Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few observations. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a good program. It is the number one food assistance program our country has. And it has gotten families through tough times, for sure. The truth is, most people who use SNAP aren't on it very long. They find themselves in a rough patch. They use SNAP. They get off.

Programs that impose artificial timelines and kick people off or deny them or have work requirements, ignore the fact that people do not get on SNAP to stay on SNAP unless they are too young, too old, or too sick to work.

Generally, people are trying to get jobs. The irony of this is that from a Republican standpoint, it seems like they are happy to give really, really rich people money without any expectations. And, yet, if a low-income person needs some help, money from the government, now all of a sudden we have got to put all kind of restrictions and all kind of waits on it.

Why does help and assistance from the government not ruin rich peoples' worth ethic, but it seems in the Republican mind to ruin the work ethic of working people and low-income people? It is totally ironic. It must be premised on the myth that somehow species of humanity are different from one another, and they are just not. People are the same.

I want to just point out as well, that if you really want to do something meaningful, why don't we pass legislation that would stop fast-food companies from conspiring with each other to restrict wages? There are two bills that got introduced. One is an antipoaching law that means that the employers can't come together and agree that they are not going to hire each other's workers if they leave looking for better pay, and the other one is a provision that would ban this process of noncompete clauses for people who work in fast-food.

These two bills together conspired to restrict the pay of working people. They keep wages down. What if we did real antitrust legislation and stopped huge companies from dominating the entire market, creating a single buyer, a monopsony, which then has the power to hold people down?

I just got through talking to some employees at Toys-R-Us. Their company was bought by some private equity firms. A lot of debt was piled on to them. The bonuses were given out to the top management. They took off on their golden parachutes. The company goes through bankruptcy, and now it is closing 800 stores and laying off 30,000 people.

The bottom line is: SNAP helps people in tough economic times. If they are able-bodied, I am sure they want to work. They don't need these punitive kicks to go to work. They just need an opportunity to get back up on their feet. These programs are insulting, demeaning, unnecessary, and they shouldn't exist.

If we really want to give working people an opportunity, let's increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Let's support the Employee Free Choice Act which can give them a voice on the job so they can negotiate with their employers for better wages.

It seems like Republicans don't want to do anything to meaningfully change the lives of working people, but, work requirements, drug tests, all this sort service moralistic stuff, it doesn't work. It is a waste of money and there are way better ways to do what you say you are trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress today is going to be voting on whether or not to make it easier for dealers making car loans to offer better prices to borrowers based on the color of their skin. The majority wants you to vote, yeah, they can. We say they shouldn't. We say all Americans should be treated equally, and we think that the CFPB should be allowed to make sure that that is true.

You know, it is clear, minority buyers pay more. This has been found in any number of statistical ways. In a recent settlement with a large auto dealer, the Department of Justice and the CFPB found that 235,000 minority borrowers were paying higher rates. African-American, Asian, and Latino borrowers were paying between $200 and $300 more per loan compared to White borrowers.

Now, some of us believe in liberty and justice for all. Some of us believe in equal protection under the law. I believe that it is absolutely the wrong policy for us to second-guess the CFPB today, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

This is a fact that this disparate treatment in borrowing and rates and prices is even true when minority borrowers had the same or better credit than White borrowers. So the CFPB cracked down, and they issued guidance, which is what we would expect them to do. In fact, in total, they made sure that over--almost $12 billion has gone back to consumers, a fact which I think, for my Republican friends, really upsets them.

But guidance was set to ensure that lenders were complying with the law, which makes discrimination in auto lending illegal. They also brought cases and recovered millions for borrowers: Ally Financial paid back $80 million in recovery for victims of discrimination; American Honda Finance Corporation, $24 million; Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, $21.9 million; Fifth Third Bank, $18 million.

Now, are we to believe that these institutions, run by some of the most sophisticated businesspeople and lawyers in America, are just handing out checks for nothing? They are paying settlements because why not? They have probably got more lawyers in one of these places than they do in the CFPB.

Now, the bottom line is these folks paid out because they needed to settle. They had exposure. This move today by the majority in the Financial Services Committee is to say: Go ahead. Don't worry about discrimination. We have got your back.

We are not going to stand here and let Americans get treated like second-class citizens, though.

The new system is working well, so, naturally, some folks want to change it. So, Republicans, I ask you guys to vote ``no'' on this thing. I want you to

join us in telling Americans that everybody should be treated equally.

Mr. Speaker, today we are going to talk about Medicare for All, the importance of making sure that every American, regardless of income, can get the healthcare that they need. That will be our topic over the course of the next hour.

So I would like to invite to the podium to kick off our discussion the gentleman from California, Mr. Ro Khanna, a distinguished gentleman from the great State of California who has been a leader on economic justice, and justice in general.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman again for his comments. We can talk about statistics. We can talk about the way the program is going to work. We can talk about all these things. But there is nothing that can replace the precious life of the young woman whom you talked about. She had people who loved her. She had people who knew her. She had everything to look forward to.

She just needed her society, her community, to step forward for her and to help her. And because we don't have the kind of healthcare system we could have, we weren't there for her. But in her memory, we have to be able to make it right for the young people and the people who are still with us. In her memory, we will fight for Medicare for All.

I thank the gentleman. Would the gentleman like to make any final comments?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite to share a few remarks the gentleman from the great State of Vermont. As you can see from the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous geographic diversity: California, Vermont. But we have one thing in common: we need a healthcare system that works for everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Vermont for his comments. And if I can ask him a quick question.

If we are already paying the most in the world per capita, why aren't we getting the best healthcare outcomes?

That is a big reason. I want to thank the gentleman for his work. Let's keep working on this.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Medicare for All tonight, H.R. 676. Mr. John Conyers carried the bill all these years, and I'd like to thank him.

But we are carrying the fight forward. It is important to note from the onset that I recognize, the Progressive Caucus recognizes, the Affordable Care Act made important steps, critical steps, for getting more people covered, and we must continue to fight for it.

We have to protect the Affordable Care Act. We have to do what we can to defend it. There are people in our Congress who want to just get rid of it. But the truth is, it actually helped many people. It helped bring coverage to people who hadn't had it. It helped bring real answers for families that needed it.

But we can look further down the line. We can think about a system in which everybody pays and everybody benefits. We could look forward to a system like that. We can look to a Medicare for All-styled system where we can say healthcare is a right for everybody.

This is not something that should surprise anyone. Education is guaranteed for everyone. Every schoolkid in America can go to a public school in the United States.

Fire services--you don't have to pay a separate contract to get the fire department to put out your fire. If you live in the city and there is a fire, you can call them, and they will help you. They are paid out of the taxes that we all pay. The police department, public works--we have systems in our society now that we pay for through our taxes and other sorts of things that we do to afford these services. Healthcare, I believe, is a service that we should look at in a similar light.

A Medicare for All system would decrease overall cost of healthcare for a multitude of reasons, but most importantly, because it would allow the government to negotiate decreases in the cost of care with service providers.

I think that my good friend, Peter Welch, had an excellent example when it came to prescription drugs. There is a company called CorePharma that hiked the price of a DARAPRIM pill from $1 to $13.50 and watched revenues climb.

In 2015, CorePharma sold the rights to DARAPRIM to Turing, which raised the price to $750. So in a system like that, of course, whatever somebody can make more money doing, they are going to do. And yet, we don't have any real controls to make sure that they don't do it. It is the kind of thing that we have to step forward and address.

In 2012, for example, the average cost of coronary bypass surgery was more that $73,000 in the United States, but it was less than $23,000 in France. France has good healthcare. The world doesn't deny that-- $73,000 for a coronary bypass surgery in the United States; $23,000 in France.

A Medicare for All single-payer system would lower administrative costs and nearly eliminate spending for competitive advertising, which doesn't really bring health to anyone. The U.S. spends about 18 percent of its GDP on healthcare, while Canada spends about 11\1/2\ percent on healthcare.

The United Kingdom, Britain, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the U.K. spends about 9 percent of its GDP on healthcare. Germany and France spend about 11 percent. We spend substantially more, and yet, we do not have the best outcomes in the world. We have to look at this system and whether it is working for the American people.

I just make this point because we really could join the rest of the world and have more affordable, more effective healthcare. It is not only countries like Germany, France, and Canada that spend less and get better outcomes than the United States. It is also New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, all have systems that are similar in style, and they cover more people and the people benefit from that.

Our systems like Medicaid and Medicare are some of the most popular systems out there. People tend to like it. Now, I am not saying they are trouble-free, but anybody who thinks there is some program made by human beings that is going to be absolutely perfect all the time, of course, they are going to be wrong.

