Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, America needs a raise.

It has been years since we have increased the Federal minimum wage, which is an abysmal $7.25. All over this country, we see ballot measures passing in red States and blue State increasing the minimum wage, like Alaska and Arkansas. We have seen the minimum wage go up in New Jersey and all over the country. While people in Congress may not realize that America needs a raise, people across the United States do.

Today I am going to participate in a press conference to say that we are going to propose a bill to raise the minimum to $15 an hour and index it. This is a simple recognition that if you work full time, you shouldn't live in poverty. If you work full time, you shouldn't have to rely on food stamps, you shouldn't have to rely on housing assistance, and you shouldn't have to rely on medical assistance.

I believe in those programs and I support them, but if you work hard every day, you shouldn't have to rely on government assistance just to put food on the table.

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the people who benefit from an increase in the minimum wage are women. This is a gender issue. This is a general inequality problem.

We have to fight. America needs a raise, Mr. Speaker. Let's do it.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say thank you to Congressman Raskin for holding down this Special Order. You do such an excellent job, you and Pramila Jayapal, and we are grateful for it.

Mr. Speaker, here are just a few headlines from the budget that the Trump administration just released:

``Trump Budget Leaves Working Class Base Behind''; that is the Detroit Free Press.

``Meatloaf Again: Christie Meekly Accepts Trump's Medicaid Cuts''; that is the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

``Trump Budget Replicates Disastrous Kansas Approach. This Won't End Well''; that is the Kansas City Star, Mr. Speaker.

``No Help from Trump''; that is the Houston Chronicle.

``Trump Meets the Pope While His Budget Threatens the Least of Us''; that is The Sacramento Bee.

``The Harsh Budget Americans Voted for''; that is the Charlotte Observer.

``Another Bad Budget from Trump Targets the Poor,'' The Washington Post.

``Trump's Assault on Working Voters''; that is the Baltimore Sun.

``Surprise, Surprise: Trump's Budget Punishes the Sick and the Poor While Rewarding the Wealthy''; that is the LA Times.

``A Slash-and-Burn Budget,'' New York Daily News.

``Budget Cuts Include U.S. Heart''; that is northjersey.com;

The New York Times: ``A Budget That Promises Little But Pain.''

Bloomberg View: ``Trump's Budget is a Waste of Everybody's Time.''

Financial Times, no beacon of liberalism there, Mr. Speaker: ``Trump's Implausible Plan for the U.S. Budget.''

So whether you are talking about conservative instruments in the news or more liberal ones or more middle-of-the-road, it is really kind of amazing: Everyone seems to share one feeling about the Trump budget. We all hate it. It is bad. It is not a good thing, and there are plenty of reasons why people don't like it.

And so I just want to add that the OMB is led by one of our former colleagues, Mick Mulvaney, and I think Mick is a nice guy. I can't tell people that I personally dislike Mick. He is nice to me. But that is not what this is about.

This is about how we are operating in our public lives. In our public lives and discharging our public responsibility, I have to quote the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He says: Meals on Wheels sounds great. We're not going to spend money on programs that cannot show that they actually deliver on promises that we've made to people.

I will submit to you that Meals on Wheels is a very meritorious program, it costs very little money, and it allows vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities to live at home. Deep cuts.

Actually, Mick said as well: Deep budget cuts are actually one of the most compassionate things we can do.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, compassionate for who?

Maybe those billionaires at Mar-a-Lago--maybe they need a little love, too, sometimes--or the people who occupy Trump Towers.

Regarding HUD, or Housing and Urban Development, he said: It doesn't work very well. Tell that to the people who rely on low-income housing tax credits, section 8 voucher programs, and all types of housing programs that allow people to afford their housing.

On the issue of school nutrition programs, he says: Guess what. There's no demonstrable evidence that they're actually doing that. There's no demonstrable evidence that we're actually helping kids to do better in school. This is about school nutrition.

