Norma Torres

Mrs. TORRES

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

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes 39 amendments in order to the appropriations bill we have been considering this week. Unfortunately, this appropriations package is made up of three individual appropriations bills. Also, in what is a surprise to us in the minority, this rule also includes a surprising $15 billion in rescissions--cuts--to programs our communities depend on. Why aren't we given the opportunity to bring up these bills individually? Considering that nearly 200 amendments were offered to this package while many of us were working in our districts, it is obvious to me that these bills would have benefited from a longer debate. This rule makes in order 39 amendments to the underlying package, which includes H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019; H.R. 5894, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2019; and H.R. 5786, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019. However, 59 additional amendments will not be given an opportunity to be heard, including bipartisan amendments like the Cicilline-Poliquin amendment to prohibit oil drilling on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf or the Foster-Hultgren amendment to increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science or the Issa-Roybal-Allard amendment to support programs that improve veteran access to care at qualified health centers. Don't these distinguished Members of this body deserve to have their amendments discussed, debated, and voted on? This rule also makes in order H.R. 3, the GOP rescission package. Mr. Speaker, this bill has not received a single hearing--not one. This was a last-minute addition which gave no time for amendments to be considered. The closed rule, which is how the rescissions package comes to the floor, pushes this Congress further into the record books as the most closed Congress in history. Before I speak more on that, I do want to take a brief moment to highlight the bipartisan manner in which the appropriators acted in crafting the Military Construction and Legislative Branch bills. This is proof that, when this body wants to, we can work together and produce legislation that results in broad, bipartisan consensus. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill provides a $4.17 billion increase to the servicemembers we represent--specifically, a $3.9 billion increase to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Legislative Branch bill takes more steps we should have taken a long time ago and provides additional resources for training and to help with complaints on sexual harassment and violations of employee rights. None of us here are immune to harassers, but at least this bill moves us forward in addressing the bad behaviors of those who walk among us. This rule makes in order amendments to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. However, this bill does not follow the same bipartisan path. Instead, this bill is full of poison pill riders that will ultimately make our time here a total waste, as those poison pill riders mean that the Senate will ignore this package as it is written. Incredibly, when most Americans are asking Congress to make commonsense improvements to our Nation's gun laws, this bill goes in the opposite direction. That is right. This Congress is finally acting on guns--in a cowardly way, by expanding where guns can be brought onto Federal lands, ignoring the cries and the calls from our children--our children who are being murdered in their classrooms, our constituents who are being murdered in movie theaters, our constituents who are being murdered in concert halls in Las Vegas, Nevada, where people go to get married, where people go to have fun, and, yes, they make babies sometimes in Vegas too. But yet we are ignoring their calls for help. It is amazing that we can go on months without meaningful reforms on gun violence and now we take up a giant spending package that forces Members to vote on yet another expansion of gun access. What are we trying to do? Again, a cowardice act to expand the use of weapons in our Federal lands. For what? So we can go into the dens of bears and kill them--the momma bears and the baby bears--while they are sleeping? That is what we are doing in this Congress. Perhaps that wouldn't be such a problem if we had a single open rule on the House floor that would allow the House to work its will on this or any other issue Members have with portions of this legislation. Finally, this rule makes in order H.R. 3, President Trump's and the GOP's rescissions bill. As I mentioned before, this bill saw no hearings. Zero. But perhaps just as troubling was Ranking Member Lowey's remarks in our Rules Committee hearing last night about how the minority wasn't even consulted prior to this bill coming to the floor, ignoring the thousands of constituents that we represent. So, not only has this bill skipped the normal appropriations process, Democrats have not been given an opportunity to add the voice of their constituents. Make no mistake, this is a highly partisan bill which does not reflect the House's will. Instead, this is what our constituents hate the most: a Congress that is most dysfunctional. This bill makes significant cuts to programs that create jobs, grow our economy, and provide healthcare to millions of children in a transparent attempt to appear fiscally conservative after passing a tax bill that added $1.9 trillion to the deficit and gave most of its benefit to the wealthiest among us. If we want to rescind something to balance the deficit, how about we start with the $1 trillion budget-busting tax bill that was passed for the wealthy. That irresponsible law is now the cause of Medicare and Social Security going bankrupt decades earlier. This bill is a political gimmick to hide the Republican majority's gross mismanagement of our Nation's long-term fiscal health. While the GOP tax giveaway benefited the wealthiest among us, almost half of the cuts in this rescissions package are to the Children's Health Insurance Program. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: the Children's Health Insurance Program. We have $7 billion eliminated from CHIP. That is right. They didn't blink an eye at a $2 trillion giveaway to the wealthy, but yet they are squeezing fractional savings from funds intended for children's health insurance. But that isn't the end of it. So that corporations and millionaires can have a tax break, the House majority has decided to make a collection of cuts that will impact every community: Cuts to economic development; cuts to the Forest Service while the West of America is burning; cuts to Indian housing programs, cuts to foreign assistance; cuts to transportation while our infrastructure is crumbling; cuts to public housing while the growing number of Americans grow homeless; cuts to conservation; and cuts to advanced technology vehicle loans. What is it that you want to do? Do you want to take us back to the time of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble? I know that my Republican colleagues will say that they aren't cuts because the funding can't be used, but no Federal agencies were asked if they needed a waiver to utilize this funding where they need it the most. I doubt that my colleagues will say they couldn't use this in their communities. Well, let me put these cuts in the voice of the Great Gazoo: those cuts are dumb and dumber cuts. Mr. Speaker, that is why I must strongly oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow the rewriting of history. The majority has blocked over 2,000 amendments, and it is only June. Mr. Speaker, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act would shortchange our veterans by subjecting funding for their healthcare programs to onerous budget restraints. This would force funding for veterans healthcare to compete with other important veterans programs. Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to include Representative Lamb's legislation, H.R. 5805, to fix the VA Choice budget shortfall and Representative Carter's amendment to MILCON-VA which includes more funds for vital veteran healthcare initiatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb) to discuss our proposal.