But I guarantee you, I spent plenty of time in Montreal, Canada, Calgary, and I tell you, for all the Americans down south of the border who complain about Canadian healthcare, Canadians kind of like their healthcare. They don't want to switch with us; neither do the people in England. We need A Better Deal, and we can have one if we were to move forward.

Taiwan has a healthcare system that also is similar to Canada, New Zealand, Norway, and Denmark. We can do better than we are doing right now, and we should.

As I mentioned before, Medicaid and Medicare are popular. These are programs where people get the benefit of a healthcare system that is a system that we benefit from as a government of, by, and for the people, and millions of our constituents, from birth until death, benefit, and they support people with disabilities, having children, pregnant women, and seniors. They are wildly popular, and they actually have pretty low administrative costs and essential to the stability of our country.

It also makes sense that Americans must also support Medicare for All single-payer. Both a Harvard-Harris poll from 2007 and a 2018 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that the majority of Americans support a single-payer healthcare system funded by the government. Yet some folks in this body want to actually cut Medicaid. They want to cut--they want to drain funds from the Medicare trust fund.

The fact is Americans all over this country, they think that many of our programs, whether it be the VA or Medicare or Medicaid, actually help a lot of people. These programs are popular, and yet, we continue to have to fight to protect them every day.

What if we just move forward instead so that more people can benefit from a program like a Medicare-style program? An expanded Medicare for All will create millions of good jobs. It is a program that would bring more people in; therefore, we need more healthcare professionals to cover folks, more nurses, more doctors, more nurse anesthetists, more folks to keep folks healthy, even more exercise professionals, because we know that in a good, solid, single-payer system, we would put an emphasis on preventative care and try to make sure people stay well, stay healthy.

Let me just say that cost savings for individuals is an important factor here. Medicare fraud isn't just a fringe idea that will help very few people. Medicare for All is good for business and

good for people. A single-payer system would lift the significant financial burden from businesses that currently fund the healthcare insurance for their employees and would largely eliminate the financial burden of illness, a leading cause of bankruptcy, and debt sent into collection.

Even with the Affordable Care Act, which substantially helped 28 million people, or about 9 percent of the Nation, still remain uninsured. I am grateful for the Affordable Care Act. It made substantial advances, but we still can do better.

A single-payer system is not just about ensuring that no person is uninsured. It is also about making sure that nobody is underinsured. Many people are underinsured. They face costs associated with their insurance that they just can't afford to handle, and that is also a substantial problem.

Underinsured individuals are less likely to obtain healthcare when they need it. They skip doctor visits, they avoid filling prescriptions, and they are more likely to end up in medical debt. We can have a system that can help us avoid these problems. Medical debt is one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy in the United States.

If we were to set up a system that was focused more on health and wellness where we all could pay and then we can all benefit, it would make our society stronger, better financially and physically.

Now, Medicare for All would actually help reduce income inequality. One of the problems of the society we live in now is that we have really historic record inequality. The rich and the top 1 percent are far more wealthy relative to the rest of their countrymen and women than has been the case since the Great Depression, since the Guilded Age. You probably have to go back to the time when the Great Gatsby was written to actually see the level of inequality that we see today and marks the society that we live in.

In a time when we are facing these record levels of inequality, a single-payer system can also help level the playing field and help working people make a better go at this economy. Medicare for All would make sure that everyone would have the same access and level of care, regardless of their income, their job, or the community that they live in. A Medicare for All system would mean that people would be able to cover their medications, cover their bills. It would mean that they would be able to get what they need.

And if you compare this, what if we had a system--what if we did healthcare the way we do education, that you have to have a private--it is a private system and you couldn't go unless you could pay? The bottom line is that what we would end up with is a system that would be very unequal, educationally speaking. It would undermine our productivity. It would weaken our society.

If we were to have a Medicare for All system that would help make sure that everybody had a basic health benefit, and it didn't matter whether you had a job at the moment or not, didn't matter whether you-- where you lived, then it would provide a platform for economic prosperity in the marketplace where people would work.

This would also make our society more equal when it comes to opportunity for people of color and racial minorities. Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to be uninsured than others. The studies show a direct link between being uninsured and a higher mortality rate.

By the way, when people have died with a higher mortality rate, they don't just die. Often, they end up in the ER, which is one of the most expensive places to treat somebody. But what if they actually had the treatment that they needed, they had a regular doctor, they had the treatments they needed, they had ways to keep themselves healthy? African Americans and indigenous people tend to have lower life expectancies than White Americans, experiencing higher rates in most major causes of death: infant mortality, trauma, heart disease, and diabetes. Much of this is just related to the fact that healthcare access is not evenly distributed, and, therefore, the disproportionate impact is on people with the lower income.

Rates of unemployment are higher among African-American men and women than their non-Hispanic White counterparts, and job loss is more prevalent among minority groups. Getting employer-based coverage is not easy if you work a few part-time jobs you have to piece together rather than a solid full-time job.

So what do people do when that happens? You go without healthcare or you have gaps in your healthcare coverage, especially if you live in a State where things like expanding Medicaid are not preferred. If you are a Governor and your State legislature doesn't want to expand Medicaid, then the chances that you are going to experience these gaps in coverage and be uninsured are higher, and consequently, people's health outcomes are worse.

The U.S. healthcare system is ranked, when we look at it, among the worst among countries with advanced economies, despite the fact that we are among the ones that spend the most on healthcare. If we want to have more equality based on people's different racial backgrounds, if we want more opportunity for all, regardless of their race but based on income, and we want to make sure that this is a country where a middle class person, a working class person can do better, then the fact stands true that we have got to move to a Medicare for All style system.

Now, Medicare for All style system and drug pricing--very important topic to take up. We are one of the only countries in the world that doesn't in some way regulate the cost of prescription drugs. We talked a little bit about this before, using the examples of DARAPRIM, but it just seems to me that if we were to move to a system, a Medicare for All style system, an expanded better system, we could find ourselves in a situation where Americans could actually start affording their drugs. While prescription drugs are not covered by Canada's system, there are price controls for medications, so prescription drugs are often cheaper than they are in the U.S.

We have a drug pricing crisis in this country. American people know it. They live it every day. The worried parent struggling to pay their kid's insulin, a senior living on a fixed income who takes arthritis medication, and millions of working people who have to take medication at some point or another in their life, they know that we have a system that is uncontrolled and out of control.

In a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, over 50 percent of the people said that addressing this medication crisis would be one--should be one of the President's and Congress' top priorities. This should come as no surprise to us.

A majority of Americans are using prescription medication. For too many folks, people have to choose between paying their bills and getting the medicine that their family needs.

In fact, 92 percent of Americans support the Federal Government negotiating lower drug prices for folks on Medicare part D. Medicare part D is a very unfortunate program where it is written into the law that we cannot negotiate drug prices. This is an outrageous thing, and for people dedicated to free-market principles, the fact that you couldn't negotiate a price seems extremely ironic to me. It seems more like crony capitalism than free market.

Eighty-six percent of Americans support requiring drug companies to release information on how they make their drug prices. I think, while that is certainly something that we should know, it is not particularly difficult to figure out. They price based on as much as they can get. And 78 percent of surveyed Americans support lifting what drug corporations can charge for drugs for illnesses like cancer.

We must continue to fight to protect the ACA and fight for Medicare for All as a solution. We should, and we could, begin to tackle so many of our Nation's problems if we had a shot at good health and stable healthcare.

There is proof from our fellow wealthy nations that you can have a free market economy and you can have a national health insurance program that works. They are doing it in Canada; they are doing it in the UK; they are doing it in New Zealand; they are doing it in Taiwan; they are doing it in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden; and they are doing it all over the world. There is no reason why we can't do it

here, other than some people want to benefit while other people actually suffer.

There is an important debate going on in our country. There is an important conversation that we are having in communities all over. I hope that all across the United States, in church basements, synagogue basements, mosques, Quaker meeting rooms, VFW halls and union halls, in lodges and coffee shops all across America, wherever people gather, folks will get together and discuss our healthcare future as Americans.

There is a better way, and I think that it is right in front of us.

I was speaking about this issue with somebody who told me: Well, Keith, I mean, look, how are we going to pay for this?

I thought that was an interesting question, given that we just passed a Republican tax bill that carved about $1.5 trillion out of Federal revenue over the next 10 years. Some people have estimated it is even higher than that. Nobody was particularly worried about how we are going to pay for that. But the question is still a legitimate question. We do have to pay for things.

