Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, first, I rise in support of the Costa amendment.

I also want to thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop and also Representative Costa for the time that they have given me to speak about this. My congressional district is home to the Long Beach VA, which is one of the largest institutions for veterans in southern California.

In California, there is currently one congressional affairs analyst to assist 33 congressional offices that have questions about casework. There are delays in responses to congressional caseworkers and an even longer delay in aid and attendance claims, particularly when those claims regard elderly frail veterans with rapidly declining health issues and sometimes, unfortunately, approval comes too late.

While it is critically important that we provide overtime pay for workers who are already stretched thin--and I think that is critically important--I also encourage the department to use some of these funds to hire additional staff.

I urge my colleagues to support the Costa amendment to H.R. 4486 and encourage the Veterans Benefits Administration to hire more staff to address the VA backlog and to help our Nation's veterans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we commemorate the 39th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the collapse of the Republic of Vietnam. This is known in my community as Black April.

It has been my honor to join with the Vietnamese American community of Little Saigon, which is in my district, to remember this important event. Thirty-nine years ago, millions of Vietnamese were forced to leave their homeland in search of freedom. Many of them found their way to the United States, where today they comprise a strong, vibrant community that has given invaluable contributions to our Nation.

This week we remember the brave sacrifices of so many in the cause of freedom, who fought tirelessly to enable their children to live a better and brighter life. Today, we must ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain by continuing the fight for democracy and human rights in Vietnam.

Madam Speaker, last week in the Natural Resources Committee one of my esteemed colleagues from across the aisle claimed that the scientific evidence regarding human contributions to climate change was inconclusive.

Well, Stanford researcher, Dr. James Powell, a geochemist, and a 12- year member of the non-partisan National Science Board, recently completed an update to his survey of peer-reviewed literature on climate change.

As it points out, in the year 2013, there were 10,885 peer-reviewed articles and only two rejected human contributions towards climate change. That is less than two hundredths of 1 percent.

Madam Speaker, this is not disagreement. This is not a divided scientific community, case closed. Congress must stop denying the science and take action. Future generations are depending upon us.

I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his work on the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, the CPC budget, and for just being an all-around good guy.

The nondefense discretionary side of the budget has taken a beating in recent years with extreme cuts to its programs. The Ryan budget continues this damage with even deeper cuts to discretionary programs.

Now, what do I mean by discretionary programs? We are talking about education, public safety, clean drinking water, food safety, roads, bridges--our transportation system--air traffic controllers, medical research to find cures for diseases, among others.

The question I ask is: What is discretionary about any of these basic needs? What is discretionary about making sure that children can read or about making sure that drinking water is safe or that bridges don't collapse? There is nothing discretionary about these programs.

I think part of the problem is simply the word ``discretionary.'' We need to stop calling this discretionary, and we need to start calling this beleaguered side of the budget what it is, essential. These are the essential non-defense programs.

My dear friend, the main difference between the Ryan budget proposal and the CPC budget proposal is that Mr. Ryan believes that the government funding of these essential programs is a drain on the economy and a drain on taxpayers.

The CPC, however, recognizes that the investment in these essential programs is fundamental to the vitality of our country. It moves us forward, and as you pointed out, it creates millions of jobs--over 4.6 million jobs in the year 2014, almost 3 million in the year 2015 and close to 1.3 million in the year 2016.

It moves us forward, this investment in essential programs. It drives innovation. It creates jobs. It stimulates the economy. It puts our government and our country on a sustainable path to prosperity.

My friend Mr. Ryan's economic model of austerity contrasts sharply with our model of investment and progress in a fiscally responsible way. We believe that educating our workforce, building our infrastructure, ensuring access to a safe and healthy environment, which includes water and food safeguards, is the ticket to a secure future for our country. That is the difference between the Ryan budget and the CPC budget.

That is exactly right. They think that you can cut these because these are nonessential. These are not nonessential. If you tell a child that his education is nonessential or if you tell a family that public health or health research to those families is discretionary or if you tell those scientists who are trying to find cures for some of the worst diseases that they are just discretionary, we will lose the momentum that this country has, and we will no longer be the world leader in democracy and also no longer in innovation and job creation.

