle and victory he relished. John's career began as an English and history teacher in his native state of Montana, where his grandfather was a Supreme Court justice. He immediately became involved in his union and started, as he puts it, ``raising a little hell,'' in contract negotiations over health insurance. Six years later, he was in the middle of a primary race to serve in the Montana House of Representatives when he withdrew his candidacy because he was offered the opportunity to pursue his true passion as executive director of Madison Teachers Inc. (And no one who knows John will be surprised to hear--he won that race anyway). At that time in 1968, MTI had 900 members--it now has more than 4,000. Other victories John secured on behalf of the teachers and other educational workers he represents included the right to take time off for their religious holidays. In 1976, he led workers in a teachers' strike that cemented his reputation as a fierce advocate and fighter on behalf of the people and causes he represents. As Capital Times Editor Emeritus Dave Zweifel put it when John's retirement was announced: ``No one I've known has been more committed to public education and what it means to American democracy than Matthews.'' He not only stood up for his members, he served the children and families of our community sitting on the board of such groups as Fair Wisconsin, Citizens Against Handgun Violence, Fighting Bob Fest, the Social Justice Center and the Citizens Utility Board. Yet John seeks to meet and converse with opponents in an open and friendly fashion, making regular lunch or coffee dates with adversaries. The day former Madison Schools Superintendent Art Rainwater stepped into that job, he phoned John right away that morning to talk about building bridges and asked when they could get together. John quickly replied: ``How about noon?'' In articles announcing his planned January 2016 retirement, glowing quotes of praise for his work came as frequently from his adversaries as from his allies. Anyone who has worked with him also knows him to be a caring, warm friend with a great wit and deep dedication to his colleagues and friends. It is an honor to recognize five decades of dedication, passion and advocacy in John's career with MTI. Anyone who knows John will not be at all surprised to hear that when asked by reporters what he plans to do in his retirement, he answered that he would remain committed to social justice issues and helping people. After all, it's what he's been doing for the past 50 years.

Mr. POCAN

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

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

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise today in support of this amendment to protect food safety standards for consumers. In 2010, Congress updated our food safety protections for the 21st century by passing the Food Safety and Modernization Act, greatly expanding these consumer protections through the Food and Drug Administration. Today it is critical that we maintain this progress and protect the implementation of this law from the obstructionist policies included in the SCRUB Act. It is especially important that we allow the FDA to carry out this effort unimpeded because our food safety standards are facing attacks from many other directions. A recent decision from the World Trade Organization repealed our country-of-origin labeling standards on beef and pork, undermining consumers' right to know where their groceries are coming from. Meanwhile, the United States is considering entering the Trans- Pacific Partnership, a massive multinational trade agreement that may allow food into our grocery stores and restaurants that may not even meet basic safety standards. The TPP weakens our ability to inspect these dangerous foods before they end up on our dinner plates. We know that seafood imported from countries like Vietnam and Malaysia are often contaminated with dangerous antibiotics and foodborne pathogens. Between 2002 and 2010, 44 percent of catfish and related species from China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and Cambodia tested positive for antibiotics banned in the United States. Further, in 2013, 100 percent of the Vietnamese catfish farms used antibiotics not approved in the United States. Meanwhile, large amounts of shrimp imported to the United States also contain dangerous bacteria. Last year, harmful bacteria were found in 83 percent of the shrimp from Bangladesh, 74 percent of the shrimp from India, and 58 percent of the shrimp from Vietnam. For these reasons, the number of dirty seafood shipments from Vietnam and Malaysia rejected by the FDA increased 224 percent in the first 2 months of 2015 alone. We must amend this legislation to preserve the FDA's ability to protect our food. It is not too much to ask that families are assured basic food safety standards and protections are met. Please support this amendment, which will allow the FDA to continue doing its job by protecting consumers and making sure our food is safe to eat. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I am not going to impugn anyone's motives why it was introduced. My problems are with the implementation of the law. If you would like to, with my office, sign a letter to repeal the 1906 string bean width regulation, I am with you. We can do that, and that is a commonsense way to get things done. You mentioned things from the twenties and thirties and forties that might be there. But let's put it another way. You are saying every time a new regulation is necessary, you have to find an old regulation, which is overly simplistic, ultimately impractical and, I think, ultimately dangerous, especially when it comes to issues like food safety and veterans and other areas. So it is the impracticality. You are telling a consumer, if they have old things in their refrigerator that are outdated, when you buy your new milk, you take out your old milk, but you don't clean out your refrigerator. That is a ridiculous notion. Only in Washington would we come up with a law as ridiculous as saying that you take one for one rather than just cleaning out old items. So I just have a problem with the bill itself. I am not impugning anyone's motives for introducing it. I just think it is a silly way of accomplishing what you want to accomplish. I don't disagree with the gentleman, and I don't think many of us disagree that there are regulations that should be gotten rid of. But there is a way to do it that would make sense, that the public would understand, and that wouldn't be just the brainchild of the Beltway inside Washington which, unfortunately, is what the SCRUB Act is. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, we were told just a couple of months ago on the floor of this Congress that there is a new day in Congress. Well, it doesn't feel like a new day. It feels a lot like Groundhog Day. I feel like Bill Murray from that early 1990s movie. I wake up, I shower, I get on a plane, I come to Washington, I plan on voting how to create jobs or help lift people's wages. Instead, I am voting on taking away health care from 22 million people. The next week, I wake up, I shower, I get on a plane, I fly to Washington. What do I do? I vote on taking away health insurance for 22 million people. Sixty-two times this body has voted to repeal health care. But we have also now made a new one of a dozen times we have now devoted to defund Planned Parenthood which, with this body's Speaker, in my home State of Wisconsin, means 62,000 women last year would not have gotten access to health insurance. It is no wonder that with bad, recycled ideas like that, the public has such disdain for Congress. It is not a new day in Congress. It is just Groundhog Day.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman not only for yielding, but for his and Chairman Kline's hard work on this bill. I rise today in support of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Defending public education is one of the reasons that I came to Congress. For years, we have witnessed a negative impact on public education, from underfunding our schools to stripping teachers of their rights to collectively bargain for fair pay and conditions, like in my home State of Wisconsin. At the same time, punitive policies which limit teachers' and administrators' abilities to manage their classrooms have further hampered student achievement. It is past time we renew the promise of an ESEA which has students' best interests at heart. I meet with teachers and administrators from Wisconsin's Second Congressional District regularly and was stunned when I was told that one-third of a school's staff turned over last year because schools lack the financial support and autonomy they need to give students the educational experience they deserve. Teachers are being asked to do more with less, and it is coming at the expense of our kids' education. While this bill is not perfect, I am pleased that we are finally discussing a bill today that aims to put students first and trusts our teachers, who dedicate their careers to education. This bill trusts and empowers teachers to ensure their voices are heard on the Federal, State, and local level, while increasing teacher quality and professional development and reducing the burden of testing in schools. These are good improvements, Mr. Speaker, good for our Nation's children. And that is why I support this bill.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 511. One of the most important things we can do in this body is help the middle class to have every opportunity for their family. While the economy has been rebounding, unfortunately, wages for the middle class have remained flat. Productivity is up. Profits are up. CEO pay is up. But wages for most workers have remained flat. Now we have a bill before us that will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of workers by taking away National Labor Relations Act protections from them. Now, the promoters of this legislation say this bill is designed to protect sovereignty. While I strongly support tribal sovereignty, this bill is not about that. There are a number of Federal laws that tribes are compelled to follow in addition to the National Labor Relations Act: the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the public accommodations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, just for starters. This bill isn't about meaningful sovereignty. It is about selective sovereignty because it only excludes labor rights, which makes this a labor bill, not a sovereignty bill. It would even affect workers who already have collective bargaining agreements, stripping away the rights they have collectively fought for and have agreed to. Many of the advocates for this bill are hardly credible on this. The U.S. Chamber and other organizations have never taken strong stances on tribal issues in the past, issues like spearfishing and mascot names in my home State of Wisconsin or funding to address the crumbling infrastructure of Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. But suddenly they support sovereignty. Well, history says otherwise. If this bill is about sovereignty, exempt OSHA and ERISA and FMLA and ADA, for starters--that would be a sovereignty bill--or require the tribes at least to have their own labor relations boards, which they don't have. This bill only exempts labor protections for hundreds of thousands of workers, both tribal members and nonmembers. Those affected workers will be denied their fundamental rights under this bill, and that is what this is really about. Mr. Speaker, if this body wants to help tribes, I am here to help. If you want to make it easier for Federal tribes to be recognized via the Carcieri fix, I am in. If you want to provide more adequate funding for Indian Health Services and exempt them from future sequestration cuts, where do I sign up? If you want to provide funding for the maintenance infrastructure as well as the educational needs for Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, I am with you. If you want to address some of the Tax Code disparities that hinder tribes from encouraging economic development on their lands, especially renewable energy projects, let's do that bill. But we are not addressing the real pressing issues that affect tribes in our country. Instead, we are only going after workers' rights in the veil of tribal sovereignty, and that is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. POCAN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is we just want to have that debate. Let's talk about sovereignty. But I am not hearing anything about the other issues that affect the tribes. I have a tribe in my district, as we have many tribes in Wisconsin, and I have had a good, long relationship in my time in the legislature with these tribes. I have fought on behalf of changing Indian mascot names. I have fought on behalf of making sure that they have spearfishing rights in the State of Wisconsin. The U.S. Chamber and all of those groups were never there. The U.S. Chamber is only here because they want to go after workers' rights. This bill is only here because you want to go after workers' rights. Let's just be honest about it. If you want to have a debate on sovereignty, talk about the many issues we have brought up, because that is not what this bill is about. I support tribal sovereignty. I also support the many people who work in these facilities. We have to ensure that they still have the protections. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a few of the things we have not heard on the other side of the aisle. I have heard a lot about sovereignty, but we have asked explicitly about other areas, one being OSHA. We have asked explicitly about ERISA. We have asked explicitly about the ADA. Why aren't those in here if this is a sovereignty bill and not just an antilabor bill? In fact, on the Education and the Workforce Committee, I don't think a month goes by, Mr. Speaker, that we don't have a hearing that attacks the National Labor Relations Board and their actions or some other labor-related activity. It happens as often as you can imagine. Yet, here we are being told this is really about sovereignty, but we don't really engage in a debate about sovereignty. Where we have a problem is on the labor front and what it would mean to working people--to the hundreds of thousands of people, 700,000 people-plus-- who would lose their rights if this were to be passed. One of the things that was said that is simply not correct is that a number of tribes have their own labor practices. Here is the reality. According to labor employment law in Indian Country--in a book from 2011 that is specifically about labor law and tribes--of the 567 federally recognized tribes, ``few tribes have implemented labor ordinances, other than right-to-work provisions, to govern labor organizations and collective bargaining.'' In fact, when you look at specific tribes, what has been passed, all too often, unfortunately, are things like right to work, which takes away the ability to have that collective bargaining right. If we are going to have this debate about sovereignty, let's talk about sovereignty, let's talk about the funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' schools, let's talk about lifting some of those tax laws that make it harder for them to invest in renewable energy. Let's talk about those laws and not just the ones you want to. This is like when I was a kid. When I had to take a pill, it came in the middle of something sweet. You are trying to take something really bad, like taking away workers' rights, and are putting it in a tribal bill because we support the tribes and because we support the unions, and you want to split that up.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to be here today with the Progressive Caucus Special Order hour, and I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for all her hard work on behalf of the Progressive Caucus and on behalf of this issue on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As we know, over the weekend and all last week, the U.S. Trade Representative Office's cooks have been in the kitchen, and they have told us now the Trans-Pacific Partnership is done; but from everything that we can tell, it is not fully baked. In fact, at best, it is half- baked when it comes to labor, environmental, and consumer concerns. Now that a final deal has been reached, we asked the administration to let the American public immediately see the full text of this agreement. This negotiating process has not been transparent up to this point, despite claims from the U.S. Trade Representative Office. We know that about 600 people, largely corporate CEOs, have been involved in the drafting of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but not Congress, and certainly not members of the public. The secretive nature of these negotiations is compounded by the pressure to throw together this deal based on the political timelines of our negotiating partners rather than with the regard of the U.S. worker in mind. Reports throughout the course of the negotiating process have raised serious questions about the impact of this agreement on a number of areas ranging from workplace and environmental protections to food safety, but, most importantly, jobs and wages. We all know this economy has been rebounding. The stockmarket is significantly up from the 2008 crash. Corporate profits are up. CEO pay is up. Productivity is up. But wages for the American worker have, unfortunately, been dead flat, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership will lead to the loss of good-paying jobs right here in the U.S. Through several decades of unfair trade rules, corporations have outsourced production and offshored jobs, and the TPP will only exacerbate this problem. In fact, on Tuesday, in its initial analysis, The Wall Street Journal has projected an increase in the manufacturing trade deficit of $38.2 billion. That means jobs and wages right here in the United States. Additional reports have also said that the labor standards will remain subpar, that currency manipulation has not been adequately addressed, rules of origin for autos have been weakened, and human rights issues with countries like Malaysia and Brunei have not been dealt with properly. Among these concerns, corporations still have the ability to supersede laws of our country through the investor-state dispute settlement process, something that Representative Slaughter explained very aggressively in her comments. This agreement has nothing to do to effectively address currency manipulation, which that alone has contributed to the loss of up to 5 million U.S. jobs. Despite claims by the administration that this agreement is the most progressive high standard deal that we have ever negotiated, the labor environmental rules in our free trade agreements are rarely enforced in our partner nations. In fact, 4 years ago, when we passed the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, to the letter of the law the Colombian Government has put the provisions within Colombian law and not one bit of that has actually been implemented and over 100 labor leaders in the last 4 years have been killed just in Colombia. So these trade agreements haven't worked based on past practice, and without changes they are not going to work in future progress as well. In addition, the administration has gone out of its way to help cover up human rights atrocities in order to conclude these negotiations. Malaysia was demoted in the State Department's 2014 Trafficking in Persons Report due to its grossly inadequate response to the perverse tracking of minority groups throughout the country. By downgrading them within the same year that mass graves were found of workers in Malaysia is an insult to human rights conditions, and to include them and countries like Brunei that still stone gays and lesbians and single mothers is a further evidence that this deal is not ready for the public or for Congress to accept for the public. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is neither free trade nor fair trade. In reality, it is a system of rules crafted by multi-national corporate interests and their lobbyists that work for a select group of powerful people at the expense of everyone else. This just isn't about jobs or wages. This is an agreement about corporate profits. Past trade deals have been a disaster for American workers. So it is imperative that Congress rigorously review this deal to ensure that the American people aren't yet taken for a ride again. Again, I will renew my call and the Progressive Caucus' call to immediately release the text of the agreement. Six hundred corporate CEOs know what is in the deal, but the 435 Members of this House and the American public don't. That is simply wrong. If this deal is as good as they say it is, put the language on the table and let's review it with the public. My fear is that it is not. If it is going to cost American jobs and wages, it is the wrong thing to do, and we have to reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 3594, the Higher Education Extension Act, and I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Bishop, as well as my colleagues, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Messer, and Ranking Member Scott, for their leadership on this issue. This bill would extend the Perkins Loan Program for 1 year. Perkins loans are need-based loans which foster access to higher education for low-income students by providing low-interest loans to students in need. Colleges and universities tailor the program to best fit borrowers' and educational institutions' situations. Perkins is a risk-sharing program, with institutions contributing one-third of their students' awards. This ``ownership interest'' also contributes to the successful management of this vital program. We have only 2 days before the Perkins Loan Program is set to expire, so we must act immediately. Since its inception in 1958, over $28 billion in loans have been made to students through almost 26 million aid awards. Perkins Loan borrowers are predominantly from lower income families and are often the first in their family to attend college. Perkins loans have a set interest rate of 5 percent, which begins to accrue 9 months after the borrower ceases to be a student. However, this program has not been reauthorized since the 2009 fiscal year. Besides making higher education accessible for lower income students, this program serves as an incentive for people who wish to go into a public service by offering targeted loan cancellations for specific progression in areas of national need, including teaching, nursing, and law enforcement. Earlier this year, I introduced a bipartisan resolution in support of the Perkins loans with Congressman Messer of Indiana, H. Res. 294, with 56 cosponsors. My colleague Representative Louise Slaughter, a leader on this issue, offered a letter with more than 90 bipartisan signatures in support of this important program. Over 33 groups and higher educational institutions have supported this bill's reauthorization. Bottom line, the Perkins Loan Program has helped millions of students and families struggling to find a way to pay for college. I applaud my colleague across the aisle, specifically, a thank-you to Mr. Bishop, for helping to ensure students have access to Federal financial aid that they need to make college affordable and accessible. I urge support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who has been a leader on this issue.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to again thank Representative Bishop for all your work on this--thank you very much--and Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Scott. This is, I think, a good example of how we can work together in a committee to make sure that higher educational needs are met. I represent about 75,000 higher education students. With UW Madison as the flagship, about 45,000 students, we have other campuses for the UW system, Beloit College and other smaller private colleges, Madison College and others. This is a really important program, not just back home in Wisconsin, but across the country; and the fact that we are able to get this done in a bipartisan manner shows how I think Congress can work its very best. So I urge my colleagues to support this. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Golden Goose Award, which recognizes researchers whose federally funded research has returned significant benefits to society. In particular, I rise to celebrate one of this year's Golden Goose Awardees and fellow alum of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in my district: Dr. Christopher Small. With funding from the National Science Foundation, Dr. Small, an earth scientist, and his colleague, Dr. Joel E. Cohen, a mathematical population biologist, pursued what seemed like a simple curiosity: how many people live at any given altitude on Earth? The result was the first global map of how the human population is distributed in altitude--an important factor in our exposure to risk, our human health and even how computers function. While Drs. Small and Cohen were particularly interested in populations near coastlines, where they are at risk from natural disasters and sea-level rise, companies like Intel, Proctor & Gamble, and Frito-Lay have all consulted with them about populations at high altitudes. In fact, Dr. Small got what he calls the ``biggest surprise of [his] scientific career'' when he received a phone call from Frito- Lay representatives, interested to learning if there was a sufficient high altitude market to justify designing packaging that could sustain large differences in pressure from sea level up to the Rockies or the Himalayas. Beyond working with industry to examine the potential of high altitude markets, the two have worked with biomedical researchers and public health professionals to help them understand the magnitude of altitude-related impacts on human health. Without federal support, Drs. Small and Cohen may never have had the incentive to pursue their curiosity and develop game-changing insights into how the human population is distributed--insights that inform everything from microchip manufacturing to food production and packaging and from biomedical research to the treatment of human disease. I rise today to congratulate my fellow Badger in receiving this important recognition and applaud those supporting the Golden Goose Award which continues to highlight the importance of federal investments in research. These investments help grow our economy and improve the quality of our life and future generations.