I think that, if we look at the fact that about two-thirds of all the healthcare spending now is public spending, we are two-thirds of the way there now. We need to figure out how we are going to come up with the rest. People will see the healthcare expenditures that they are already making be able to be part of how we will pay this. But the other part is a legitimate question.

I think that we can set out a system of a payroll tax or, perhaps, a tax on Wall Street trades. There are a number of things that we can do. And we also can squeeze costs out of the system.

We know that simply because you have got multiple insurance companies, multiple payers, that there is rampant waste in the system; and if we were to squeeze it out and we get efficiencies, we would be able to lower costs in the system. If we could control costs better, we would be able to have a world-class system, as other countries have, with excellent health outcomes and be able to still pay for it. It is not beyond our reach.

I can tell you that it has often been said that single-payer systems have long waiting lines. Well, not according to the data. One grant from the Commonwealth Fund looks at what percent of adults can get a same-day doctor's appointment when they are sick, counting systems like Canada, the United Kingdom, and the rest. And the fact is that in New Zealand, Germany, Australia, and the United Kingdom, people can get same-day doctor visits at a higher rate than in the United States. It is not the case that you have to have these long lines and you have to wait so long in every system.

Of course, the U.S. system will be an American system. We will design it for our own purposes. But it simply is not true that a single-payer system will have longer waiting lines. It is just not the case. People will say this, but it is not true.

The fact is that we need to have the debate. We need to have the discussion. We need businesses to say: Well, what would it mean to me if I didn't have to pay health insurance out of my business expenses?

Individuals have to ask: What would it mean if they never had to pay for copays, deductibles, things like that, if they could get eyes, ears, other types of coverages that they need, what would it mean if these things were possible? How would it impact our economy? Would it free people and allow them to be more creative and more innovative?

We have seen our country see a decline in small business development first in startups. Is this in part because people are locked into debt in jobs just so they can have insurance? I think there is certainly a possibility there.

At the end of the day, we have got to have a dialogue about how we can better serve the American people. Other countries around the world are doing it, and it is time for us to move forward in that direction, too.

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

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I appreciate all of the work Congressman DeSaulnier does in this area. And I want to thank him for raising this particular issue for this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, I agree with him that inequality is the issue of the moment. Not only does inequality funnel money from working Americans up to the richest people, but what do they do with the money once it is up there? There is only a certain number of boats you can ski behind, only a certain number of houses you can buy, and only a certain number of luxury cars you can buy.

What do the billions go to? Much of it goes to things like merger and acquisition, and also political influence. It is very important to understand that as economic inequality has grown, political inequality has also grown. Nowadays, the money goes into some super-PAC: some big, giant thing where they do independent expenditures and pour money in against their enemies and pour money in in favor of their friends.

Politics in America has become the battle of the billionaires now. You have to get a billionaire on your side in order to win. I mean, we know that whether it is the Coates', or the Mercers, or the Adelsons, or whoever it is, it is some big, rich person who is going to sponsor a political candidate, and that is who gets to represent us in what is supposed to be a democratic society. So I think that it is critical to make the link between economic inequality and political inequality.

I will say again, when we get economic inequality to the degree that it is, one of the other things that is purchased, besides political influence, is mergers and acquisitions.

I would just like to point out to everybody that it doesn't matter what industry you are talking about, markets are deeply concentrated and anticompetitive. If you are talking about like a pharmacy--not a pharmaceutical company, but a pharmacy--CVS, Walgreens, we used to have Rite Aid and, of course, they merged together. And, of course, there is another merger coming up. Every day you open the paper, there is some other big company buying up some other big company, concentrating markets, making the barriers to entry even higher so that the small- business person is just locked out.

It costs a lot to get into business now. If your opponent, who is some big, huge company, doesn't want you in the market, they can just drop their prices, suffer the losses, because they are big, run you out of business, and raise them right back on up.

But if you look at any market--beer, hamburger, chicken, online search engines, anything you want--almost all of them are deeply concentrated--two, three, maybe four--companies representing 80 or 90 percent of the industry, which cuts off opportunity, limits competition, and it is bad for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I have a few more things to share, but I will kick it back to Congressman DeSaulnier for now. Maybe he can kick it back to me a little later, and we will just have a conversation for a little while.

Madam Speaker, I definitely want to thank the gentleman for the important information he has shared with us tonight. Folks who are tuned in definitely, I believe, are interested in this topic. In fact, it is the thing that most people think about.

As I am here tonight, I would say, Madam Speaker, that we just celebrated, or shall I say we just memorialized the loss of Martin Luther King, which it was his 50th anniversary of his passing, of his assassination back on April 4. And just recently, this is the year that we passed the fair housing law in 1968, so it has been 50 years.

A lot of people, when they think of King, they think, oh, he helped African Americans defeat Jim Crow segregation, and that is true. That is one way to look at it.

But when he died, he was marching with sanitation workers who were paid so little they could not make ends meet. They weren't allowed to go into adequate shelter when it was raining, so two of them, one day, happened to go into the back of the garbage truck. The garbage truck had a malfunction, and those two men were crushed in the garbage truck, and so that initiated a strike which Martin Luther King came and joined two times, it being the last fight he was ever in.

Why do I bring up this point? Because we think of America as being more evolved since that time. We think, oh, we have got voting rights; we have gotten rid of discrimination. It is illegal now.

But I will tell you what. Despite the fact that we still are battling for racial equality, we have absolutely slipped backwards in the fight for economic empowerment for working people, no matter what their color.

In 1968, the Federal minimum wage, if it had been adjusted for inflation, would be about $11.62. But as the gentleman just mentioned, it is now $7.25. And the server minimum wage, the tip minimum wage is $2.13. People don't believe me when I say that, but it is $2.13.

How can it be legal to pay a server $2.13? They say, oh, they make it up in tips. Do they? What if their tips aren't given to them? What if there is wage theft, which happens all the time?

I want to thank the gentleman from California for mentioning that in 1968, the average CEO got paid about 20 times more than the average worker. Today, it is above 300 percent, 300 times. So the inequality has dramatically not just enriched the rich, it has made working and middle class and the working poor suffer.

There are--and this is a shocking statistic. There has been a 60 percent growth in people living under the Federal poverty guideline since 1968. That is wrong, and this tax bill that we just passed will do nothing other than make it all that much worse.

It is a cruel irony that, in the face of this spread, this gap that working people are experiencing relative to their richer fellow Americans, that we would say, oh, you know what we need to do? Give the rich people even more money.

Now, again, I am not anti-rich. I wouldn't mind being rich myself one day. But I do hope that if I ever were to be doing well financially, that I would not pull the ladder up, climb up the ladder and then pull it up so that people can't even follow me.

Wait a minute. That is exactly what they are doing. They are trying to take away the Affordable Care Act, which actually gave millions of people healthcare for the first time. They want to put work requirements on receiving Federal benefit and aid. They want to make it tougher to be working class and poor. It is outrageous.

I just want to wrap my own comments up tonight by just saying it doesn't have to be this way. Poverty is not something that simply happens like the weather. It is not a storm and, oh, boy, how did that ever happen? No, it is a series of decisions made by people who have political power, who advantage some and disadvantage others.

It is things that we do, and it is also things that we don't do. It is when we just let markets concentrate and don't engage in legitimate anti-trust action; and it is when we pass a tax bill that we know, before anything has happened, that 83 percent of the benefits will go to the top 1 percent. This is how you create massive inequality.

There are things we can do about it. I think we could start by passing a policy that links CEO pay to raises for workers. What if a CEO thinking about, you know, I am going to get my pay, I am going to get a big fat old bonus. Oh, okay. If I do that, I have got

to make sure my folks get some of this too. What if we passed a policy like that?

What if we said you couldn't deduct those bonuses off your taxes the way that they do now?

What if we actually said to ourselves, we are going to have a very high estate tax? I think that is fair enough. I mean, what did you do, other than negotiate a birth canal, to get all that money? I think that we should reward work, not just birth.

I think, what if we said we are going to make majo investments in public wealth? What do I mean by public wealth? Well, I don't know, the parks, the roads, the bridges, the transit, the schools. What if we invested in those public institutions that actually help everybody come up?

Even the rich folks can go to the public park. We don't ration that. We say it is something for all of us.

What if we said we are going to make sure that the right to join a union is a right that we are going to protect and defend, knowing that the fortunes of unions--when union density goes up, working class people do better. When union density goes down, working class people's wages stagnate and go down.

What if we lifted the minimum wage to a livable wage?

What if we had real consumer protection?

What if we said that everybody can go to the doctor?