No, these are not discretionary programs. These are essential programs that are different than defense programs. To call them discretionary does a great disservice to the great importance and to the centerpiece of our budget that they really occupy and should occupy and that all Americans should understand.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I signed the discharge petition on H.R. 15, the bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Today, I stand with millions of families across our country to call upon Speaker Boehner to simply bring H.R. 15 to the floor of the House for a vote. This bill secures our borders, provides an earned pathway to citizenship, and increases economic opportunity for all Americans. We request a vote--no, we demand a vote. We demand a vote, Mr. Speaker.

We demand this vote because the American people are tired of living under a broken immigration system and seeing families broken apart. The American people know that passing this bill will save our country $900 billion over the next two decades. We know that the American people overwhelmingly support immigration reform with a path to citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, give the American people that vote.

Mr. Speaker, as Women's History Month comes to a close for 2014, I think it is appropriate to highlight the life and work of one of the most influential and iconic women from my district: Beverly O'Neill.

She was an educator, a mayor, and a leader. She remains a dear friend to me and an icon to a huge portion of Long Beach.

Her determined guidance, over an unprecedented three terms as Mayor from 1994 to 2006, led the City of Long Beach through a transformation from ``the smallest big city'' on the West Coast to a thriving international destination and gateway known throughout the world.

Born in Long Beach as Beverly Joy Lewis before the city became a World War II Navy boomtown, Beverly attended Polytechnic High School and went on to graduate from California State University, Long Beach. She eventually earned not one, not two, but five different teaching credentials and spent 31 years as an educator at Long Beach City College before becoming the college's President in 1988.

Shortly after being elected as mayor of Long Beach in 1994, as only the second directly elected mayor in city history, she and the city faced the closure of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard and the tens of thousands of city jobs connected to it. Her resolute determination and leadership to keep the city on an even keel during this difficult time and her empathy and compassion for those impacted by the job cuts endeared her to many in the city.

In her election to a second term in 1998, she received 80 percent of the vote. She continued to guide the city past its reliance on a single industry as the core employer in the city, focusing instead on a diversified economic base.

Termed out in 2002, Beverly decided to run for a third term as a write-in candidate. The citizens of Long Beach gave her a third term and made her the first mayor of a major U.S. city to be elected in a write-in campaign.

By the time she stepped down in 2006, Long Beach had made the difficult economic transition from Navy town to an international gateway and home to one of the busiest maritime ports in the Western Hemisphere.

Still a powerful force for good in the city, Beverly remains busy with numerous civic boards.

Her disarming and unshakable positivity for the city she loved, her compassion for the people she served, and the incredible leadership with which she inspired a generation of citizens has left an indelible mark on the history and the future of Long Beach.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to recognize the month of March as Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. MS is a debilitating, chronic disease that attacks the central nervous system and causes visual problems, overwhelming fatigue, difficulty with balance and coordination, and impaired mobility.

One of my most trusted and long-term district staff members, Ms. Robin McCray, who has been with me for many, many years--first, when I was in the California State Legislature and now in Congress--has a son, Ian, who is now 42 years of age, who has MS.

Ian was diagnosed at the age of 29, at the most productive time in his life. He was an avid snowboarder, an outdoorsman, and practiced masonry. MS has stolen these things away from him.

There is no cure for MS, which is why we need advocates to help fight this terrible disease. I have seen, through Robin and Ian, how MS not only affects the individual, but the entire family.

Today I speak for Ian, but I advocate for the 400,000 Americans diagnosed with MS.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I my consume.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about protecting the health of those Americans who live near mountaintop removal coal mines. It is about keeping surface water from being contaminated; it is about keeping drinking water from being contaminated; and my amendment is about reducing the risk of cancer, birth defects, lung disease, and heart disease for families living near coal mines.