Mrs. TORRES

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. TORRES

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last week, many of us spent our time in the district working, meeting with our constituents, seeing the good work that people are doing, and learning what issues people want us to take up when we return to voting. I wish I were before you lauding the majority's leadership for finally taking up the most important and pressing work for our constituents, but, unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead, this rule brings three bills to the floor, three bills none of my constituents have been pleading for, three bills that don't require immediate action, bills that may not even see Senate consideration. Last year, this majority set the record for the most closed rules in a session, and it seems that nothing has changed. The first bill considered in this rule is H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act. While I understand the goal of this legislation, by attempting to improve the pretrial services programs to keep dangerous criminals off the streets, this bill fails to accomplish the real need to improve how our Nation's flawed bail systems operate. While this bill received a markup, it received no hearings and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a straight party-line vote. Surely, we can do better than this. The second bill we are considering is H.R. 5645, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act, or SMARTER Act. Quite simply, this bill aims to weaken the Federal Trade Commission's ability to carry out the agency's antitrust responsibilities. Maybe things are different elsewhere in the country, but I have not had one constituent call my office complaining about the need to weaken the FTC's antitrust enforcement abilities. No. People in southern California are more concerned about good wages, finding affordable housing, and getting their children a good education. However, again, we will take up this legislation, which already died in the Senate last Congress. This legislation undermines the independence of the FTC and undercuts the congressional intent and purpose for the agency's creation. There are far more important issues under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee that we should be considering instead, including bipartisan gun safety measures and legislation to protect Dreamers. However, instead of considering these very important issues facing our Nation, we are debating a bill to make technical changes to antitrust laws that, if enacted, would only be used in exceedingly rare situations. Finally, the third legislation included in this rule is S.J. Res. 57, a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution of a CFPB rule relating to ``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.'' Unlike the other two bills included in this rule, this joint resolution hasn't seen a single hearing or markup in the House. If the majority is fine with bringing up legislation that has yet to have a hearing, why not bring up the Dream Act? Two weeks ago, I spoke about some of the more important issues our constituents care about, and nothing about my time back home in California changed my beliefs of what we should be working on. In fact, over the past 2 weeks, we have seen even more Members sign on to Representative Denham's Queen of the Hill resolution. Three more Members of the majority now support an open process. For those who may not understand what Queen of the Hill means, it is really quite simple: let the best idea win. If Speaker Ryan allows us, Queen of the Hill would give all the competing immigration proposals in Congress a vote on the floor. All of us would have an opportunity to vote on the four most well-known proposals: the Dream Act, Chairman Goodlatte's bill, the USA Act, and any other bill the Speaker sees fit for a vote. This is how the House should work: an open process where we take up the most important issues of the day. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule we have before us. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends like to claim that their tax scam bill they jammed through Congress last year, skewing all the benefits to the wealthy and rich corporations, is some sort of panacea that will eventually trickle down all of its benefits to American workers, curing all the ills in our economy. That tired idea hasn't worked before, and it isn't working now. But don't take my word for it. Just ask the Republican Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, who said in a recent interview: ``There is still a lot of thinking on the right that, if big corporations are happy, they're going to take the money they're saving and reinvest in American workers. In fact, they bought back shares; a few gave out bonuses; there's no evidence whatsoever that money's been massively poured back into the American worker.'' All this Republican majority seems intent on doing is bringing up bills that benefit large banks and big businesses. When are we going to do something for workers? As we toil on rolling back the Wall Street regulations and cutting taxes for the richest corporations, the 21st century economy is changing. Mr. Speaker, over the next decade, approximately 45 percent of all jobs will be in middle-skill occupations, which require more than a high school diploma but less than a bachelor's degree. Registered apprenticeship programs are a vital element of training for these middle-skill occupations and helping individuals contribute to an effective workforce. A highly skilled workforce is necessary to compete in today's global economy, but this Republican majority has given working Americans a raw deal instead of extending a helping hand. Luckily for my Republican colleagues, today we will give them an opportunity to vote on legislation that will actually benefit American workers and finally help them get a better deal. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pocan's LEARNS Act, H.R. 2933, which would promote effective registered apprenticeships that would give students and workers the skills they need to find well- paying jobs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I mentioned, this rule includes three bills. One of those is H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act. The Citizens' Right to Know Act fails to address the real problems in our Nation's bail system and, instead, threatens to make things much, much worse. I don't think many of us disagree with the need to assist our local governments in keeping dangerous criminals off the streets while respecting the rights of those who may be innocent of crimes and have yet to have had their day in court. This legislation makes things worse. It threatens Federal assistance and would encourage local governments to lean more on high bail demands. Unlike many bipartisan proposals in Congress which seek to make real improvements to bail, this bill will likely result in more low-income individuals being kept in jail simply because they aren't one of the fortunate who can afford to pay bail. This is a real issue in southern California and why I have worked with my colleagues on legislation to implement ``ability-to-pay'' rules to bail demands. Your income shouldn't determine your freedom. In our community, bail was so excessive that private companies found a way to get rich off people who couldn't afford to pay the high costs. We ended up with people stuck in permanent contracts, paying hundreds of dollars a month to companies that found ways to skirt the rules of bail bondsmen. We support greater transparency in our criminal justice system; however, this bill falls short of that goal. Rather than shedding the light on our trial system, this bill undermines Americans' privacy rights and exposes defendants to vulnerability. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, has come out in strong opposition to this bill, citing privacy concerns due to the personally identifiable information that will be collected and publicly reported by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the text of the ACLU's position letter. American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, March 7, 2018. Re ACLU Opposes H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2017. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Nadler: On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), we write to express our opposition to H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2017,'' as the House Judiciary Committee considers this bill. This legislation raises privacy concerns for the ACLU given the personally identifiable data that is to be collected and publicly reported by the federal government. The bill also undermines efforts to eliminate or reduce jurisdictions' reliance on money bail systems. We urge the Committee to instead consider H.R. 1437, the ``No Money Bail Act of 2017,'' and H.R. 4019, the bipartisan ``Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act of 2017,'' two bills endorsed by the

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, this bill fails to provide explicit privacy protections for the individuals whose personal information will be collected and subject to public release, and jurisdictions that fail to comply with these reporting requirements face the severe penalty of losing 100 percent of their DOJ pretrial services grant funding. Not only does this bill fail to require consent from the defendants to publicly release information about their alleged crimes and their private information, but it also poses the very real threat of destroying their reputation. These individuals have not been convicted of a crime nor have they had their day in court, given their pretrial status. These are the concerns that could have been raised if this legislation was given a full, robust debate through committee hearings. I am disappointed that my amendment to this bill, which would have addressed one of the many abuses perpetrated by the money bail system, was not made in order. My amendment would have prohibited predatory companies from locking people into seemingly lifetime contracts of monthly fees. We can do better. These are bipartisan issues. For this reason and many other concerns I have with the closed process we are operating under, I must oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. TORRES