Mr. POCAN

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

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), my colleague, I rise today to offer an amendment to prevent a spike in the copays that veterans pay for prescription drugs as a result of this misguided bill. Every year, the Department of Veterans Affairs publishes a rule to ensure that veterans enrolled in the VA health program don't see as much as a 37.5 percent increase in their prescription drug copays. In this bill, the REINS Act, if it were signed into law, it would be very difficult, and perhaps impossible, for the VA to publish this rulemaking before January 1, 2016. Let's face it, Congress doesn't exactly have a great track record on acting fast. I used to say, when I was in the Wisconsin Legislature, sometimes things move like a tortoise. In Congress, I explain they move more like an upside-down tortoise. Under this bill, copayments for approximately 2.4 million veterans would increase significantly, causing economic hardship and health risks for many veterans struggling to make ends meet. If this bill were to become law, veterans with a service-connected disability rating greater than 50 percent would see their prescription drug copays increase more than 11 times what they were paying last year. Veterans who are former prisoners of war or awarded a Purple Heart would see their copays go up nearly 38 percent. Veterans, who have been hit hardest economically after serving their country, would see their rates spike 22 percent. We must ensure that those who bravely have served our country don't see Congress take money out of their pockets just to score political points. At this time, when we still have many veterans struggling to find a job, it is irresponsible for Congress to make it more difficult for the men and women who have served our country to pay more for the health care they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with much of what the gentleman has said. The only problem is, as much as we have had some problems in the VA--and we need to take actions, and we are, including in Wisconsin where we have had an action that, in a bipartisan way, we have been working together on--the only thing worse could be the performance of Congress. There is a reason why the public currently rates cockroaches, head lice, traffic jams, zombies, and even the band Nickelback higher than Congress. Clearly, we do not have a performance record that shows if we pass this bill we can absolutely guarantee that a veteran won't be paying more, a spike as much as 38 percent, or 11 times what they are currently paying. I am not going to bet on Congress, and I am guessing the American public won't bet on Congress, but we have the ability with this amendment to at least say we are going to make sure those who have served our country won't pay more for their prescription drugs if we don't get our work done, because they have seen that all too often. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exceptional career of Mr. Marty Beil, who will retire this week after having served as Executive Director of the American Federation of State, Municipal and County Employees (AFSCME) Council 24, the Wisconsin State Employees Union since 1985. Over the course of his 30 years at the helm of AFSCME Council 24, Marty has come to be known by many as the face of public employee unions in the State of Wisconsin. Marty began his career in public service in 1969 working for the state's Division of Corrections as a probation and parole officer. It didn't take long for Marty to become involved with the union, and in 1973 he became president of the local chapter. In 1978 Marty was then elected president of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, a position which he held until 1985 when he was chosen to take over as executive director. Throughout his time as director, Marty was appointed by Wisconsin Governors to many high level committees and commissions on which he served as the spokesman for Council 24 and an outspoken advocate for state employees. The hallmark of Marty's career was perhaps during the highly divisive 2011 session of the Wisconsin State Legislature when Governor Scott Walker introduced Act 10, the controversial legislation suspending most collective bargaining powers of the state's public unions. The bill was unprecedented in Wisconsin, which was the first state in the country to provide collective bargaining rights to public employees in 1959, and the legislation drew significant public dissent. Marty provided pivotal leadership and was a constant presence throughout the weeks of protests at the State Capitol where crowds of demonstrators numbered over 100,000 at times. It is a true honor to recognize the career of Marty Beil, a tireless advocate and leader for state employees and working families in my district and across the state. His contributions are an important legacy in the longstanding tradition of fighting for workers' rights and protections in the State of Wisconsin.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 2015 I missed the first recorded vote, Roll #435. On Roll Call #435, I would have voted YEA (Passage of H.R. 251).