Mr. Chairman, all of these health problems have been conclusively linked to the mining practices of dumping the tops of mountains into streambeds. For example, in January 2010, the peer-reviewed journal Science published an article, entitled, ``Mountaintop Mining Consequences.'' And in that article, the authors, who were a dozen scientists from institutions across the country, concluded:

Adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorder and

hypertension are elevated as a result of county-level coal

production, as are rates of mortality, lung cancer, and

chronic heart, lung, and kidney disease.

Health problems are for women and men. So the effects are not simply the result of direct occupational exposure of predominantly male coal miners.

Mr. Chairman, in 1983, the Ronald Reagan administration completed rules that kept coal mining companies from dumping their overburden directly into streams. The rules required a buffer of 100 feet around waterways. The Reagan rule also allowed States to promulgate more protective rules, effectively creating a Federal floor of protection against stream contamination.

Right now, the Reagan rule is the regulation that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is operating under, and my amendment would keep the Reagan rule in effect.

So what does the majority bill do? It wipes away the Reagan rule and forces all States to adopt the 2008 Bush stream buffer rule. Instead of protecting streams, the Bush rule is a blank check for mining companies to dump their overburden directly into waterways. That's right. The Bush rule referenced in this bill has a gaping loophole that allows mining companies to dump mine waste into streams if avoiding disturbance of the stream is not reasonably possible.

And how is ``reasonable'' to be interpreted by the agency? Very loosely. An alternative to dumping mine waste into streams generally may be considered unreasonable, according to the agency, if its cost is substantially greater than the cost normally associated with this type of project.

Well, of course it is cheaper to dump mine waste into a nearby streambed than to properly treat and remove it elsewhere. Thus, given the agency's criteria, it will always be found cheaper and reasonable to dump coal mine waste into streams.

But it gets even better, Mr. Chairman. This is the same Bush rule that was struck down by the D.C. circuit court just this last month, and it is the same Bush rule that is really against the States' ability to promulgate stronger rules because it creates a ceiling that no State can exceed.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply return to the Reagan rule to protect the health of families living near coal mines. I urge support of my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to respond to one thing that was just said. The 2008 Bush rule is not more protective than the 1983 Reagan rule. I have explained that. The 2008 Bush rule has huge exemptions within it, and that is why it is important that we go back and we adopt my amendment to take us back to the reasonable 1983 Reagan rule.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time.

I strongly agree with my friend that States must be given the right to implement a stream buffer rule that works for them, given the fact that local conditions will vary from State to State. What we are saying is that States should have the ability to protect their natural resources at a level beyond the requirements of the Federal Government when they see the need. What we are saying is that the Federal Government sets a floor, and the States have a right to protect their citizens from public health crisis and illness by setting their own requirements.

H.R. 2824 keeps the States from tailoring stream safeguards and requires the States to waste taxpayer dollars by adopting a rule that has been vacated by a Federal court.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I urge support of the Cartwright amendment.

Mr. Speaker, close cooperation between Taiwan and the United States has been of critical importance since the Taiwan Relations Act was signed on April 10, 1979--35 years ago next month. With the TRA, the United States has been able to forge a strong and mutually beneficial economic, cultural, and security relationship with Taiwan while ensuring peace in the Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan remains a true friend of the United States and a partner in democracy, trade, and human rights. This anniversary is an opportunity to reflect on this successful partnership and to further strengthen the ties between our two governments.

Since the TRA was signed in 1979, Taiwan has grown into a bustling free-market economy and vital trading and investment partner to the United States. But our work is far from over. On the 35th anniversary of the TRA, I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in honoring the deep partnership and friendship between Taiwan and the United States.

It is in this spirit that we should recognize the departure of Representative King Pu-tsung who has fostered greater ties between the U.S. and Taiwan for the last 18 months as Taiwan's chief envoy to the United States. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with Representative King and wish him all the best as he returns to Taiwan. I also look forward to working with his successor to continue to strengthen our unique relationship with Taiwan.

Thank you. I really want to thank the fine gentleman from Maryland, who has worked so long and tirelessly on ensuring that unlimited campaign spending does not drown out the voice of the people. I want to thank him for putting together a bill that gives the public a chance to be heard over big money interests.

