Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of President Obama's fiscal year 2016 budget.

It is a budget that is firmly rooted in middle class economics, designed to benefit working families and middle-income Americans. It is a budget that will facilitate access to quality, affordable child care and will dramatically expand prekindergarten education in a way that will allow the children of middle class Americans to get off to a faster start in life.

President Obama's budget, with the full support of House Democrats, will also address wage stagnation. It is designed to put more income-- more money--in the pockets of middle class Americans and of those who aspire to be part of the middle class. It will address the fact that, since the early 1970s, the productivity of the American worker has increased consistently, yet middle class wages have remained stagnant. That is a systematic problem that President Obama, Leader Pelosi, and House Democrats are determined to address on behalf of the middle class.

President Obama's budget is also designed to increase the affordability of a college education. We know that Americans right now are burdened with more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. That type of debt limits the ability of younger Americans to purchase a home, to start a family, to open up a new business, to take a chance. It limits their ability to robustly access the American Dream. President Obama's budget is designed to allow the sons and daughters of the middle class to pursue their dreams in a more meaningful fashion.

When President Obama took office, he inherited an economic train wreck as a result of the Great Recession that was handed to him by the policies of the previous Republican administration. Through the leadership of President Obama, working closely with Democrats in the House and the Senate, we have turned the economy around. We have gotten it back on the right track.

So the question that we in this Congress face today is: Will we continue the policies of middle class economics, which are designed to benefit working families and moderate income Americans, or are we going to regress to the policies of trickle-down economics, which have failed middle class Americans time and time again?

I am in my second term. When I first got to the Congress, I assumed that trickle-down economics was dead, doomed by the fact that it has failed over and over again. Apparently, it has been revived.

In its most recent incarnation, House Republicans would like to drop the top tax rate from 39.6 percent on the wealthiest Americans all the way down to 25 percent. Their argument is: ``Don't worry, everybody is going to benefit.'' But that hasn't worked in the past. In fact, I am convinced that middle class economics is far more preferable to trickle-down economics, which, as it relates to the middle class, simply means you may be lucky to get a trickle, but you are guaranteed to stay down. That is what the record says.

Bill Clinton inherited a recession. The top tax rate on high-income earners was 31 percent. He raised it to 39.6 percent, and the purveyors of trickle-down economics predicted economic doom and gloom. What happened when President Clinton focused on the middle class? More than 20 million jobs were created. He then handed over a budget surplus to President Bush and his coconspirators in the Congress, and like drunken sailors, they blew that budget surplus on failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and on a tax cut that disproportionately benefited the wealthy and the well off. Did trickle-down economics work when they dropped the top tax rate to 35 percent? No. During the Bush Presidency, 650,000-plus jobs were lost.

President Obama inherited this economic mess, and in partnership with Democrats in the House and in the Senate, he renewed his focus on the middle class. He even raised the top tax rate back up to 39.6 percent. Doom and gloom was predicted, but what happened? The economy is humming. The stock market is way up. Gas prices are way down. The unemployment rate has come down. Economic growth is exceeding all of the competitors across the world.

There is more to be done, but for us to be successful, we have got to abandon the focus on the wealthy and the well off and pursue middle class economics.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to represent one of the most diverse districts in the entire Congress. Approximately 33 percent of the people whom I represent were born outside of the United States of America. Folks from all over the world come to Brooklyn and to Queens to pursue the American Dream. This is part of what makes America great; yet there is an anti-immigrant cancer spreading in this town that is moving like a malignant tumor amongst some on the other side of the aisle.

As a result of this invidious infliction, there are some in the House GOP who are prepared to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, even though America continues to be a top target for terrorists all across the world.

This is shameful. This is reckless. This is irresponsible. The American people need to rise up to stop it from happening.

I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Queens, for anchoring this Special Order hour and for yielding a few moments for me to reflect on the passing of our great Governor, Mario Cuomo.

Mr. Speaker, like many other members of the New York delegation, I also served in the New York State Assembly. But unlike most, I didn't get the opportunity to serve alongside Governor Mario Cuomo. I arrived several years after he had completed his three terms in office.

So I speak today not from the perspective of someone who served in government alongside Mario Cuomo, but as a young man who grew up in Mario Cuomo's New York. What an opportunity to be able to come of age in the 1980s with a Governor, a leader, who articulated such an eloquent vision of equal protection under the law for everyone. What an opportunity to be able to come of age under a Governor who believed in opportunity for everyone, who recognized that New York State's greatest strength was our diversity from every community, every perspective, and every religious background.

It was great to be able to come of age and look up at a Governor who, notwithstanding the political potential pitfalls, stood on principle, was ahead of his time as it relates to his firm opposition to the death penalty at a time when that was not a popular position to take. He was a great leader, a charismatic intellectual, a wonderful family man, a tremendous lawyer, and a wonderful statesman and Governor.

I can only imagine that when Mario Cuomo arrived up in Heaven he was prepared to get to work. But I think that there was probably a greeting committee that was there at the gates of Heaven, one of whom was FDR, a former Governor of the State of New York, the other of whom was FDR's cousin, Teddy Roosevelt, two former great Governors of the State of New York. And I think they probably ushered Mario Cuomo to a place in front of the throne of glory where Almighty God Himself may have said to Governor Cuomo:

Listen, you can take your suit off and put this robe on.

Governor Cuomo, you can rest now. You have been faithful over

a few things. You can rest now. Well done, My good and

faithful servant, well done.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous that all Members be given 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, ``hands up, don't shoot'' is a rallying cry of people all across America who are fed up with police violence in community after community after community, fed up with police violence in Ferguson, in Brooklyn, in Cleveland, in Oakland, in cities and counties and rural communities all across America.

So tonight the CBC will stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and, for the next 60 minutes, speak on the topic, ``Black in America: What Does Ferguson Say About Where We Are and Where We Need to Go?''

People are fed up all across America because of the injustice involved in continuing to see young, unarmed, African American men killed as a result of a gunshot fired by a law enforcement officer.