I believe that we should have universal single-payer healthcare. That is my opinion, and I hope others join me.

What if we did things like looked at the labor policies that they have in some countries around the world?

Do you know, in Germany, Madam Speaker, that workers have to be on the board of the corporation if the corporation is above a certain size?

That makes sense. They certainly are affected by what the company does.

In Germany, if there is a slowdown, a recession, and that happens, everybody takes fewer hours rather than just laying off people who are just relegated to the unemployment lines, who see their skills deteriorate and who are just out of the workforce and it is hard to get back in.

What if we did these things? What if we said to ourselves that we were going to have a trade policy that really factored in how is this policy going to impact the local economy and workers? I definitely think trade is a good thing, but what if we thought about how it is going to impact this worker, these workers, this factory right here?

What if we got rid of the idea of right to work and said everybody in American can join a union?

This would make America a stronger country for working Americans. It would improve our economy. It would put money in the hands of working Americans, and it wouldn't stop people from getting rich if they got a great idea and made a lot of money. It wouldn't stop people from amassing any wealth, but what it would do is make sure that people at the middle and the bottom of the economy had a greater shot and a better share.

My Republican friends' vision for the economy is that, look, you know, here is how you have a good economy: You don't make rich people or big companies pay any taxes, and you shuffle all the property taxes and the sales taxes. You let those things be on the shoulders of the working folk. Then you don't spend on public institutions like public schools or anything. You just let those folks do the best they can.

If those kids aren't smart enough to be born to rich parents who send them to private school, forget about it. We are just going to underfund that, or we are going to do charters, and then we will let individuals own those schools and make money off of them.

Their idea of a business model is to smash the workers down, treat the workers like a cost, push their labor costs as far down as they can get it, and amass the wealth at the top as much as they can, allow stock buybacks, and don't regulate anybody, and don't have any rules of the game so that you get a free-for-all, and then when the economy finally goes bust, oh, you know, we just go back to John Q. Taxpayer and Jane Q. Taxpayer and make them bail them out.

Anyway, I think there is a better way. I think we can have a better economy. We can have a democracy. We can have an economy that allows for free enterprise and we can have a public sector that makes sure that liberty and justice and opportunity are for everyone, not just a few.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank Chairman Smith and the ranking member for standing together on this important House Resolution 128.

It is true that Minnesota is home to a large number of people who find their roots in Ethiopia and are of the Oromo background.

These Minnesotans have made it very clear by reaching out to their elected representatives that while their feet are firmly planted on American soil, they still, like so many other Americans, have a heart and a sentiment where they want to support justice in the homeland that they came from. As a result, I have been able to get an education from my constituents about circumstances in Ethiopia which make this resolution necessary.

So I do rise in support of House Resolution 128, which calls on the Government of Ethiopia to make clear, concrete steps toward becoming inclusive, more democratic, more respectful of human rights of all of its citizens.

I would like to note that this is a bipartisan resolution, proving that we can come together for critical issues like human rights in Ethiopia for Americans who find their roots in Ethiopia and for people all over the world.

In Minnesota, as I noted, we are fortunate to be home to one of the largest Oromo and Ogaden communities in North America, and it is because of the relentless work of these folks that these issues have come to light. I thank them. Many of them are here today. They have been working on this issue for many years, Mr. Speaker, because it is that vitally important.

Now, as my colleagues have noted, Ethiopia is an important ally of the United States, that is a fact, but even allies must be held accountable when they violate the human rights of their people. Status as an ally is not a license to abuse human rights.

The Ethiopian people desperately need their government to take action to secure their human rights and expand inclusive democracy.

Mr. Speaker, the Ethiopian Government continues to detain journalists, bloggers, students, and political opposition leaders. Thousands remain in prison to this day.

In addition, the Ethiopian Government admits to killing over 500 of its citizens during the protests in an effort to suppress the people's freedom of speech. Most observers put this number far higher.

These abuses have created a serious instability in the country. While there have been some signs of progress, which must be noted, including the recent election of a prime minister from the Oromo region, we must continue to push for real, concrete changes. For example, the government should let the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights travel through the country to conduct an independent assessment of the human rights situation in the country.

By passing this resolution, Congress will be making clear that we will not remain silent on this important issue, we will stand together across the political divide in support of these human rights in Ethiopia.

By passing this resolution, we will speed up democratic change in Ethiopia.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is a very important day. Students in my district are walking out of school because they expect their leaders to do something about this problem of gun violence. For years, this body sadly has failed to act; and because we failed to act, our young people are acting tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, 2,808 people have died in 2018 already because of this scourge of gun violence.

Why isn't that enough for us to act?

It is only March, and already we have almost 3,000 people dead. I guess that is not a surprise because at least 15,549 people died from gun violence in 2017 last year.

Isn't that enough?

We know why this is going on: powerful commercial interests in Washington--gun manufacturers led by their lawyer, I guess the NRA--are preventing basic, commonsense approaches to safety.

You can't even study it. The Centers for Disease Control is prohibited from studying gun violence. We don't have enough resources to really make a true database so that you can find the people who are, in fact, legally prohibited from getting guns, so they sneak through the holes. There are many other problems.

Now is the time, Mr. Speaker. We have to act with those young people who are walking out tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today and the people

of the United States because America needs universal, single-payer healthcare. We spend more--over $9,000 per person--on healthcare than any other nation in the world.

But for all that money, Mr. Speaker, we still have tens of millions of uninsured. We have the highest infant mortality rate of any wealthy nation on Earth, and we are last, last, in life expectancy among wealthy countries.

Mr. Speaker, in a few moments I expect to ask for unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered the first sponsor of H.R. 676, the Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act. The bill was originally introduced by my friend, John Conyers. I have his support in picking up the mantle where he left it and for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings. I will do that in a moment.

But, Mr. Speaker, the money that we are spending on healthcare isn't going to the patients; it isn't going to the surgeons. It is going to the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry, who are raking in record profits every day and are the major beneficiaries of our policy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 676, the Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, a bill originally introduced by Representative John Conyers from Michigan, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. Speaker, even though the gentleman from Pennsylvania's football team, the Eagles, beat the Vikings pretty badly, I forgive him for that because at least they beat New England and Tom Brady.

Now, on to the serious business.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Evans, for hosting this Special Order talking about the Kerner Commission.

I was born and raised in the city of Detroit. I am honored to represent Minnesota. I am a Minnesotan and very proud of Minnesota, but I started life out in the city of Detroit.

I remember 1968. I was born in August of 1963. I distinctly remember the riots. As a small child, my father was a medical professional, and I remember him being gone for long hours, coming home extremely tired. I remember the earnest conversations my parents were having, talking about the riots.

I remember looking outside my door and seeing military-style vehicles driving by, which is something we didn't really see. I remember being afraid because we heard some noises, and my mother had me and my brothers get under the bed.

I had no idea, really, what was going on, but those memories for me are very vivid because, when you are a child and your parents are afraid, you can feel it. I don't think I will ever forget it.

As I got older, I wanted to know more about the causes of the riots, and I learned and read about the Kerner Commission. The Kerner Commission's report was designed to focus on all of the civil disturbances that had been happening in the United States, including the Detroit riot, which I was alive and have some memory of.

I think it is difficult for young people who want to understand the Kerner Commission report--a report that was prophetic, a report that was thorough and important, a report that was actually a pretty good piece of literature that had good recommendations that our country has never really taken seriously.

But to understand this report and to really delve into the roots of it, I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to understand that, before 1968, before there ever was a Kerner Commission report, our country, the United States, was a slave-holding nation for about 250 years. If you mark African-American presence in the United States from 1619 and you say slavery officially ended in 1865, America, our country, the United States, was a slave-holding nation longer than it was not one-- longer, actually longer. This country held men, women, and children in bondage in absolute absence of freedom for longer than it has not, which is particularly ironic, given that our country is dedicated to liberty and freedom.

Literally millions of Americans existed in a state of anti-freedom, which is slavery. We have yet to contemplate it.

I remember going to law school studying property and contracts. We never talked about America's greatest amount of property, which is human property. We never actually asked: What is the law about leasing on slaves? What is the law about property ownership on slaves? What is this species of property?

We talked about real estate. We talked about other forms of property. We talked about intellectual property. But for many years of this Nation's history, the predominant form of property was human property in the United States, and we never stopped to even slow down.

I bet you there is not more than two or three law schools in the United States that take on this topic so that people can really understand the ground upon which we stand. We are in the U.S. Capitol, built by people who were not free. In this cathedral of freedom, the people who built it were not free for 250 years.

People stand by and say: Why don't you all get over that? You are always talking about that.