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. TORRES

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5447, The Music Modernization Act. Mr. Speaker, there is broad, bipartisan agreement that current music licensing laws no longer meet the needs of creators and music providers in the digital age. Southern California has established itself as a leader in the entertainment industry, and supporting our artists and music industry is a job creator for my constituents. This bill would address the inefficiencies in the music industry's licensing system by establishing uniformity in the licensing process. Licenses will now be managed by one entity which in turn would be paid for by the licensees. In addition to an increase in efficiency, the Music Modernization Act would foster a more transparent relationship between creators and music platforms. Information regarding music owed royalties would be easily accessible through the database created by the Music Modernization Act. This transparency will surely improve the working relationship between creators and music platforms and aid the music industry's innovation process. Most importantly, this bill would establish a uniformed rate that would allow song writers and artists to receive fair market pay for their ideas and creations. As a society, we value the work and products of artists, creators, and the music industry. For years now, creators, and music providers have spoken out about the outdated music licensing process and the issues they repeatedly face because of its flawed system. It is only fair that we address these inefficiencies and bring the music industries' processes in accordance with the digital age.

Mrs. TORRES

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I am proud to be the newest member of the House Rules Committee. When I expressed my desire to join the committee to the minority leader, I shared my hope that I could do my part to ensure the committee would allow the House to work its will in an open way. Unfortunately, the rule that we are bringing to the floor does not meet that standard. For that reason, I rise in opposition. The rule we consider this afternoon is a combined rule for H.R. 3144, legislation to delay and derail management practices at the Federal Columbia River Power System in the Pacific Northwest, and H.R. 4, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act. There is no reason for the House to take up these items in a combined rule. We have plenty of time to give each bill a full, robust debate, and plenty of time to allow the House an opportunity to vote on some of the 138 amendments filed to these bills that were not made in order under this rule. Mr. Speaker, the House appears to be in a rush to leave here every single week. Last week, we only had three voting days, and with this combined rule, who knows how long we will be here this week. Perhaps we could use some of this extra time to take up a number of issues which Americans have been asking for. Instead of making this yet another short week, how about we give Americans a vote on addressing gun violence by giving us a vote on background checks, bump stocks, assault weapons, gun trafficking reform; or ensuring that we don't find ourselves in a constitutional crisis by protecting the special counsel, and making sure that we address Russian interference in our elections; or allowing the House to actually take a vote on so many outstanding immigration issues by protecting DACA and TPS recipients? There are 244 cosponsors of Representative Denham's ``Queen of the Hill'' resolution, including over 40 members of the majority party. Nearly 8 months since President Trump terminated the DACA program, Congress has continually failed to protect the thousands of American Dreamers who lose their protections every single day. Dreamers are the educators, doctors, and small-business owners who make our communities better and help make our country stronger and safer. There are very real consequences for the lack of a permanent solution to this crisis. The American people want us to act. We can respect their will by taking up the ``Queen of the Hill'' resolution on one of the many days where we find ourselves with nothing to do. We could work together to at least provide the House with a path forward where the best idea wins. Mr. Speaker, instead of doing what we did last week by canceling voting days, let's take this time to act on behalf of our constituents. Why don't we put a stop to the administration's attack on the Affordable Care Act and work on bipartisan improvements to control the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and increase access to services? Finally, why don't we take some time to do what I have been calling for since my first day in Congress and pass a large-scale infrastructure package? There are roads and bridges crumbling around our country, transit systems in need of significant repair, and a power grid waiting to enter the 21st century. We need robust investments in our transportation and energy infrastructure. In its 2017 report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave us our infrastructure a nearl failing grade of a D-plus. But based on my experiences driving around my hometown, that might be a bit too generous. These are all the things that have bipartisan agreement. It is up to us to address the real problems before us with leadership, security, and stability that the Nation demands. That said, as I mentioned before, we have two bills included in this rule. The first is the FAA Authorization Act, the first long-term FAA reauthorization since 2012. This legislation was developed over 3 years of bipartisan and stakeholder negotiations. It will provide long-term stability for our Nation's aviation community, continue investments in research and innovation, and make necessary reforms to improve American competitiveness and safety