People in America are fed up with a broken criminal justice system that continues to fail to deliver accountability when law enforcement officers engage in the excessive use of police force.

People are fed up with prosecutors who don't take seriously their obligation to deliver justice on behalf of the victims of police violence, and instead, as we recently saw down in Ferguson, Missouri, choose to act as the defense attorney for the law enforcement officer who pulled the trigger and killed Michael Brown.

People are fed up.

Now, this is a problem that Congress can't run away from, and the CBC stands here today to make sure that Congress runs toward the problem, that we come up with constructive solutions to breaking this cycle, this epidemic, this scourge of police violence all across America.

So I am pleased today that we have been joined by several of our distinguished colleagues, including the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, who, for the last 2 years, has led the charge on behalf of the CBC in dealing with issues of social and racial and economic justice. I am proud to serve under her. I am proud that she is on the floor today. We are thankful for her service.

Mr. Speaker, let me now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Cleveland, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for her eloquent remarks.

People have asked all over the country, in some quarters, perhaps in the Congress, and in the city, why are people upset?

Well, you had an unarmed individual, Michael Brown, who had no criminal record, just graduated from high school, on his way to college, killed in what appears to be the excessive use of police force, left to lie in the hot August sun for 4\1/2\ hours.

Immediate response by the police chief is to engage in character assassination of the deceased, while refusing to release the name of the officer who pulled the trigger.

The Ferguson Police Department responds as if this was a military campaign on foreign soil, not in an American city.

The prosecutor decides to get involved and does a document dump; doesn't engage in responsible prosecutorial behavior; fails to ask for a specific charge; allows the officer to testify, unabated; doesn't point out inconsistencies between his initial telling of the events of that fateful day and what he said before the grand jury; and then announces all of this late at night, and behaves as if he was the defense attorney for Darren Wilson.

Why are people upset?

Those are just a few of the reasons.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield to the distinguished delegate from the District of Columbia, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her observations.

Mr. Speaker, we are here as members of the Congressional Black Caucus to have an open, honest, and direct dialogue with America.

In a democracy, there has to be a balance between effective law enforcement on the one hand and a healthy respect for the Constitution and the civil rights of others, particularly of African Americans, on the other. If we are honest, we have not gotten that balance right, and as a result, we see young, unarmed, innocent African American men being gunned down in city after city in America, and we are here to say, ``Enough is enough.''

I am pleased now to yield to someone who has served this institution incredibly well as a Member of Congress, who has served the country well as a member of the military, the lion of Lenox Avenue, the distinguished gentleman from the great State of New York and the village of Harlem, Representative Charlie Rangel.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his always eloquent and poignant observations.

Let me now yield to one of my dynamic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Texas for lending her powerful voice to this issue.

We want a fair, impartial, and color-blind criminal justice system. But if we are honest with ourselves, that doesn't exist for all Americans today, and that undermines the integrity of our democracy. That is not just a Black problem or a White problem or a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. That is an American problem. That is why the Congressional Black Caucus stands on the House floor here today to jump-start--not just a discussion, but a march toward making meaningful progress as we move toward perfecting this great Union.

It is my honor and my privilege to now yield to my good friend and colleague from the great State of New York, someone who, himself, is a former prosecutor and who has been involved in the fight for social and racial justice during his tremendous tenure here in the United States Congress.

I now yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York City, the borough of Queens, Congressman Gregory Meeks.

I thank my friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York, for his very eloquent and thoughtful remarks, as always.

And now it is my honor and my privilege to yield to a great civil rights leader, a former judge, the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Texas, Representative Al Green.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

It is now my honor and privilege to yield to the gentlewoman from New York, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, my good friend. She is a distinguished Congresswoman who represents the neighboring district at home in Brooklyn. She is a fighter for justice and a voice for the voiceless.

Thank you, Congresswoman Clarke.

Mr. Speaker, Akai Gurley in Brooklyn did not deserve to die. Tamir Rice in Cleveland did not deserve to die. Michael Brown in Ferguson did not deserve to die. The Congressional Black Caucus is determined to make sure that these and many other deaths at the hands of law enforcement resulting from the use of excessive force will not be in vain.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor and my privilege to yield to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Indiana, Congressman Andre Carson, one of the mighty voices of the hip-hop generation here in the United States Congress who powerfully represents his Midwestern district.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for his eloquent remarks.

Mr. Speaker, let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, the great Elijah Cummings, for his remarks.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland.

I now yield to one of my colleagues in the freshman class, soon to be a dynamic sophomore, the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way. We still have a long way to go. We look forward to marching toward a more perfect Union.

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

I thank my good friend, a very important member of the Judiciary Committee, for graciously yielding a few moments for us to close this very important Special Order.

I yield to Congresswoman Joyce Beatty to finish her remarks as we prepare to conclude this CBC Special Order. Again, I thank Congressman Gohmert for graciously yielding a few moments of his time.

As we prepare to conclude, let me, again, thank Mr. Gohmert for this gracious act of bipartisanship, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Kelly. We are here today to begin a conversation about a fair, equitable, and colorblind criminal justice system. That should be something that all Americans embrace, and that is what we are going to work toward as we move toward the next Congress in 2015.

To close, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and I thank Congressman Gohmert for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to once again have this opportunity to stand on the House floor and to anchor the Congressional Black Caucus' Special Order hour, where today we want to discuss some of the issues and challenges confronting this country that we hope this newly constituted Congress will be prepared to take up.

As we move into the 114th Congress, there is still a lot of business that is undone over the remaining few weeks that we have left during this session, but a whole lot of challenges that we have got to confront as we move forward.

One hundred fifty years ago or so, President Abraham Lincoln publicly pondered the question: How do we create a more perfect Union?

President Lincoln asked that question at a time when the country was tearing itself apart in the context of the Civil War. Since the conclusion of that war--since President Lincoln publicly pondered that question--year after year, month after month, century after century, we certainly have made some progress, significant progress, here in America, but we still have a long way to go, and it is still relevant for us to ask the question: How do we create a more perfect Union?

Where do we go from here?