I say: Well, you all still celebrate the Fourth of July.

We are all proud on the Fourth of July that happened in 1776, but we are not supposed to talk about an institution that prevailed in the United States for most of its history.

And it wasn't quite over in 1865, was it?

No. In 1865, we passed the 13th Amendment banning involuntary servitude. We passed the 14th Amendment granting citizenship in, I think, 1868. In 1870, we passed the 15th Amendment granting Black men the right to vote.

This is essentially war measures. I am glad they exist, trust me. I am quite grateful they exist. But when you consider that over 200,000 Black soldiers took up arms to keep the Union--the Union--it was the very least that could happen that Black men would get to vote. Black women didn't get to vote.

But then after that, it is important, Mr. Speaker, to bear in mind another phenomenon took place. By 1877, the Tilden-Hayes compromise was effected, in which there was a dead heat political election. And the Republicans of that day, who, ironically, were the people who were against slavery at that time and against racism and bigotry, they said: We are tired of fighting about racism, slavery, and what is to happen with the Freedman. We will pull Union troops out of the South if you Democrats give us the election.

That allowed Rutherford B. Hayes to become President. Samuel Tilden did not become the President, but the Southerners, Democrats at that time, got what they wanted.

This phenomenon that occurred after that was the end of reconstruction. Lynching, slavery by another name, and true terrorism, under the auspices of the Ku Klux Klan, reined in America at this time. Pulaski, Tennessee, was the home of the Klan. But there were many other White supremacist groups that received the sanction of our government. In fact, one might even argue that the whole government of the State of Indiana at one time was dominated by the Klan.

People interested in this phenomena can study a very important piece of film and book called ``Slavery By Another Name,'' that talked about convict leasing. The 13th Amendment says that you cannot hold anybody in an involuntary servitude unless convicted of a crime.

That loophole allowed our country to use the criminal justice system to push Black men into it to take advantage of their labor through convict leasing. And even though the industry in Alabama of steelmaking really had not taken root during slavery, it did take root after slavery. The people who mined the iron ore and who worked in those mines were, essentially, in convict leasing.

Convict leasing prevailed in our country up until the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, cotton production dropped after the Civil War, but then went back up because of convict leasing because Black men and women were held in bondage through an unjust criminal justice system that forced them to work cotton up until mechanization made hand cotton picking not advantageous anymore. That, together with the sharecropping system, maintained that system.

We think about the Kerner Commission report, we think about the riots of 1968, 1965, and 1966, all of these things, Black rage exploding on the national scene, and people ask: What are they mad about?

Two hundred and fifty years of slavery and 100 years after Jim Crow after that might make you a little upset.

Black people never missed a war. African-American soldiers helped fight for the Union; African-American soldiers helped fight in Korea; the Spanish-American war. As a matter of fact, you can't name a military conflict that Black people didn't fight for this country and die for it. Yet, after the service, usually we came back to racism and discrimination.

There is a great movie out now called ``Mudbound'' about this very phenomena. If people want to learn more about this, they can look at this film ``Mudbound'' about a Black soldier who comes back, gets treated with human dignity in Europe, comes back to Mississippi, and then gets lynched.

This is our country. I am proud of my country and I love my country, but I am not blind to it.

The Kerner Commission tried to open our eyes and tell us what was really going on. One of the phenomenon--and I would like to just note this--is that one of the many ways that racism manifested itself is through residential segregation. Blacks were not allowed to live in certain areas, work in certain areas, and, in 1903, the great Woodrow

Wilson kicked Black people out of Federal employment. His reason was that we carry disease. This is in the modern era. Black people were relegated to living in certain neighborhoods. And, actually, when it was found to be illegal to say Blacks can't live in this neighborhood by the Supreme Court, then that is when redlining took hold.

Residential segregation was so effective, Mr. Speaker, for 50 years, that we now in America today--and I am talking about 2018--if you survey White Americans and you ask them, Have you had a significant and meaningful conversation in the last 6 months, who are those people and who are the top seven, 91 percent of White Americans will say that they haven't had a meaningful conversation with a person of color.

Residential segregation is so bad that we don't talk to each other. The result is no empathy--no sympathy; no empathy; no sense of, gee, that is really too bad.

People say: Well, they don't work hard. That is the problem.

Well, wait a minute. How could it be that the people who worked for 250 years for free don't work hard? How could it be that people who don't have any power are some big threat to be feared in this Nation when all we have done is serve it and build it?

At the end of the day, the Kerner Commission tried to highlight discrimination against African Americans in education, housing, and employment; tried to help the Nation understand why some African Americans get enraged about incidents of official violence; why we don't condone, nor even do we agree, with riots.

We cannot act like we don't understand them. Of course we understand them. Many of us have chosen that we are going to try to reform our country and help it reach its promise through our electoral system, through organizing, and activism. We are going to try to make America a stronger and better place by working within the systems that exist.

I am proud that I am one of those people. But I often have to find myself trying to convince people who don't agree with me that there are answers within the system that I am right and they are not, because they come with arguments sometimes based on the history.

The bottom line is the Kerner Commission report, 50 years ago today, we have made progress. There is no doubt about it. We don't have Jim Crow anymore. But we have also seen stagnation.

There is a new report by the Eisenhower Foundation, which shows that since the late 1960s, income inequality and the wealth gap have actually gotten wider. While high school and college graduation rates have improved for the Black community since the Kerner Commission report--thank goodness, and this is an important advance, and we are grateful for it--these gains in access have not translated in economic vitality.

Black families have the highest student debt. Thirty-one percent of all Black families have college debt, compared to about 20 percent of White families. College debt is tough on families of any color, but African Americans, having a lower overall income and a much lower wealth, have to borrow more to seek out education, and that is limiting African-American opportunity.

More than 70 percent of White families own their own homes compared to less than half of Black and Hispanic families. Since 1968, White homeownership has steadily increased, but Black homeownership has not changed. In 1968, 41 percent of Black families owned their own home.

And what is the homeownership rate today?

Now it is 41.2.

Given what I shared with you earlier about residential segregation and about how Blacks and Whites and Latinos don't really interact nearly as much as they should, given the fact that we are all Americans, people may not understand why African-American economic progress has not been as swift as we might want it to be.

To that I say it is a matter of residential segregation and even current redlining. I recommend to people to read an important book called ``Evicted'' by Matthew Desmond, and also listen to a podcast called ``Reveal'' about redlining. This prospect of redlining is very important. ``Reveal'' looked at literally thousands and thousands of pieces of data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. They found that, in 61 metropolitan areas in the United States, there is substantial evidence of mortgage discrimination. That is African Americans, who got the same credit score, the same down payment as other people, who are denied loans.

Mr. Speaker, this even happens in neighborhoods where Black people are the majority.

People wonder: How is it that you have gentrification?

Well, the Black person with the downpayment and the 700 credit score gets told that they cannot have a loan; and the White person with the 500 or 600 credit score and a 3 percent downpayment gets told: Sure, have the loan.

It is happening every day.

Listen to the podcast ``Reveal.'' You will see a woman who went through this herself. It left her not only without a house, but she had to have her partner, who is White and Asian mix, be the one who took out the mortgage because they wouldn't give her one.

I am saying that our country is truly a great nation, but to get to its true greatness, it has got to confront racial discrimination. I am not talking about prejudice. I am talking about racism.

What is the difference?

Prejudice means I don't like you because of your color, your race, and it is a personal thing. It is just I don't like you.

What I am talking about by racism is systematic denial of opportunity without regard to personality.

They didn't turn that Black woman down in that ``Reveal'' podcast because they didn't like her. They don't know her. They know she is Black, and that is all they need to know to turn her down.

This is what we have to confront as a country.

And as I close, Congressman Evans, and as I get ready to take my seat, I just want to point out that, in 2016, White families had a median net worth of $171,000 compared to $17,000 for Blacks and $20,000 for Latinos. Sixty percent of White families reported having retirement savings, which is double the rate for Black and Hispanic families.

We have to understand what Martin Luther King tried to teach us, and that is: What difference does it make if you can sit at a lunch counter if you cannot afford a hamburger?

The Kerner Commission tried to signal to us the way forward. In 2018, we still have the opportunity to take the lessons of it and to build a truly beloved society, as Martin Luther King tried to teach us, but it cannot just be platitudes and pretty talk. It has got to be real commitment, real money, and real investment in opportunity for all.

At the end of the day, in the United States, we say, as we say the Pledge of Allegiance, ``liberty and justice for all.'' I say economic liberty and economic justice for all, and I say we will then see much more social inclusion, and we will live up to the recommendations of the Kerner Commission. We can't wait another 50 years.