Here is another one: We can't ask single mothers to continue to pay for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Well, single moms might rely on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to help their kids learn how to read. I think that Sesame Street is a pretty good outfit. That might be their only avenue.

Here is another one: If you ask, 999 people out of 1,000 would tell you that Social Security disability is not part of Social Security. It is an old-age retirement that they think of when they think of Social Security.

Quite the contrary. People do think of Social Security disability when they think of Social Security.

Here is another quote: ``Are there folks on SNAP who shouldn't be?''

That is the question.

So we are, again, trying to focus on fraud in SNAP, rather than worrying about hungry Americans.

Here is another quote: ``Maybe it's reasonable to ask if there are folks who are on there that shouldn't be. That is a reasonable question to ask.''

You know what? I think it is focusing on the wrong part of the problem. Hunger, Mr. Speaker, is the problem in the richest country in the history of the world. At its richest point in its own history, we are being told by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that we cannot afford SNAP, Meals on Wheels, and public broadcasting. Amazing.

I think that, honestly, Mr. Speaker, it is often said that you should speak truth to power. I think we must speak truth to power. I think the gentleman from Maryland would agree with me that we have got to speak truth to power. But it occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that the power knows exactly what the truth is: this budget is going to hurt hungry children. The budget is going to cut seniors. It is going to cut veterans. It is going to cut public broadcasting, which is one of the major ways people get news in South Dakota and rural America. It is going to cut the Appalachian Regional Commission. It is going to leave devastation almost everywhere. It is going to cut the EPA by a third.

The power knows--and I am talking about Trump and his administration--the devastation that they are going to inflict on people. In fact, that is why they are doing it. They just don't believe the government has any role in helping to make Americans lives better.

Their idea of freedom, Mr. Speaker, is a billionaire being able to pollute anywhere and everywhere he wants. Their idea of freedom is amassing great fortunes at the expense of everyone else, all the while relying on our Nation's military, our Nation's police, the road system; all the while relying on clean water, clean air; all the while relying on public schools to educate their workforce.

They say: I did it all by myself. Yet everything they have done has been with the help of the government of the people of the United States of America. It is really outrageous, Mr. Speaker.

I think that we are in a moment when we have got to speak truth to each other, Mr. Speaker. We have got to go all across this Nation and talk to people in the barbershops, the VFW halls. We have got to talk to people in the church basement, the mosque basement, the synagogue basement. We have got to talk to people on the corners and tell them about this budget. If they hear about this Trump budget, they will be outraged.

Nobody can support this budget, not even a millionaire or a billionaire, unless you believe that you are not your brother's keeper, that you have no obligation to other people around you, that everything around you should be amassed to accumulate wealth for yourself. That is the only possible way anybody can stand next to this budget.

I really do hope that the Republican caucus puts this budget up for a vote. I want to see who is going to stand next to this monstrosity of a budget. I am curious to see who, representing southern Ohio, Kentucky, or Tennessee, is going to vote to zero out the Appalachian Regional Commission; who, representing a northern-tier State, is going to cut, zero out, LIHEAP. I want to see the Republican who is going to do that. I think that will be a pretty gutsy move. I guarantee you, your constituents will know exactly what you did. They are watching, Mr. Speaker. People watch C-SPAN and they read the news. They read the headlines that I read off, Mr. Speaker, and they are aware of what is happening in the people's House at this very hour.

I want the people to know that it is the government's responsibility to take care of the least of these. If you are too poor, too old, or too sick to work, we should help people. We should do it. I believe it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I don't care if they call me a bleeding heart liberal-- they can call me anything they want--but I am going to be there for low-income people who are too old, too sick, or too young to work. I am going to be there to make sure that people who are out of work but who are able-bodied have the support that they need to get to work, to have clean air, to have clean water, to promote jobs and infrastructure.

We are going to be there to do those things, Mr. Speaker, because we believe in them.

Do you know what else, Mr. Speaker?