So I am pleased that so many of my distinguished colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus have come to the floor today to share their thoughts and their insights and their policy prescriptions in our continuing march toward a more perfect Union.

Let me first just yield to the dynamic chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, who has provided such great leadership to this caucus, to this Congress, and to this country during her career, the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Chairwoman Marcia Fudge.

I thank the distinguished chair for her observations and, certainly, for pointing out that, while we should be coming together to march toward perfecting our Union, there are some, inexplicably, who want to march toward impeachment before even seeing Presidential action, the same type of folks who, from the moment that Barack Obama was sworn in as President, believe he exceeded his authority just by raising his right hand and taking the oath of office. So let's just hope that we can hit the refresh button on the partisanship, on the obstruction, on the obfuscation and can come together to do the business of the American people.

Certainly, the gentleman who I would yield to next has been a great patriot. He has helped to bring our Constitution to life. For tens of millions of Americans, he is one of this country's greatest freedom fighters, a civil rights icon, and a distinguished Member of Congress. It is my honor and my privilege to now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Congressman John Lewis.

Thank you, Congressman Lewis, for those very eloquent thoughts and for continuing to really function as the conscience of the CBC as our caucus functions as the conscience of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my distinct honor and privilege to yield to someone who I served with on the Budget Committee. She is a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives. She is a fighter for the people, for the disenfranchised, and is a voice for the voiceless. It is my honor to yield to the very distinguished gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

Thank you, Congresswoman Lee, for your very eloquent observations and for laying out a clear pathway as it relates to many of the challenges that we have got to confront here in America and certainly amongst those challenges that you spoke to, the notion that we have got a broken criminal justice system that in far too many communities has placed a target on the back of young African American and Latino men in a way inconsistent with the democratic values of this country and the notion that we were all created equally, and so I look forward to partnering with you on many of these issues, as we all collectively move forward in this wonderful body.

We have also been joined here today by another civil rights champion, someone who has fought for the disenfranchised and to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity under the law, the distinguished gentleman from the Lone Star State of Texas, and I am pleased now to yield to Congressman Al Green.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for his very thoughtful and eloquent observations.

I think it is so important that you pointed out the President's place in the context of his legacy relating to his election because I believe that also ties into his legitimacy in moving forward with executive action on immigration.

This is the first Democratic President since FDR to be elected to consecutive terms having secured a majority of the vote from the American people, and so he has all of the legitimacy, all of the electoral mandate to act in a bold fashion.

We know that President George W. Bush came into the Presidency under questionable circumstances. He didn't receive a majority of the vote of the American people, and I am not sure what took place down in Florida, but certainly, there were significant questions as to the authenticity of the final result.

He came into office under questionable circumstances; yet there was no talk of impeachment, even as he proceeded to get us into not one but two wars and jam a reckless tax cut to benefit the wealthy and the well-off down the throats of the American people.

If you just take Iraq, for example, his administration lied their way into a conflict that has cost the American people thousands of lives, billions of dollars; international legitimacy has been jeopardized. No one from this side of the aisle talked about bringing forth Articles of Impeachment in any meaningful way against George W. Bush.

You have a democratically elected President, Barack Obama, overwhelming electoral college landslide. He has got a mandate to act, and there are some Members on the other side of the aisle who just can't help themselves, who are itching to try and delegitimize this President. Shame on you. Let's just hope that we can move forward in a more productive fashion as it relates to how we interact with the executive branch. The whole world is watching, and they expect us to behave responsibly as we move forward.

Now, in terms of how do we move forward, how do we create a more perfect Union, and how do we act potentially in a bipartisan fashion, I think there are at least four areas where there should be opportunity to find common ground. I think we should be able to find common ground as it relates to immigration reform and dealing with our broken immigration system. We should be able to find common ground as it relates to giving America a raise. We should be able to find common ground as it relates to criminal justice reform.

I have been encouraged as a member of the House Judiciary Committee bipartisan task force on over-criminalization by the willingness of Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and progressives, to try to work together to solve this issue of a broken criminal justice system that we have got in America.

There are areas where we should be able to find some common ground. Let me start by dealing with this question of the executive order on immigration, because there is a lot of hysteria in this town now about how some people in the Congress are going to react to the President if he decides to issue some form of executive order on immigration, as if this President would be doing something extraordinary.

The history, in fact, tells us that since President Eisenhower, every single occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has issued executive orders related to immigration. In fact, there have been 39 such orders from Eisenhower all the way through to President George W. Bush related to the topic

and subject matter of immigration. In fact, if you look at some of the executive orders that were issued by President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush related to undocumented immigrants from Central America and the need in their view to try to keep families together, they were some of the broadest executive orders issued by any President in the area of immigration.

Where was the impeachment talk back then? Why are we subjecting this President to such reckless conversations? I thought that we were trying to come together in the aftermath of these elections to see if we can have a productive 114th Congress, because certainly we know that the 113th Congress was or is on track, I should say, to go down as the least productive Congress in the history of the Republic. That is quite a designation. I mean, the least productive Congress?

If we go down memory lane and think about some of the highlights, this is a Congress that brought us a reckless, irresponsible government shutdown that cost the economy $24 billion in lost economic productivity all because of this clinical obsession with the Affordable Care Act. We flirted with a default on our debt for the first time in our Nation's history, threatening the full faith and credit of the United States of America. It is a Congress that brought us sequestration, $85 billion in randomly spread out cuts across the government in a way that put hundreds of thousands of jobs in jeopardy. We failed to renew unemployment insurance, leaving millions of Americans on the battlefield of the Great Recession. These are the highlights of the 113th Congress. I don't think that is a record to be proud of as we move forward.

So I think we could all benefit from a reduction in the rhetoric in an effort to try and find common ground. If you don't like what the President may do on the issue of immigration, you are going to control the House of Representatives and you are going to control the Senate. Just act. Do something. Stop talking. Fix our broken immigration system. You have the power to do so.