Right.

Mr. Speaker, I think another Kerner Commission report is definitely appropriate. It is right. It is good. But I will say that the Eisenhower Foundation did a report that showed that, since the late 1960s, income inequality and the wealth gap have widened.

I really believe that what we really need to do is say to ourselves, as a nation, that we are going to actually live out the true meaning of our creed. At the end of the day, the problem is not intellectual; the problem is a matter of will.

Actually, we have real challenges in our Nation today because, I happen to believe, we have a President who is less willing to move progress forward than even other Republicans who have been in office.

We live in a time, now, where we have seen the rollback of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We have seen the--right now, there is an attack on public employees in the Supreme Court. It feels like 1870.

You remember I was talking about the Civil War. Black soldiers entered the Civil War in 1863 after the Emancipation Proclamation; 200,000 fought in that Civil War. Black soldiers helped win the Civil War and maintained the Union. In fact, Lincoln himself said that, without Black soldiers, we might not have a Union.

We went through Reconstruction. Of course, Lincoln was killed in April of 1865, but by 1870, we began to roll back, we began to see the progress and the promise roll back.

It feels a little bit like that right now. It feels a little bit like that. But, you know, we are not going back to them bad old days. I want everyone to hear that African Americans, Latinos, women, the LGBT community, people of other religious groups, minority religions, we are not going to the back of the bus. It is just not going to happen.

Better to say, okay, instead of having one group in America be supreme over everyone, what if that group were simply equal to everyone?

Some people in our country seem to believe that having 43 Presidents who are White men, you get one that is Black, and now, all of a sudden, oh, my God, the world is coming to an end. No, it isn't. Everything is fine. Everyone is fine. It just means that what we wrote on paper is actually getting reflected a little bit more in reality.

I think we need to make a firm commitment to end housing discrimination, a firm commitment to let the people vote, a firm commitment to stop giving tax breaks to the richest people and give the working and middle class a chance to earn a decent level of pay.

I think we need a Republican caucus who will help work with us to stop the carnage of guns on these streets and to allow people who have come here as children not to be thrown out of the country summarily. That is what we really need. But I am not getting the sense that they want to help out, so I am thinking we need to get elections that will get some people, Republican or Democrat, to come out here and do some good things for the American people--and not just the wealthiest, most privileged people.

Mr. Speaker, Republican tax scam tax cuts really are only going to benefit giant corporations and the wealthy few, and what working people will ever glean from this is minimal in scope and really is just sort of a pittance in order to allow people who have more wealth than they can possibly even count to just get more.

This tax cut, this massive tax cut, would wipe away healthcare coverage for millions of workers, give multinational corporations and foreign investors a giant payday, and it paves the way for more cruel cuts, cutting programs that will benefit Americans.

It is a moral abomination. It is wrong. It is giving more to those who already have too much and taking from those who already are struggling to make ends meet. But, sadly, it is just another example of how Republicans and their billionaire buddies are in it for themselves and not the American people.

I would like to talk about another important example, because you have to look at what is going on in our Supreme Court together with these tax cuts and other programs to understand how much damage Republican leadership means to the American people.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard a case. It was Janus v. AFSCME. Janus, as the case is called, is yet another attack on the right to organize your workplace and negotiate for better wages and benefits and safer workplaces.

Over the last several decades, big companies and their conservative allies in Congress have attacked the right to collectively bargain.

The attacks on workers have led to stagnating wages for workers and greater income inequality. This case is no different. It is being bankrolled by the usual suspects: the Koch brothers and their billionaire allies.

Janus will determine whether public sector unions that represent teachers, firefighters, police officers, and nurses in States and cities across this country can collect fees from all of the employees in the workplaces that they represent.

This case is about whether millions of hardworking public sector workers will have the freedom and the resources to stand together and fight for a better future for themselves and their families. But it is also about the corrosive power of money in politics. It is about the millions of dollars wealthy donors spent to hold a Supreme Court seat open for over a year; the millions more that were spent to elect President Trump so that he could fill that seat with Neil Gorsuch; and the millions of dollars that the Koch brothers and the Bradley Foundation, two organizations devoted to cutting government services for Americans and weakening unions, spent to fund the Janus case.

And today, now that the bought-and-paid-for court has heard the case that will deliver a blow--we hope it doesn't, but likely it will--to the public service workers and the unions that represent them, their investment appears to be paying off.

Here is the thing: millionaires and billionaires who fund these antiworker and antiunion attacks are petrified about the labor movement. They are absolutely afraid of it. That is why they have been working to attack it.

That is because the labor movement is premised on the simple idea that, when workers come together, they can fight for their fair share of the wealth that they helped to create and because the labor movement is about equality and a fair economy that works for everyone, not just a few.

That is why wealthy donors have worked to eliminate and cut union representation; that is why they engage in union busting; that is why they funded the Janus case; and that is why they continue to keep kicking working people in the teeth over and over again.

This Republican tax scam is only part of the restructuring of American democracy where we take from working Americans, give to the wealthiest, and then try to deprive through the courts people's right to organize collectively on their job.

But hardworking Americans are standing up, hardworking Americans are banning together, and hardworking Americans are not going to allow a prosperous life for themselves and their families to be taken away so easily.

This Janus case is something that I urge everybody to look into. It represents another attack on the American working class, but the American

working people are standing up stronger than ever and will come back stronger than ever.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to just thank the gentleman from the great State of Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and also Congressman Pittenger, as well as many other members of the Financial Services Committee on both sides of the aisle. It is always a pleasure to be able to work together on things. This is what our constituents expect, and that is what the Credit Access and Inclusion bill actually represents.

So, Mr. Speaker, if I told you that we could help millions of people get access to an apartment, lower the cost of a loan, lower the deposit they may have to put down on a phone or utility deposit, and we could do all these things without creating a new government program, we could do it without government mandate, and we could do it with virtually no new tax dollars, would you take that deal? Because I would. I would say: Wow, help millions of people be able to afford services that they need before, lower the cost of loans? Yeah, why wouldn't we do that? Well, the truth is that we can if we vote ``yes'' on the Credit Access and Inclusion bill.

I am proud to tell you that this particular piece of legislation, which is bipartisan, will bring about basic fairness in the credit scoring system. Credit is currency in our society. It unlocks credit for access to goods and services. Hardworking Americans need to build some economic security for themselves and their families.

There are currently about 26 million people, or 1 in 10 Americans, who do not have a credit record; and there is another 19 million Americans who do not have enough information to even score. Low-income individuals and even racial and ethnic minorities are even in worse shape. About one in four Latinos and African Americans either don't have a credit score or don't have enough information in the file to get a score.

And almost half of the residents of low-income communities do not have a score of any background.

This bill allows credit rating agencies to use on-time rent, phone, and utility payments when determining credit scores.

Now, you should know, Mr. Speaker, if people are late with these lines of information, it can, and often does, show up on their credit score now. And if people take out loan products which they pay back on time, that helps those people's credit score now.

But what about the people who pay phone bills and utility bills, and they pay their bills every month on time? They are not building anything to help them get in a better credit situation. This bill allows them to do that.

As a result, more than a third of previously unscorable Americans will now have access to prime credit and the opportunities that come with it when we pass this bill.

This bill isn't just about access to credit, though. It is also about saving hardworking Americans real money, thousands of dollars, on car loans and their mortgages.

Mr. Speaker, if you are unscorable, you can often get a loan, but the interest rate is always higher when that happens. So, if people are scorable and they get a credit score, they will be able to save money for themselves and put it into their household budget.

The money that used to be going to auto lenders and mortgage brokers is now going to go into the pockets of consumers so that they can improve the lives of their family. That sounds like a pretty good day's work to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Metropolitan Economic Development Association on its recognition as the top minority business developer by the United States Department of Commerce.

Over the past 45 years, MEDA has provided assistance to more than 20,000 businesses owned by people of color. MEDA has worked to break down the barriers that these entrepreneurs face in building futures for themselves, their families, and their businesses. MEDA has helped establish more than 1,400 jobs in the Twin Cities. As a result of its tireless dedication and wealth of services, this is the second consecutive year that MEDA has received the commendation of top minority business developer from the U.S. Commerce Department.

Since MEDA launched their loan program in 1995, they have fulfilled a major need for minority entrepreneurs who have sustainable

businesses, but fall short of traditional lending standards. With minority owned businesses being the fastest growing segment in Minnesota's economy, MEDA's services have helped create jobs and generate increased economic activity.