A little bit, Mr. Speaker, about my own experience, when I first ran many years ago for city council and then I went on to the State and came here to Congress--when I first ran for city council, it was a very difficult time in my district.

It was a time where we actually had a period of where--when I first was elected, where we had martial law because we had rioting because of--after the Rodney King decision in southern California.

I walked my district, and I heard from everyone that their voices weren't being heard, that the city at the time was not listening to them; so I felt, as important as any piece of legislation, was to give people a chance to come together to create something to have their voices heard.

I spent that first year, when I was elected, working with my community in groups, and we decided that campaign reform limiting the size of contributions would enable our city to move forward again and would bring people together, and they wanted to be able to have a chance to participate. We did it, and we put it on the ballot, and it overwhelmingly passed.

I realized, as I went forward, first to the State legislature and now, here, to Congress, that the best way to fight against unlimited campaign spending by outside individual action committees and individuals who are capable of spending unlimited amounts of money-- short of amending the Constitution to repeal Citizens United--is to do exactly what Congressman Sarbanes has done, give a voice to ordinary citizens. That is what we should be doing.

Congressman Sarbanes' bill, H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, is a comprehensive reform package, designed to combat the influence of Big Money politics. As equally important, it is to raise civic engagement, and it really is to amplify the voice of ordinary Americans. That is what we should be hearing. That is what we are hearing every day in our districts.

The bill would magnify the impact of small donations from average citizens, allowing Congressional candidates who only take small donations to be competitive with candidates who are backed by outside groups, who are capable of raising and spending large amounts of money.

For example, if this bill becomes law, individuals will be given a $25 refundable ``my voice'' tax credit per year to help incentivize and spur small-dollar donations to candidates for Congressional office. People would be feeling that the government is asking them to contribute and to participate.

Candidates now who forego contributions from super-PACs and only accept donations of under $1,000 would be eligible to a 6 to 1 match by small donors--that is people who are donating under $150--from a newly established freedom from influence fund.

Do you know what this will mean to the average American who says: If I contribute a small amount, it doesn't mean anything?

All of a sudden, we are saying: you count, your contribution means something.

According to the Federal Election Commission, in 2012, individual small donors were outspent 3 to 1 by outside groups. We need to figure out how to empower average citizens whose voices are drowned out by outside money from shadowy organizations.

We have to shift this balance of power away from wealthy interests to ordinary Americans, to people who are asking that their government be responsive to them.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, and I urge the Speaker of this House to bring this vital bill to the floor of the House of Representatives.

Give us the opportunity to vote for democracy, to vote for the people of this country.

I agree completely.

People decide to run frequently--or want to run--maybe even better than

decide, they don't decide--they want to run because they believe that they can be the voice for those that do not have a voice, for people in their community who feel disenfranchised, people like themselves who just want to participate and feel that they have no voice.

Then they get involved in this process, or they think about it, and they realize that that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who you are listening to. It doesn't matter who you are accountable to. It doesn't matter that you really care about creating a sense of community and involvement and that people have a responsibility to participate themselves.

All that matters is how much large money you can raise, and that is what the rules are.

I think that that balance between funding elections and listening to people has gotten way out of whack. That has discouraged so many people from wanting to run because they are now confronted with the reality.

It makes no difference that you are tied to a community and you give voice to people in that community. The only thing that makes a difference is how much money you can raise from large interests. I think that does a tremendous disservice to this institution and to all institutions that depend upon public support.

On many different levels.

Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that, today, people say that government--the House of Representatives and the Senate--is dysfunctional. Yet, as you pointed out in that quote, Senator Dole saw a long time ago, when at least some things were getting done and more things were getting done, that we were beginning to go down the wrong path, that the influence of money was stopping us from really looking at the critical policies that affect the Nation and from debating those and listening to ordinary citizens here.

As we talked about, when ordinary citizens are cut out and when the only people who get to visit and to talk to us are those who contribute large amounts of money to our campaigns, it is they who have special access. Theirs are the bills that get brought up. They are the ones we listen to because everyone stops being beholden to the policies that brought them here--what they want to do to form good government--and they are beholden to what will get them reelected and to the large amounts of money that come in.