The Senate acted in a bipartisan fashion last year passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was not perfect but certainly was a good faith attempt to try and address the problem. There were 52 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 14 Republicans, if my recollection serves me correctly. They partnered together to pass a bipartisan piece of legislation.

So I am just hopeful that the House will come together and legitimately try to tackle an issue and just stop throwing out the word ``amnesty'' to apply to everything that you don't like. I mean, in this country's greatest tradition, we have never had dual citizenship, and we shouldn't have dual citizenship moving forward. We should just try to find a way to bring these 11 million undocumented people out of the shadows in a fashion that independent economists have said will be beneficial to the American taxpayer and result in dramatic reductions in our Nation's deficit. That is immigration reform. I am hopeful we can find some common ground in that area.

The second area where I think we should come together in our march toward a more perfect Union has to do with giving America a raise. Right now, the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. In other words, in the wealthiest country in the world, in our great Republic, under that Federal minimum wage, you can have somebody who works full-time, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and at the end of the day, with a family of three, find themselves below the Federal poverty line. That is the classic definition of ``working poor.'' Why would we cement that into law?

So I think that the responsible thing to do is for us to try to figure out how we can come together and raise the minimum wage. We couldn't get a vote in the House of Representatives on H.R. 1010--this Congress--that would have raised the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour over the next year or so. Let's hit the refresh button and try to get something done next Congress. And this is not just something that Democrats embrace. This is not simply something that blue States embrace. This is not something that progressives simply embrace. If we are going to take a message from the outcome of the election earlier in November, we can't pick and choose what message we want to take.

How about we draw some lessons from the fact that the voters of Alaska came to the polls and overwhelmingly supported an increase in the minimum wage in that State; the voters in Arkansas came to the polls and overwhelmingly supported an increase in the minimum wage in that State; the voters of Nebraska came to the polls and overwhelmingly supported an increase in the minimum wage in that State; and the voters of South Dakota came to the polls and overwhelmingly supported an increase in the minimum wage in that State. Those are four deeply conservative, deeply red States.

America wants a raise. If we are looking for issues where we can find common ground beyond immigration reform, perhaps we can start there. One of the reasons why I think we should start there is because, if you look at what the minimum wage really means in real terms right now, we are falling behind in terms of where we once were and also in terms of making sure that we are giving the people who are working for the minimum wage a fair shot to pursue the American Dream.

If you were to look at this chart that is before us, you will see that in 1968 only 17 percent of the people who fall or fell into the category of a low-wage worker had some college experience, but in 2012 that number has shot way up: 46 percent of the people falling into the category of a low-wage worker with some college experience. No wonder there is a lot of anxiety and uncertainty about the future of America amongst the people we represent all across the country when you have got folks with some college experience falling into the category of a low-wage worker.

In 1968, about 48 percent of the people, low-wage workers, had a high school diploma or GED. That number has shot up. In 2012, 79 percent of low-wage workers had completed high school or obtained their GED. Americans are more educated now than we were 45 or so plus years ago in terms of the workforce but earning less. That is a fundamental problem that we have got to confront in this country, and raising the minimum wage is one way in which to do it.

The other thing that we should take a look at related to the minimum wage is the fact that the people who are on it in large measure are actually trying to support themselves on a full-time basis or support their families. One of the most popular myths put forward by those who are determined to do everything possible to stop America from getting a raise like to say, well, people who work for the minimum wage are teenagers, or they work part-time after school and live with their parents. All they are really doing is trying to earn some extra spending money. It is a cute argument, but when you actually evaluate it using some objective factual analysis, you see that these are simply myths designed to undermine the effort to raise the minimum wage for people who are actually struggling to support their families.

Unlike the popular mythology that is put forward that these are teenagers or afterschool workers or people who are trying to get some spending change to go to the movies, the reality is the average age of people who are working for minimum wage numbers in America is 35 years old. Eighty-eight percent of the people working for minimum wage right now are not teenagers, they are 20 years or older. More than a quarter actually have children, and 55 percent of these individuals, as this chart illustrates, work full time. So let's have an evidence-based discussion about the need to increase the minimum wage that is rooted in objective, factual analysis and not hysteria or mythology designed simply to evade the discussion.

And the fact that the minimum wage increase has been embraced by deeply conservative voters in Arkansas and Alaska and Nebraska and South Dakota I think provides us with a starting point to move forward and attempt to find common ground in doing something that makes sense simply for America.

So I have mentioned immigration reform as a possible avenue of trying to identify common ground. I have mentioned the minimum wage. I think we

also have to try to deal with the issue of our broken criminal justice system. If you think about the fact that in America there are more than 2 million people incarcerated in our country, that is a tremendous waste of human capital. It is a tremendous waste of our economic resources and results in a dramatic loss of human productivity.

So I have actually been pleased over the last several years that people on the left and on the right, progressives and conservatives, are finding their way toward common ground to deal with a criminal justice system that clearly is broken, and starting perhaps with the notion that we have had a failed war on drugs that has resulted in putting people behind bars far too often, and disproportionately African Americans and Latino men, but putting nonviolent drug abusers behind bars--a dramatic waste of taxpayer dollars in a manner that has proven to be ineffective from a criminal justice standpoint.

As a member of the bipartisanship task force on overcriminalization chaired by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)--the Democratic leader of the effort was the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), one of the things that was striking as we moved forward with our exploration was the fact that in the Federal system more than 50 percent of the people who are currently incarcerated--more than 50 percent--are there for drug or substance abuse crimes. Only about 8 percent of the current occupants of Federal prisons across America were convicted of violent crimes. Something is wrong with that picture.

I am thankful, actually, that States, particularly in the deep South, conservative States with Republican Governors and Republican-held State legislative bodies, have recognized the failure of the excessive law and order policies brought to us in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the fact that it was costing their taxpayers dollars, wasting resources, and they have come together to reform the criminal justice system. It has happened in Texas. It has happened in South Carolina. It has happened in Alabama. It has happened in Kentucky. It has happened in Louisiana. It has happened in Georgia. Again, these aren't blue States. These are not traditionally Democratic States, these are traditionally conservative States recognizing the need for criminal justice reform.