in aviation. I appreciate Chairman Shuster working with Ranking Member DeFazio to ensure that this bill is as bipartisan as possible. I would have preferred that we did more to assist our Nation's airports, but this bill reflects the committee's will. Airline safety is on all of our minds, especially after the tragedy of Southwest Flight 1380. Moving this bill forward, without the poison bill language we had seen in previous versions, will go a long way in improving passenger safety, passenger comfort, and the entire experience on our Nation's airlines. Following my work to return the Ontario International Airport to local control, we have seen my hometown airport go through a renaissance with new flights being added constantly. It is my hope that this bill continues that growth and allows for more improvements at the airport. While I am pleased this rule does make in order an amendment I offered to assist Ontario International Airport and airports like it, there are many amendments which were not made in order. One such amendment I want to mention is Representative Cartwright's amendment No. 152 on single-pilot operations. I am extremely concerned with section 744 of the underlying legislation, which establishes an FAA research and development program in support of single-pilot all- cargo operations utilizing remote piloting or computer piloting technology. Unfortunately, I believe moving in this direction--single-piloted aircraft--will result in excessive workload for pilots and safety risks for everyone. I think it would have been fair for the House to give the Cartwright amendment a floor debate and a simple up-or-down vote. In addition, I am disappointed that Representative Grace Meng's amendment No. 28 was not made in order. This amendment would have standardized the treatment of animals aboard airlines. I know we were all horrified when we read the reports last month of a pet who died after being forced into a luggage compartment, or being flushed down a toilet, or being forced to leave the plane. According to a U.S. Department of Transportation report issued in February, 24 animals died in the care of U.S. carriers last year. I don't think it is too much to ask for a vote on the House floor to establish standards for the safety of our constituents' pets. In addition to the FAA authorization bill, this rule will also bring H.R. 3144 to the floor. This bill is intended to provide for operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System and delay multiple court decisions which are intended to protect the local environment. This legislation would derail the ongoing comprehensive efforts to improve dam management practices on the Columbia River basin, creating problematic conservation and management policies. The impact on salmon and steelhead trout, in particular, would harm not just the environment, but also tribes and businesses of the Pacific Northwest. I joined the Rules Committee from my previous role as ranking member on the Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee. I was proud of the work I did to protect Tribal communities, and while serving in that role, I opposed this legislation due to the negative impact on local tribes. The 2014 operation plan, which this bill attempts to re-implement, was developed by the Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Services. That plan was found to violate the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, and failed to live up to the agreement we made with local tribes. Native peoples of the Pacific Northwest ceded most of their ancestral homeland to the U.S. in exchange for the right to catch salmon and steelhead at their accustomed places. This tradition carries great cultural and religious significance, but the current operation plan would further harm Tribal fisheries. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation because it fails to include the appropriate input from local tribes. I urge my colleagues to reconsider bringing this bill forward, and go back to the drawing board where an agreement can be reached that brings all affected parties on board. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule we have before us, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on the promise of draining the swamp, but has instead allowed corruption to run rampant in the executive office. Several Cabinet officials are being investigated for ethics violations and the misuse of Federal funds. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Carson spent over $31,000 on a new dining room set for his office. Interior Secretary Zinke spent $139,000 of taxpayer money to remodel three sets of office doors. One of the most outrageous practices by President Trump's Cabinet is the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on luxury air travel. Just a couple of examples: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Pruitt spent over $14,000 on a private jet traveling just 300 miles within Oklahoma. Interior Secretary Zinke cost the taxpayers $12,000 chartering a plane belonging to an oil and gas exploration firm. President Trump recently said: ``Sometimes it may not look like it, but believe me, we are draining the swamp.'' Well, with a Cabinet like this, I have to agree with President Trump in part. It does not look like he is draining the swamp, but that is because he is not. For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lieu's H.R. 3876, the SWAMP FLYERS Act. This legislation will ensure that senior political appointees are not using Federal funds for official travel on private aircraft. Unlike the restrictive rules we are considering today, this bill would be brought to the floor under an open rule so that all Members have the opportunity to amend the bill on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu) to discuss this proposal.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. TORRES