So I agree. It is interesting that Senator Dole said that. That is now over 30 years ago when we did not heed the warning of listening to citizens of creating a system that not only would decrease the role of large, outside interests but would, as you have done, increase the role of ordinary citizens to actually be listened to and be able to bring their thoughts to bear because we would become accountable to them. I think that is where we are today as that accountability is not there.

In listening to this discussion and to your presentation about the bill to basically give government back to the people, listening to Congressman O'Rourke talking about what it is like to go door to door and talk to people, and then you are asking what are people saying, I think what I am hearing as I go out is that we have lost, in many ways--what has happened because of money in politics--the ability to talk to people. It is not necessary anymore.

The thing is, when you talk to people, this is what they say: I want to have a voice. I want to participate. I want to be part of this great democracy.

Less and less does that make any difference. You can win office without talking to people. You don't have to talk to people anymore. You just have to raise large amounts of money and let that money spread a message. What we are saying is, that is not only bad for the institution, that is horrible for the democracy that we live in.

It is time to give back this democracy to our communities. It is time to recreate a sense of community. It is time to do what Congressman O'Rourke has said, which is to create competitiveness, to create a sense that people can listen and they can participate. They can if they are not part of the purchasing of this House, and that is what it has been now--the purchasing of this House.

Rather than having the selection of people being due to your being able to convince people that you are listening to them and what you are proposing is in their best interest, it is really what is in the best interest of those that are contributing. That is what it is all about. This takes us another step closer.

When I talk to people, first, they are very grateful that I am even talking to them now. They are thankful that I am coming out to talk to them about this. Not enough people are talking because we don't have the time to talk to people because too much time is spent raising money.

I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding and for being a steadfast leader on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply confirms what world's scientists already know: that greenhouse gases contribute to long-lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of harmful effects.

Disinformation by entities with conflicts of interest have fueled reports of scientific disagreement. However, the scientific community is not divided because there is no compelling scientific evidence denying human's role in climate change, period. Case closed.

Every minute we waste on the myth of disagreement is a minute longer we wait to take concrete action, making our inevitable energy transition even more expensive.

Mr. Chairman, we will be judged by our children for what we do here today. I urge an ``aye ``vote.

Mr. Speaker, climate change is real and is happening now. To reduce the harmful effects of human-caused greenhouse gas pollution, this Nation and the world must transition to clean energy sources. That is why I am here today to support wind power and for extending the renewable electricity production tax credit.

My home State of California has been a leader in deploying this key technology, and it has paid dividends. Wind powers over 2.1 million California homes, and California is the home to 21 wind manufacturing facilities which have helped to stimulate capital investments of over $11 billion.

The California wind industry also supports over 7,000 jobs, ranking California as the second-highest wind-related job incubator in the Nation.

Wind power is part of the energy portfolio of the future. Let's make that future happen now and support the production tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, inaction on climate change will be more costly in the long run than an investment in curbing emissions now. The nonpartisan Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently urged policymakers--that is us in Congress--to take immediate action on climate change to avoid not only costly damages to our planet but, really, the costly impact to our economy.

The report indicates that if strong action to curb greenhouse gas emissions does not take place in the next 15 years, our last resort to avoid catastrophic global changes will be to rely on expensive technologies to remove harmful greenhouse gases, and that would be unbelievably expensive.

The report also estimates that the longer we wait, the cost goes up, and the impact on the economy is more devastating. If we wait until 2030, we reduce our ability to produce goods and services by up to 4 percent. If we wait until 2050, it is up to 6 percent; and if we wait until 2100, it is up to a 12 percent loss of goods and services. The time to act is now.

Madam Speaker, instead of talking about jobs, or the economy, or the unemployed who have lost their benefits because of our inaction, we are here talking about legislation that strips women of their fundamental right to make their own medical decisions.

If H.R. 7 passes, millions of women who work for small businesses, or who will be buying insurance on the exchanges, will lose access to comprehensive health care.