So I am hopeful that as we move into the 114th Congress, we can find our way toward dealing with this issue. We have got Senators from the other side of the aisle who have expressed an interest in tackling this issue. And we have Democratic and Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee and beyond who have indicated a willingness to try to fix our broken criminal justice system: to eradicate mandatory minimums; to restore discretion to judges; to focus less on punishment as it relates to nonviolent drug abusers; and to provide treatment and rehabilitation so we can help people successfully reenter our society.

We have to finish the job as it relates to the disparity between crack and cocaine. It was 100 to 1. This Congress acted; it is now 18 to 1, but there is still no pharmaceutical reason for there to be any disparity between crack and cocaine. And we should make our reforms retroactive so we can free thousands of people unnecessarily behind bars right now for a law that this Congress has deemed to be unjust. So criminal justice reform, a third area where perhaps we can work together.

And lastly, as we prepare to wind down this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order, I also want to express my thanks to my good friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) who throughout the last 2 years courageously stood on the floor of the House of Representatives coanchoring the CBC Special Order, and we know that the best is yet to come for Congressman Horsford, but the last issue that we have to perhaps tackle in a bipartisan fashion is fixing the damage that was done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court.

We all should want to encourage Americans to vote and participate in our great democracy. It is that participation that preserves the integrity of the democratic Republic that has been created in this great country. Why anyone would want to suppress the vote is beyond me, with the exception of noting that some view it as a partisan means of maintaining power, a Pyrrhic victory perhaps, because at the end of the day, these efforts to disenfranchise people are bad for America.

This is a chart that illustrates the fact that in the aftermath of the 2010 election, some people interpreted that midterm election as a mandate to suppress the vote. And so in 41 States, 180 voter suppression-type bills were introduced all across America. In every State that is represented with a red color, laws were introduced to suppress the vote. That is how the 2010 elections seem to have been interpreted by some.

I am hopeful that coming out of the 2014 midterm elections that we will actually come together. There is a bill in the House of Representatives--it has Republican support and it has Democratic support--to help Americans who want to vote vote and undo the damage that was done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court.

Now, the Voting Rights Act has a great bipartisan history. It was enacted into law in 1965. We are going to celebrate its 50th anniversary next year. It was signed and championed by Lyndon Baines Johnson, with the support of civil rights leaders, Dr. King, and of course our own Congressman John Lewis. But every time the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized, it was reauthorized by a Republican President. It was reauthorized in 1970, signed into law by President Richard Nixon. And then it was reauthorized again in 1975, signed into law by President Gerald Ford. And then the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized again in 1982, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. And then it was reauthorized again in 2006 and signed into law by President George W. Bush. It has a great bipartisan history.

If we are looking for areas where we can find common ground, where there is an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans, for conservatives and progressives to work together, we have got a lot of options. We can fix our broken immigration system. We can deal with criminal justice reform. We can give America a raise, and we can fix the Voting Rights Act on the occasion of our celebrating the 50th anniversary of its passage.

And so I am hopeful that we can put the dysfunction and the obfuscation and the government shutdown and the impeachment talk and the sequestration and the serial flirtation with the debt ceiling and defaulting behind us and come together, find common ground, and march toward a more perfect union in the 114th Congress.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 27 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 18, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Oregon for yielding as well as for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, once again, as we stand on the brink of a 7-week recess, we are here in this Chamber considering a package of warmed-over bills that will be dead on arrival when it reaches the Senate. It is an empty legislative vessel that has no meaningful port of destination. We are on a joyride that is going to waste the time and treasure of the American people.

That is not to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the House majority hasn't been busy during the 113th Congress. This majority has been busy unleashing a parade of horribles on the American people.

The House majority, Mr. Speaker, began by bringing to the American people sequestration, tens of billions of dollars of painful cuts to important domestic programs that will adversely impact the American people.

This House majority, Mr. Speaker, has been busy bringing us a 16-day reckless government shutdown, costing the American people $24 billion in lost economic productivity.

Mr. Speaker, this House majority has been busy engaging in a serial flirtation with defaulting on our debt, threatening the full faith and credit of the United States of America, resulting in an increase in interest rates.

This House majority, Mr. Speaker, has been busy enacting a reckless Republican budget: $137 billion in cuts to nutritional assistance to the American people, many of whom have gone hungry; $260 billion in cuts to higher education; $732 billion in cuts to Medicaid--enacted by this House majority in a reckless Republican budget.

We failed to enact a minimum-wage increase despite the fact that you have got working families living in poverty while going to work each and every day.

We failed to enact comprehensive immigration reform, fixing a broken immigration system, giving life to the American Dream for those who are otherwise now living in the shadows.

We have failed to invest in transportation and infrastructure.

We failed to renew unemployment insurance, leaving millions of Americans on the battlefield of the Great Recession.

What are we doing here on the final day?

I would just ask the American people to ponder this question: What grade should you give the House majority during the 113th Congress?

I would suggest, humbly, there are only two options: D for ``disaster'' and F for ``failure.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 5108 is legislation designed to enhance the education of law students interested in practicing patent and trademark law while simultaneously helping small businesses, inventors, and entrepreneurs secure patents and trademarks.

I am pleased to partner with my distinguished Judiciary Committee colleague, Representative Chabot, and am thankful for his support and leadership as well as for the support of Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers on this meaningful, bipartisan legislation.

This bill will permanently establish the Law School Clinic Certification Program at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Currently this program exists only in pilot form; however, it has already helped budding intellectual property law students and attorneys and the innovation sector throughout the country.

The pilot program began in 2008 with only six law schools. Over time it grew to approximately 45 schools. To date more than 1,400 law students have participated in this program.

Since the pilot began, law students under the supervision of a skilled and experienced faculty adviser have submitted 220 patent applications and approximately 650 trademark applications for clients on a pro bono basis. Establishing this program in law will both ensure its continuation and permit law schools throughout the country that meet the PTO's qualifications to participate.