MEDA's current president and CEO, Gary Cunningham, has used his experience in the human services field to reinforce MEDA's mission of serving the underserved. Under Gary's leadership, MEDA has continued to expand their loan fund and gain support from local companies in helping minority owned businesses succeed. Gary has focused his career on making a difference for low income people through his various leadership positions in organizations like Northpoint Health and Wellness center and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Metropolitan Council, and Hennepin County. His undying commitment to public service and the common good is evident from his career of notable accomplishments.

MEDA has grown to be an everlasting community asset and a reliable institution for entrepreneurs of color looking to start up or expand a business. MEDA is critical fuel for the economic engine that drives our state. I would like to commend MEDA for this well-deserved recognition, and looking forward to their future accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I come before this body today with a heavy heart. A dear friend of mine, Mr. Paul Booth, we lost him 12 days ago to leukemia. Mr. Booth was a man who dedicated his life to the simple idea of fairness--fairness for workers, fairness in all aspects of life.

Paul Booth was a leading adviser to nearly every union president over the last several years at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. He also worked hard to lift up dignity in all aspects of his life.

He was a student organizer and brought attention to the folly of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war, and he had been active in making Americans' lives better his entire life.

He understood the very simple idea that working people have dignity and that they must be treated to reflect that dignity by their government. He also understood that the linkage between hard work and prosperity should always be close and tight. He recognized that, in our country today, you can work very hard and still only make it. That is why he was one of the first people to work for a living wage policy in this country. He was fighting for a living wage before it was popular.

Paul Booth also happened to have a marvelous partner. Her name is Heather Booth, and everybody knows Heather.

But I just want to say, when people who make a life of service pass from this life, it is important that we recognize the tremendous debt we owe them.

I want to thank Paul and Heather Booth for their mentorship of me and for their service to our country.

Mr. Speaker and Members, it is important to understand the big picture here.

When the Supreme Court takes up Janus, yes, they are going to be talking about fair share. Is it legal, is it constitutional, for someone to benefit from being represented by a labor union that has to fight for them and then still not have to pay anything to help at all. That will be the question before the Court.

But that is just a very small part of what is really going on. What is really going on, Mr. Speaker, is that we see the deconstruction of the American middle class. The question is: Will America be a land of opportunity; or will it be a land of stagnation where you can work as hard as you want to, but you are never going to be able to make enough to really make it?

What is going on here, Mr. Speaker, is that the conservative movement in our country is trying to break the link between hard work and prosperity as they rifle money and channel it to the very richest among us, and working people just have to hope for the best and work hard just to get back to work for whatever they can scrape together.

Because at the end of the day, labor unions have given workers a voice which has helped create the great American middle class. The lightbulb and the semiconductor are not the great inventions of America. They are great inventions, but the greatest invention of the United States of America is this big, giant middle class which you can work hard and get into.

This is what is under threat. This is what we are fighting to uphold tonight.

Now, Janus is a decision that takes place within the context of other decisions. Let us not forget Shelby County, a case which attacked our right to vote. Let's not forget Citizens United, a case which says corporations are people and they can spend as much money on elections as they choose. Let's not forget these tax cuts passed just about a few weeks ago which rifle money to the richest among us and undermine American workers.

We are in the middle of a battle over whether or not the United States will continue to be a place where hard work pays. That is what this fight is about. And that, Mr. Speaker, is what we invite everyone to understand the union difference. If you are Black, being in a union means you are going to make more money than other folks. If you are a woman, it will mean the same thing. If you are a veteran, it will mean the same thing. Unions have always done more for the people who are in them, and we want to get more people in unions, not fewer.

The attack that we see tonight in the form of this Janus v. AFSCME is an attack on that union advantage. But unions have helped everybody, Mr. Speaker. If you look at wage stagnation in America, what you see since World War II, right up until the 1970s, is pay going up and up and up for working people until we see union density begin to break down, and it is at that point that we begin to see wages flatten out and stagnate.

Unions create not just good pay and good benefits for their workers, but they actually create benefits for all workers because unions create the wage floor and lift up all boats.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is African American History Month only a few days away beginning in February. We must remember people like A. Philip Randolph, who was not only a union leader, he was a civil rights leader. We can't forget about E. D. Nixon, who helped start the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which led to the beginning of the modern American civil rights movement. And let us not forget our beloved Martin Luther King, whose birthday we celebrated a few days ago, and who we will recognize the 50th anniversary of his assassination this year, died fighting for workers of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers, who is one of the litigants in this case, the Janus case.

So I want to say, if you care about income inequality, if you care about prosperity for working people, you have got to get on the side of fighting against this Janus decision. This is what is going on.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation that we are talking about today, the Home Mortgage Adjustment Act, has to be looked at in the light of the history that this country has had.

Our country has a HMDA bill, a home mortgage act, a Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, because of years, literally centuries, of discrimination and racism which has allowed for Americans to be excluded from the hope of homeownership.

When people say: Look, I believe I have been the victim of mortgage discrimination, they have been very difficult and hard-pressed to prove it because the people who issue mortgages say: Well, that wasn't the reason. Well, I know that your credit score and your downpayment and everything is just like other people, but that is not the reason.

Well, the truth is that it is the data that the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act provides for that puts people in a position where they can say: Look, I have been discriminated against. How come there is this wide racial disparity?

As a result of it, justice has been yielded to people who have been victims of discrimination seeking nothing more than the American Dream of homeownership.

So along comes the bill today, the bill we are considering at this moment, which essentially says that we are going to backtrack on the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. We are not going to enforce it, even though we know that it has yielded justice for people, equal protection under the law for people, but we think that the needs of businesses are just going to be so important that we are going to backslide on the issue of justice.

So, Mr. Speaker, today I have to urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this bill because this bill says that America's commitment to liberty and justice for all is not something that this House wants to live up to. We are going to say that we can't abide government regulations even if it means we are going to advance the cause of a civil and human equality for all Americans.

Now, of course, the folks might say: Well, it is not all HMDA that we are trying to change. What we are trying to do is just stop the implementation of HMDA data, and it is only going to be for institutions that are of a smaller size; and even then, it is only going to be certain data.

Yes, they will minimize the negative impact of this legislation. But there is no doubt that this is backing off of a commitment that this Nation has made so that all people in our country can freely participate in homeownership.

They will try to minimize and say: It is only credit unions and banks that only issue about 500 or fewer mortgages. When you add all those folks up, that adds up to being a whole lot of mortgages, Mr. Speaker. It is only certain kinds of data, and that data is critical to making sure that people are included in the American Dream. So I am urging a very powerful ``no'' vote.

Now, the people who advocate this legislation say: Well, it is just too much burden on business. We can't be bothered with having business fill out forms. It is quite inconvenient.

But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that, if this were such a problem, we would all come together and figure out how to make it easier to meet the requirements of HMDA. But that is not what is going on. They just want to delay the implementation of collection of critical data which will lead to the furtherance of the American Dream, which is homeownership.

Mr. Speaker, it was only 8 years ago that we went through the largest foreclosure crisis in the history of our country other than the Great Depression, just 8 years ago. It wasn't decades ago. It was really a few years ago, well within the memory of people who serve in this body right now. Many of us were serving in this body during that foreclosure crisis.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans were hurt. They were hurt when the value of their homes went down, and they were hurt when they saw unemployment go up. All Americans were hurt. But if we are perfectly honest, Mr. Speaker, not all Americans were hurt the same. African-American and Latino household wealth took the biggest hit of all. Because of this devastating blow, because of this shot, we saw the stripping away of African-American wealth to extreme degrees, not to mention people from Latino families.

We cannot say, on the one hand, ``Pull yourself up by the bootstraps, work hard, save, and own a home,'' and, on the other hand, take away the tools by which people can get that home. But that is exactly what we are doing right here. We are saying that we are going to take the tools that you need to make for a fairer, more open and more just neighborhood, we are going to take those tools that you rely on, and we are going to say that you cannot have those tools because the demands of business require that we don't do that; it is just too expensive, it is too burdensome, and it is too inconvenient.

Let me tell you this: 250 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, and another 70 years of social discrimination are pretty doggone inconvenient, too. If HMDA is a tool that we use to make our society a more equal and more perfect Union, then why would we backtrack on it? Why would we backslide on it? Why would we do those things?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the underlying bill, the bill that is being attempted to be amended today, didn't drop out of the sky. We have it because there was historic, provable, and demonstrable discrimination. That is why we had it.

This bill, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act--a completely different piece which, I argue, backslides on our commitment to fair housing--would undermine our ability to stop discrimination by exempting 85 percent of the Nation's banks and credit unions and 48 percent of the Nation's nonbank lenders from having to follow the updated reporting requirements.