H.R. 7 is a radical bill that places restrictions on how women can spend their private dollars to purchase their private insurance. It would also make the Hyde amendment permanent, which will cause detrimental and devastating effects to all women, especially low-income women.

We must stand by women and vote ``no'' on H.R. 7.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise too in support of the 1.3 million Americans who have lost or will be losing their benefits by the callous efforts of this Congress not to extend unemployment benefits, especially for the long-term unemployed.

As you pointed out, Congressman Pocan, as of December 28, over 1.3 million Americans have been kicked off

unemployment insurance. We are talking about--and I am going to speak in a few minutes about the personal impacts of this--we are talking about family members, we are talking about friends, we are talking about people in each and every community of every Member, regardless of political affiliation in this Congress.

In my own community in the State of California, if we continue this callous effort not to extend unemployment benefits, we are looking at over 325,000 Californians losing their benefits in the next 6 months. Let's talk about jobs. People say that people should be working. If we do not extend unemployment insurance in my State, we are talking about the impact of the loss of over 240,000 jobs. This is a tragedy for our country.

We are just coming out of the holiday season. It is really interesting, in the holiday season, at Christmastime, that there was a lack of compassion by the majority party in the House, which did not put up a bill to extend unemployment insurance. Congressman Pocan and I have looked at this.

Coming up, the President of the United States is going to be talking about the state of the Union. There is nothing more important in the Union than having people be able to buy their food, to be able to feed their children, to be able to hold their heads up with dignity. So, last year, the House Democrats invited as their one guest people who were victims of gun violence.

This year, Congressman, I applaud you for taking the lead, and I am so pleased to have joined you in a letter to ask Republicans and Democrats to use their one additional seat in order to bring them to Congress to let the President and the rest of the Nation hear about the stories and then put faces to those people who have lost their unemployment insurance, to see that these are people like our neighbors. That is who we are talking about. I urge all Members of Congress to bring a person who doesn't normally have a chance to impact our government, a person who has lost his unemployment insurance.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the people in my community--letters, people I have met, people I have gone and talked to. I will just give two examples:

I have a constituent who recently spoke to me about being 76 years of age and widowed. Her daughter is 52 and is a civil engineer, who has worked for many years at good jobs in the construction industry, building water treatment plants around the State of California. She was laid off 3 years ago and has not been able to find work since, even for jobs that pay much less; and she would be willing to take jobs that pay up to less than a third of her previous salary. After her unemployment checks ran out, she moved in with her mother, who wrote to me and spoke to me.

She says:

Luckily, when she and I were both employed, we bought this

small house, and we worked diligently to pay it off. She--her

daughter--has pretty much given up hope for another job, and

I am somewhat crippled now. Between my Social Security and my

savings, we survive. My point is that I am writing to you not

to help us.

She did not ask for any help. She said they are doing okay, but she knows that so many people in her community are not doing well, who are going through the same thing that she and her daughter have gone through, but they now don't have insurance to do that. She asked me-- she pleaded with me--to extend the benefits and to extend their unemployment checks;

Another constituent wrote to me recently and said:

I am 58 years of age. I am a telecommunication analyst. I

was laid off in January of 2013. I have worked for over 30

years in this field. Now I need the government to help me

through this rough time, and you and your peers are letting

me down. I am running out of savings. I am soon to be

homeless by the end of March if you don't do something. I am

at a point that I would take any job available, but all I

hear is either I am overqualified or I don't fit well into

the job.

I think we have to really hear this. This person pleaded:

I am not a lazy person. I am out there, trying every single

day to find a job. I would give up one of my fingers for a

job just to take care of my family. Please keep fighting to

help us out.

Both of these stories tell us how we have a responsibility to help the women and the men and the families in our communities who are the foundations of our society and who are raising the next generation, who really are saying, I have worked hard. Please, at this tough time, don't abandon me. If we cannot provide adequate support for our families to make it through difficult times, they are asking us, if you are not here to help us, why are you in Congress?

When we extend unemployment insurance, UI, the U.S. economy goes up, poverty goes down, and working families are protected. Now is not the time to turn our backs on the most vulnerable in our society.

Thank you for that leadership.