Intellectual property, of course, is a highly technical field. Ordinarily, students do not have the opportunity to submit patent and trademark applications until they become practicing attorneys. This program will provide real-world professional training, and expanding it will enable law students throughout the country to obtain invaluable practical experience that will not only enhance their legal education but will give students who participate in these clinics an opportunity to more meaningfully engage in the job market upon their graduation.

Beyond the advantage to law students, however, this program also provides significant benefits to inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses that qualify for pro bono assistance. Some of these inventors or small businesses may not be able to afford patent or trademark attorneys.

In the absence of this program, they may be forced to navigate the complicated legal terrain without technical and professional assistance. The small inventor or start-up company of today may very well become the next major American business of tomorrow in part due to the assistance of the student practitioners and their faculty advisers who participate in the PTO Law School Clinic Certification Program.

This legislation has the support of key stakeholders in the field including the Association of American Universities as well as the International Trademark Association.

In conclusion, let me again thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for his leadership on this bipartisan legislation. H.R. 5108 will help students, small businesses, inventors, startups, law schools, as well as the innovation economy.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, meaningful legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from the Silver State for anchoring the CBC Special Order on this incredibly important topic related to the ongoing problem, I would argue, epidemic, of police violence largely directed at communities of color.

The most recent situation, of course, occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, with the tragic killing of Michael Brown, and we all join our colleague, Lacy Clay, as well as the CBC chair, Marcia Fudge, in pushing for justice, which we believe is most likely to occur through a Federal investigation that is now ongoing.

But, unfortunately, the problem brought to light for so many across America, particularly the neighborhoods that I represent in Brooklyn, New York, by the killing of Michael Brown is all too familiar for many communities across this great Nation.

In fact, back in July of 1967, President Lyndon Baines Johnson appointed what came to be known as the Kerner Commission, an 11-member commission to study the causes of civil unrest in urban America that had been taking place since 1964 and into 1965 and throughout 1966 into 1967, prompting Lyndon Johnson--one of our greatest Presidents, though that is not often acknowledged, given the leadership he demonstrated on domestic issues--to appoint this Kerner Commission.

The vice chair of the commission was the then-New York City Mayor, John Lindsay, a former distinguished Member of this House.

The Commission concluded that some of the unrest that had taken place in cities like Detroit, Michigan, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in Los Angeles, in Watts, some of the things that had taken place, resulting in unrest, were caused by preexisting conditions of aggressive police activity in African American communities, followed by a triggering event, often a shooting of an unarmed African American, and then an overly aggressive police response.

This is what the Kerner Commission found when it issued its report in the late 1960s. But that same analysis could apply more than 45 years later in terms of what this country just witnessed in Ferguson, Missouri, a history, clearly, in that community of overly aggressive, excessive force, largely directed at the African American community, and then a triggering event, the killing of an unarmed African American, Michael Brown, who, of course, was shot twice in the head, and it appears a total of six times, and then, an overly aggressive police response, in fact, a military response.

The people at home in the district that I represent were shocked to see the images coming out of Ferguson, Missouri. It looked like Fallujah. It looked like a war zone in the Middle East or other parts of the world, not an American suburb.

What did we learn, if anything, from the Kerner Commission report?

Apparently, not much, and that is what we have got to confront in America.

There is a reality to police brutality and its impact, particularly on unarmed African American men, that, as a civilized society, we should no longer tolerate.

Now, let me pause, parenthetically, and agree with my good friend's point, Representative Horsford, that the overwhelming majority of police officers in America are good individuals, hard-working, decent men and women committed to enforcing the law in an evenhanded fashion.

But there are too many cases of excessive violence, often directed at unarmed African American men in America. We have got to address that epidemic.

Perhaps we could begin by just reviewing the Kerner Commission report issued under the Johnson administration. It is shameful that decade after decade after decade we have been unable to confront some of the realities brought to bear by that report. But perhaps the tragedy in Ferguson, Missouri, will wake us all up as a country.

Fannie Lou Hamer made the observation that she was sick and tired of being sick and tired. At what point will we in America be tired of seeing another unarmed African American man's life being taken away prematurely by an officer using excessive force?

That is why we are hopeful that we not just deal with the law enforcement problem, but that we confront some of the underlying socioeconomic conditions that create a climate for some of these things to occur.

I look forward to that discussion as we move forward under the leadership of our chair, and certainly working closely with the distinguished gentleman from Las Vegas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York for yielding.

``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.'' Those words appear on the Statue of Liberty that stands tall in New York Harbor.

Today, we are here in this Chamber doing violence to a model that has served this country well. We have a humanitarian crisis in this country: tens of thousands of unaccompanied children have fled violence in Central America and migrated to our southern border.

Our response has not been consistent with the notion that America is a country of individuals from all over the world, and a compassionate one.

Lady Liberty is crying right now because of the callous response of House Republicans. Some of the children who have come here may not have a valid legal basis to remain, but some will. If a child has a credible fear of persecution; if a child was abused, abandoned, or neglected by a parent; if a child was victimized by a highly violent criminal act and suffered emotional or physical damage, under current law they have a valid legal basis to remain. House Republicans are threatening to take that away, inconsistent with our values.

That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, once insightfully and eloquently observed that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

In the wake of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, there has been a disturbing outbreak of the cancer of anti-Semitism in many parts of the world.

In France, there have been firebombs directed at synagogues, a radio station, and a library, amongst other incidents that have taken place in a country which is home to the third-largest Jewish community in the world.

In Germany, there has been hate speech permeating rally after rally all throughout the country, including at one where the chant was: ``Hamas. Hamas. Jews to the gas.'' This is disturbing language in any location, but it is particularly disturbing given the context of what we know occurred in Germany.

In England, there has been an epidemic of violent crime directed at the Jewish community, an exponential increase rivaled in recent times only by a similar outbreak of hate crime that took place in 2009 during the last conflict in that region.

Now, in a civil society, reasonable people should be able to disagree without being disagreeable, but anti-Semitism is not a legitimate form of criticism. It is a cancer that needs to be stamped out in the same way that racism and sexism and homophobia--whenever and wherever it might be found--need to be crushed to the ground.