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the so-called balanced budget amendment. Like so many Americans who have been following the budget process, I am too very disappointed with this Congress. The budget is the value statement by which we govern America. The amendment before us and the recent massive cuts passed by Republicans are far from a reflection of those values. That tax bill added yet another $1 trillion of debt to our children's pocketbooks. And for what? So millionaires could get a tax cut 70 times larger than what the middle class received? The vote we take today will pay for that tax cut by cutting programs the middle class depends on. As a mother and grandmother, I have to ask: What kind of future are we leaving for our families? You cannot hand millions of dollars to millionaires and corporations one day while pretending to be concerned about our budget deficit the next. That doesn't make you a fiscal hawk. That is why the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has been working on a plan to get us back on track, and I am proud to help lead those efforts as the chair of the Budget Task Force. In this role, I am pushing for solutions that promote the well-being and strength of our local communities. Sure, we all want a balanced budget. This vote today is not a solution. It is an attack on the middle class families we represent. As a former mayor and a State legislator, I know firsthand the difference between a true balanced budget and what that means for securing the resources and services our States and cities need. It has long been my priority to ensure healthcare remains accessible for everyone, especially the most vulnerable in our communities. We can't do that if we are making enormous cuts to Medicare, to Medicaid, to Social Security programs our very low-income families, individuals with disabilities, seniors, and veterans depend on for their livelihoods. More than 50 million Americans depend on Medicare. Many of them make less than $24,000 a year. The Nation's seniors have worked their whole lives and contributed to the Social Security program. It is not a gift to them.

Mrs. TORRES

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, on Friday March 9th, the brave men and women. of the Pomona Police Department responded to a short pursuit that resulted in a 15-hour long standoff in my hometown. Among those brave first responders was Officer Greggory Jonathan Casillas. It is with more than a heavy heart that I stand here on the House floor to say that during that altercation, Officer Casillas was killed in the line of duty. I can't say much about the motives of the individual who committed this abhorrent crime, nor do I want to. What I do want to do is focus on Officer Casillas and the incredible contributions he made to leave Pomona safer than it was before. He made the ultimate sacrifice doing what he loved, and he will be missed dearly. He is survived not only by his parents, brothers, wife, five-month old and four-year old sons, but also by every single law enforcement officer of the Pomona Police Department and every member of our community. Casillas knew his calling early on: to one day become a Pomona Police Officer. In March of 2015, he set out on this pursuit and joined the Pomona PD as a records specialist. Casillas would go on to work his way up through the department, prudently learning every detail at every step. On November 2015, he became a jailer before eventually becoming a Pomona police recruit, putting him one step closer to attending the police academy. Officer Casillas intentionally took on these varying roles within the department because he was eager to learn and wanted to become the best version of himself to prepare him for the role of officer. Colleagues recall Casillas diligently studying officer reports so he could learn how to write them--he was known for always carrying flashcards of penal codes and books to prepare for the police officer exam. He was honest, dedicated, and determined. He never lost hope nor sight of his dreams. And last September, that relentless determination led him to graduate from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Academy Class No. 207. He accomplished his goal of becoming a Pomona Police Officer. Officer Casillas was in the final stages of finishing his field training, which would have allowed him to ride on his own without a training officer--a self-imposed final hurdle for achieving his ultimate goal of riding solo. But in my opinion, he achieved his goal nearly four years ago when he decided to join the Pomona Police Department. It takes a special kind of unyielding dedication for someone to be willing to put their lives at risk every single day that they put on a uniform. Casillas was this type of individual. Officer Casillas accomplished his goal long ago and surpassed it. The hundreds of people that gathered for multiple vigils in his memory is evidence. The young generation of police recruits that he has inspired by leading by example is proof. He selflessly left his family at home to protect our community. His memory and spirit will live on, and we are eternally grateful for his sacrifice. May he rest in peace.

Mrs. TORRES

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I report to you an incident that occurred the evening of March 9. Officers of the Pomona Police Department were involved in a short pursuit that resulted in a 15-hour-long standoff. At the onset of that standoff, Officer Gregory Jonathan Casillas was killed in the line of duty. Officer Casillas was at the beginning of his career in law enforcement. He was a dedicated public servant. He was young, energetic, and honest. He never lost hope or sight of his dreams. Officer Casillas joined the Pomona Police Department in December of 2014, working his way up as a records specialist, jailer, recruit, to his graduation in 2017 from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Academy Class No. 207. He died doing what he loved: serving our community. He is survived by his wife and his 5-month-old and 4-year-old sons. Officer Casillas, your memory and spirit will live on. May you rest in peace.

Mrs. TORRES

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was thus unable to cast my vote on rollcall votes 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 83, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 84, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 85, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 86, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 87.