What are these reporting requirements? They are things that banks collect already. They are pieces of information being collected now. All they have to do is take one piece of paper that they have already prepared the documentation for and put it into another document. That is it.

Now, the application borrower's age, that is an important thing to combat age discrimination.

Credit score, name, and version of the credit scoring model, that is an important piece of information. That is already in the underwriting file and in FCRA.

The debt-to-income ratio is already in the underwriting file and is required by QM compliance.

Automated underwriting system name, that is in the underwriting file.

Other information about the property, securing the loan, and the value of the property to secure the loan, that is in the underwriting file and it is in TILA requirement.

Combined loan-to-value ratio, that is in there already because of underwriting.

Manufactured home property type, land or without land, that is in the underwriting of the file.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that information is critical because, in the manufactured housing industry, we know there is predatory lending and unfairness to borrowers a lot, so we need that kind of information to protect borrowers.

I reject the argument that somehow, if we don't have commonsense regulations and disclosure, that is going to result in more--more-- loans being issued. There is no evidence to support that. What it will likely result in is more discrimination happening and perhaps people who own the banks and the credit unions just pocketing more money. But the fact that less regulation and oversight is going to yield more justice for people who have historically been excluded, there is no basis to believe that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman made a point that I thought was definitely worth mentioning. He said that he wanted to know how the law plays out boots on the ground back at home. He talked about: Does it hurt you or does it help you? The gentleman made a specific point about getting real-life, tangible experience people have with the law.

I am glad he mentioned that, and the reason why is that I talked to a woman earlier this week as I prepared to be here today. She said she scrubbed floors in a hospital for 30 years. She scrubbed floors in a hospital for 30 years. She got up every day, and she saved her money. Her family never owned a home; they rented. That is all they could ever afford to do. She applied for a loan in a bank for a home once she got her money together.

She was hopeful. She was optimistic. She even had a home picked out that she wanted to own and have her grandchildren and kids live with her in that home. She was denied. She had a good credit score. She saved her money. She shared with me that she felt like it was because of her race.

Now, of course, nobody is going to admit that. When it comes to mortgage lending, Mr. Speaker, the people who make decisions that exclude one group of people and include another one don't use the nasty, ugly language that all of us condemn. They don't come in here and use the N word. They don't say ugly stuff.

These people wear suits. They wear ties. They have nice, pressed white shirts. Many of them have monograms on those shirts. These are the members of the country club. Yet this lady who worked so hard for so long to own a home was denied.

It was when statistical analysis was brought forth that people decided maybe they should just give her that loan after all. It was when she went to legal aid and complained.

I can tell you this, it is the kind of thing that is important.

How do people on the ground experience the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act?

They experience it as something that gives them a chance to have a good life, too. If you never felt the sting of discrimination, maybe it is just a business regulation to you. But if you have been looked in the eye and told ``no,'' and you know that this is not right and you know it is probably because of who you are, then, and only then, will you understand why it is important not to weaken the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

I don't doubt that people who are offering this amendment to relieve the regulatory ``burden'' have animus in their heart. I really don't believe they do. But I will tell you this: they are listening to the folks in the country club. They are listening to the folks who are on the other side of the table. They are not listening to the people who need that mortgage, who work for that mortgage, who deserve that mortgage.

That is not who they are talking to. If they would sit down and listen to folks who just want to own a home, maybe they wouldn't see this as just some sort of a bothersome regulation. It is getting in the way of business.

How can we possibly ever allow that?

To the folks who would say that, discrimination is a theoretical concept. It might happen to some people, but none of the fine people they know in the banking industry would ever do that.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill came up because people were living with mortgage discrimination. It came up because people were being denied. It came up because people that were being told ``no'' should have been told ``yes.'' That is what is going on right here. This is why this bill, this Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, needs to be defeated.

If you want to talk about ease of regulation, we can always talk about how to help people comply with the law. I am not against that. But what I am against is backsliding and backtracking on the progress that this country has made in favor of equal access to credit and mortgage lending. This bill is a threat to that.

There shouldn't be anyone who votes for this piece of legislation who seriously considers how damaging discrimination has been historically and who seriously considers how the lives of people who spent so much time simply trying to be part of this country have been told ``no.''

There are a lot of groups that agree. There are 173 national and State-based civil rights, fair housing, and consumer and community organizations that agree. There are 25 community labor and public interest groups that agree. They say this:

H.R. 2954 would nearly quadruple the number of banks

exempted from the key mortgage disclosures designed to detect

predatory and discriminatory lending, leading to 5,400 banks

being exempted, as well as an additional 487 nonbanks.

This is not a small thing. I just say that I give everybody credit for good intentions. I really do. But I think that folks need to really think about what it means to be on the other side of that desk when you are applying for that mortgage, not just the businessmen and -women who deny mortgages or grant them as they see fit.

Public Citizen says:

This bill would eliminate race and gender home mortgage

reporting requirements for lenders who make fewer than 500

closed-end mortgage loans and fewer than 500 open-end lines

of credit. There is really no benefit to such an exemption,

as the reporting requirements are negligible.

Lenders who write mortgages obtain significant data on

their customers, as they should. Reporting a few items of

this data is not cumbersome. The potential harm, on the other

hand, is to subvert the basic intent of the Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act, which is to publicize whether a bank is truly

serving its geographic market on a race and gender blind

basis.

What about CAP, the Center for American Progress?

They say:

While on its face this appears to be a simple regulatory

relief bill, this provision would exempt the majority of

mortgage lenders from new Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

reporting requirements.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act reporting is the primary

source of information on the availability and quality of

mortgage lending and serves a vital function in fair lending

assessments.

This bill would effectively paint an incomplete or

inaccurate picture of lending activity in the communities

across the country, making it vastly more difficult for

regulators and researchers alike to assess the state of the

mortgage market.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation. It is wrong. It is not the right thing. There are other ways to do what the authors want to do. But simply saying, ``All these people are exempt and you don't have to comply,'' is not the right way to go. It will set us back as a nation. It will turn us back as a nation. I am urging a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

As we have heard today, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act is a critical civil rights bill. It is a civil rights bill designed to increase opportunity for all Americans. It is about liberty and justice for all. It is about the Equal Protection Clause. It is about those things that men and women laid their whole lives down for to make this country more fair, more equal.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act's intent was to ensure that equal opportunity was given to everyone with respect to mortgages. The law is necessary, given our country's long history of discrimination. Through slavery, we took away rights and freedoms of Black men and women for 250 years. We made them property rather than human beings. It was followed by nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement.

As a result of it, people stood up to say we have got to have laws to protect people. We might not be able to change hearts and minds, but we can change behavior. And HMDA helped change behavior.

We are still fighting to make sure we have a more equal society. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act empowers the Department of Justice, State attorneys general, Consumer Bureau, and the public to fight back against discriminatory lending and monitor access to mortgage credit by traditionally underserved communities and populations.

If a financial institution denies a family a mortgage, they can provide a number of excuses for that denial. Only the data collected through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act proves that there is a broader issue of discrimination at play.

This bill, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, exempts institutions from certain HMDA reporting requirements if they originate 500 or fewer closed-end loans, which includes mortgages and car loans, and institutions that issue 500 or fewer open-ended loans. That is nearly 6,000 institutions across America that will stop reporting HMDA data if this bill goes into effect.

This opens the door for discrimination. It opens the door for red- lining, and it is not acceptable. That is why I am offering a motion to recommit that would ensure that individual banks affected by this bill take steps to reduce discrimination in mortgage lending. If opening the door for discrimination is not the intent of the bill, there should be no issues why my amendment is not passed.

My amendment simply says that the CEO and the president of any financial institution now exempted from collecting and reporting important HMDA data fields must attest that, one, the institution is compliant with all relevant fair-lending laws; two, the institution has established adequate internal controls to detect whether the institution provides equal opportunity; and, three, the institution's senior executives, managers, and loan officers and other employees who are substantially involved in underwriting residential mortgage loans complete an antidiscrimination and diversity training.

Ultimately, my amendment is meant to ensure that each exempted institution is properly incentivized to do what they're supposed to do: lend to all qualified borrowers. By holding the CEO accountable, my amendment ensures that lenders will take the actions necessary to begin to overcome historic racism, sexism, and other discrimination just like HMDA was intended.

If it is a fact that the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act is not designed to open the door and green-light discrimination, then this amendment is a commonsense proposal to make sure that that does not happen and that the leader of the institution maintains responsibility for that not happening.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to vote for this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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