I urge this Congress to speak out to condemn and to do everything possible to eradicate this outbreak. As Dr. King observed, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from the Empire State for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this lawsuit is nothing more than a waste of time and a coverup with respect to the House Republicans' failure to effectively govern.

You have failed to create jobs. You have failed to increase the minimum wage. You have failed to deal with our broken immigration system.

You have failed to extend unemployment insurance for the millions of Americans who have been left on the battlefield of the Great Recession. You have failed to deal with our crippling transportation and infrastructure system.

Mr. Speaker, your majority has failed to do what is in the best interest of the American people, and so, to cover up the mess, you are taking us on a joyride through the article III court system. It is an effort that will crash and burn. Yet, nonetheless, you are willing to waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to make a down payment on impeachment.

Instead of engaging in responsible legislative action, the majority has chosen to act up and to act out in order to satisfy the thirst of the blame Barack Obama caucus.

Shame on you, Mr. Speaker. It is time to get back to the business of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and my privilege to coanchor today's CBC Special Order, along with my good friend and distinguished colleague from the Silver State, Representative Steven Horsford.

Every Monday when Congress is in session, we have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people for 60 minutes, the so-called CBC Hour of Power, where we get a chance to discuss an issue of relevance to this great country.

Today, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are here to talk about halting the GOP march toward impeachment. We are going to address the troubling fact that the GOP appears to want to move forward this week with a lawsuit challenging the President's authority.

Now, I think most legal scholars will come to the conclusion that the House GOP lawsuit is baseless, it is frivolous, it is without merit. But the American people should pay attention to what is going to take place this week because the lawsuit is part of a continuing effort to delegitimize the President of the United States of America.

Now, I recognize, unfortunately, that there are some folks in this Chamber who believe that the President exceeded his authority on January 20, 2009, when he took the oath of office. And they have continued to accuse him of Presidential lawlessness ever since.

So during this Special Order hour, we are going to discuss the alleged lawlessness that has taken place, and I think we will be able to dismiss these allegations as nothing more than political broadsides leveled against a President who was elected by the people of this great country and reelected by the people of this great country.

And then we are also going to deal with the fact that there are so many other things that we, as a Congress, could be doing other than wasting taxpayer money related to a lawsuit that is sure to be thrown out of court. It is going to be thrown out because there is no congressional standing to sue the President. The Supreme Court has said this over and over again. There must be a particularized injury in order for one to get standing in Federal court, and Members of Congress lack it. That is what the Supreme Court has concluded.

There is also the issue of the political question doctrine: disputes between the two branches of government, the executive branch and the congressional legislative branch, are not to be resolved by the article III courts. They are to be resolved by the normal governmental processes put in place by our Constitution.

We are joined today by the distinguished chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, who has been a tremendous leader of our CBC over the 113th Congress. It is now my honor to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge.

I thank the distinguished chairlady of the CBC. The people of America deserve a Congress that does the business of the people and that deals with real issues that impact working families, the middle class, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, and the afflicted.

Instead, we get an agenda from the majority in the House of Representatives that is all about delay, destruction, and delegitimization of the President of the United States of America. This is a frivolous lawsuit that lacks any basis in law or in fact, and we need to get beyond the political gamesmanship and get back to doing the business of the people.

I am pleased that we have been joined by the gentlewoman from the Badger State, Representative Gwen Moore, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee. I am honored to serve with her, a champion for working families, the poor, and the middle class.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, in an opinion in 1997, Raines v. Byrd, made the point that individual Members of Congress do not have standing to bring lawsuits in court if they cannot point to a particularized or personal injury, which the GOP in this case will not be able to do because the injury that is being claimed relates to policy disputes, such as the ACA and the employer mandate, such as DACA, and such as the welfare work requirements. These are broad policy disputes, not particularized injuries.

The Court went on to point out that, if one of the Members of Congress were to retire tomorrow, he would no longer have a general claim. The claim would be possessed by his successor instead.

The claimed injury--referring to policy disputes--attaches to the Member's seat, a seat which the Member holds as trustee for his constituents, not as a prerogative of personal power. In other words, there is no standing for Members of Congress to bring a lawsuit against the President in the context of a policy dispute.

I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin for her very eloquent and sharp observations with respect to the lack of merit to the GOP lawsuit that they are going to proceed with this week.

We now have also been joined by the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Representative Barbara Lee, another distinguished member of the Budget Committee, someone who is a voice for the voiceless, a champion for the poor, and a fighter for the district that she represents in Congress.

I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California. In the 113th Congress, we have had sequestration, $85 billion in randomly spread-out cuts across our budget impacting the American economy. We have had a government shutdown that was unnecessary, unreasonable, and reckless; it cost us $24 billion in lost economic productivity.

We have had a flirtation with the debt ceiling threatening the full faith and credit of the United States of

America. Now, we have got a frivolous lawsuit against the President of the United States, and it leads me to ask the question: Is there such a thing as a four-ring circus?

Let me now yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Representative Robin Kelly, my good friend and colleague from the freshman class, and a distinguished champion for her district.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Let me now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). Although he does not have on one of his signature ties, he is the informal chair of the ``bowtie caucus'' and someone who has been a champion for the district he represents in New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for those very poignant observations.

I think, as you have pointed out, we are in a divided government context, and we understand there are going to be policy disagreements, but the objective should be to work toward finding common ground to improve the lives of those we were sent here to Washington to represent. Instead, we are in the midst of a campaign to continue to try to delegitimize the President.

It is over. The battle has been lost. The President was elected in 2008. He was reelected in 2012. It is time to put aside the political gamesmanship and figure out where we might be able to find common ground to advance an agenda that makes sense for the American people.

We said earlier that this lawsuit was a frivolous one, and I quoted Chief Justice Rehnquist, a leading conservative former Supreme Court Justice, as it relates to his position with respect to congressional standing. I now want to quote another Justice of the Supreme Court who said in an opinion he wrote just last year, United States v. Windsor:

Our Constitution rejects a system in which Congress and the

Executive can pop immediately into court whenever the

President implements a law in a manner that is not to

Congress' liking.

That was an opinion, and that wasn't written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That wasn't an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, although I have great respect for those two Justices from the great State of New York. Those words were written by Anton Scalia, one of the most conservative Justices in the history of the Supreme Court. You can't just pop into court because you have a policy disagreement with the President.

And so I think we have dealt with the issue of the frivolous nature of this lawsuit, the fact that we are wasting the time and the treasure of the American people on a political joyride that will ultimately crash and burn in an article III court. In the meantime, we are neglecting our constitutional responsibilities here in the House of Representatives to actually deal with issues that impact the American people. And to touch upon what some of those issues could be, let me now yield to the coanchor of this CBC Special Order, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

I thank the distinguished gentleman for his observations and for pointing out the many issues that we in the House of Representatives could be addressing this week to deal with quality of life concerns of the American people, but instead we have been forced to come to the floor of the House of Representatives this evening to talk about this frivolous lawsuit that, if the majority gets its way, will be authorized later on this week.

I also want to point out that there is this troubling undercurrent that has also taken shape in the House of Representatives and amongst the conservative entertainment complex related to the allegedly unlawful actions of the President in what many of us view as a ``march toward impeachment.''

Now, some are going to say: Well, this is a Democratic conspiracy to rile up certain parts of the country, that is why we are raising the impeachment question. No, let's just go to the Record.

The distinguished gentleman from the 17th Congressional District in Texas at a town hall meeting in September of 2013:

I look at the President, I think he's violated the

Constitution, I think he's violated the law. I think he's

abused his power, but at the end of the day you have to say

if the House decides to impeach him, if the House had an

impeachment vote, it would probably impeach the President.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of the gentleman from the 17th Congressional District of this House.

The distinguished gentleman from the Third Congressional District in Utah:

This is an administration embroiled in a scandal that they

created.

I am not clear what the scandal is that is being referenced.

It's a coverup. I'm not saying impeachment is the end game,

but it's a possibility, especially if they keep doing little

to help us learn more.

I can go on and on, but you have got the distinguished gentleman from Iowa:

``From my standpoint, if the President''--referencing executive actions--``we need to bring impeachment hearings immediately before the House of Representatives.''

These aren't our words. These are the words of people elected to the 113th Congress.

So that is why we are here to have a conversation with the American people. Do you think this is the issue that we should be debating and discussing as we are still trying to revive large segments of our economy, still struggling to recover from the aftermath of the Great Recession?

Now, this last statement from a member of the impeachment caucus here in the House of Representatives, the Congressman from Iowa, he referenced ``executive actions.''

Let's have a discussion about executive actions. This chart illustrates that President Obama actually has been a President in modern history who has been conservative in his approach with respect to executive actions. Upon entering his sixth year in office, President Obama issued 167 executive orders. As the chart illustrates, at this very same point, George W. Bush had issued 198 executive orders.

Where was the outrage when George Bush was engaging in his orgy of executive orders? Where was the outrage? Where was the outrage when President Ronald Reagan issued 381 executive orders, a pace that there is no way President Obama can match? It is just not clear to me where this is all coming from.

Let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada and/or the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for any parting observations.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for those observations.

Under the House majority, the agenda has constituted the following: delay, destroy, defund, and delegitimize.

We just want to tackle issues relevant to the American people. Let's tackle the fact that America needs a raise. Let's tackle equal pay for equal

work. Let's tackle infrastructure funding. Let's tackle our broken immigration system. Let's tackle the fact that we have got a gun violence problem in America.

Let's address the fact that the Supreme Court invalidated portions of section 5 of the historic Voting Rights Act. Let's stop the political gamesmanship.

In the remaining time that we have, let me yield to a championed distinguished member of the Homeland Security Committee, as well as the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

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

I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the Badger State, for yielding to me, as well as for the tremendous leadership that you continue to exhibit week after week in leading the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Special Order hour, championing issues important to working families and the poor and the sick and the afflicted, those who need our government to be more compassionate, giving them the assistance they need in order to pursue the American Dream.

I appreciate that advocacy, and I appreciate this opportunity to speak briefly on the plan presented by Chairman Paul Ryan, Expanding Opportunity in America.

I would like to believe that that is the objective, and I certainly am of the view that the chairman is acting in good faith, as it relates to his willingness to try to tackle the issue of poverty in America, but if you put it all in the context of the Ryan budget that has come to the floor of the House of Representatives year after year after year since the Republicans claimed the majority, which passed with overwhelming support from their caucus, the question is: Is their real interest in expanding opportunity in America, or is the fundamental objective really to expand inequality in America?

What Paul Ryan are we talking to in attempting to have this conversation? Is it the Chairman Ryan whose budget cut $125 billion in supplemental nutrition assistance in a country where 50 million people are food insecure, 18 million of those individuals children? We can't have a real conversation about opportunity if that is still the position of Chairman Ryan, his Budget Committee, and the majority.

Are we having a conversation with a chairman whose budget cut $260 billion in higher education funding, threatening to rob young Americans from their pursuit of their dream of obtaining a college education and being all that they can be in America? We can't have a real conversation about opportunity with individuals who want to cut $260 billion in higher education spending.

I want to believe that we can proceed in good faith and try and tackle this issue. But are we entering into a discussion with the same group of individuals, the chairman whose budget cut $732 billion in Medicaid, a program designed to benefit, in significant numbers, poor, elderly, and disabled individuals? That is not expanding opportunity in America. That is expanding inequality in America.

Certainly, there are some proposals contained in the document that was unveiled today that we can embrace and have a meaningful discussion about in trying to arrive at common ground--sentencing reform as well as the notion of expanding the earned income tax credit. But there is no minimum wage enhancement. There is no infrastructure investment. There is no unemployment compensation insurance renewal. There is no equal pay for equal work, and there is no real effort to deal with the issues that we are prepared to work on to solve the problem of poverty for millions of Americans. For that reason, I am skeptical that this is a step in the right direction.