We don't believe ``tax'' is a four-letter word. It is actually a three-letter word. It is not a bad word at all. In fact, it is the dues that you pay to live in a civilized society. If you think tax is some kind of a curse word, you can move to Somalia, because they don't have many there.

Here, we have the protection of our police. We have the protection of our courts. We have the protection of our Nation's military. We have the protection of people who inspect the meat, the water, the air, and everything else, and these people look after us as they discharge their public responsibility and they get paid in our tax money. There is nothing wrong with it. We stand on that.

I believe there has got to be a few Republicans who agree with what I just said. I believe there has got to be a few Republicans who believe that it is a good idea for the public to spend money on figuring out the vexing diseases that are ravaging people all over America, like ALS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. We should research these diseases. And if we need public money to do it, Mr. Speaker, we should spend that money. But I don't think this Trump budget reflects that.

I want to see my friends on the Republican side of the aisle join us and say we should not cut the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; we should not cut critical programs that help people; we should not cut supplemental assistance programs, SNAP, and food stamps for hungry Americans; we should not cut Medicaid, leaving families on the hook to pay more for the care of their loved ones with disabilities.

I don't believe they believe these cuts are right. I just think that it is going to take a lot of political courage to stand up and say: You know what? Sometimes the government does good for people--we have spent decades saying the government is the problem--and now people actually believe it sometimes, except they don't believe it when you are cutting their healthcare, basic research, cutting money for our parks, and literally cutting everything, except the military.

Oh, by the way, I am the proud father of a military son. My son is a veteran. He just finished 4 years of service in the United States Army, Mr. Speaker. He was a combat veteran. My whole family is proud of him. But I am going to tell you one thing: the money didn't go to him. He made less than $25,000 a year. He didn't mind. He is serving his country.

Where is all this Big Money going to go? Who is getting it?

I don't know. People who make the machinery, the weapons industry, they are going to make out like bandits, you better believe that.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, even the money that they are asking us to spend is going to hurt veterans. I know they are trying to plus-up a little on the VA, but there are a whole lot of other services that veterans benefit from, and they are going to get hurt.

Mr. Speaker, this Trump budget is wrong, and I believe that every Democrat knows it is wrong, and I even believe a few Republicans know that it is wrong. We should stand up and say that it is wrong.

It is wrong to slash the earned income tax credit and child tax credit by $40 billion. This is money that goes to people who actually work for a living.

I heard one of our Nation's leaders in the administration say: Oh, you are crying about these people who are going to get cut. What about the people who pay all the taxes?

Mr. Speaker, if we would raise the minimum wage, you would have more people paying taxes, because people's pay would be higher. It is no comfort to say that half the people don't pay taxes. They do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes, they pay sales taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay all kind of taxes, Mr. Speaker. It is wrong to try to imply that they are freeloaders because they don't pay income taxes. They would be glad to pay those income taxes if their income were higher, which it would be if we invested in America, which this budget does the opposite of. It divests America.

I just want to say to you as we begin to wrap up that our Nation is the greatest Nation in the world not because of bombs and guns and military. It is the greatest Nation because we believe in liberty and justice for all, and not just a millionaire's and a billionaire's liberty to pollute all they want,

escape taxes all they want, do whatever they please, without any ramifications.

Mr. Speaker, justice is also a part of that equation. Justice means doing right by people. Justice means being fair to people. This budget is the exact opposite of it. This budget leaves out people like our veterans. It cuts almost a billion dollars from housing assistance programs to keep a roof over people's heads. It cuts Social Security by $72 billion by restricting enrollment in disability insurance programs.

It hurts our national security. It spends over $2 billion to build an unnecessary border wall. Oh, this wall. Mr. Speaker, in his campaign, the wall was among the most offensive things, because what it really said is we don't really want folks from south of the border around here. That is what it said. That is how they felt. Yet here we are spending money to prove that point.

It cuts the State Department and USAID by almost 32 percent. Generals will tell you that it is better to talk it out than to shoot it out. Yet here we are cutting down our ability to talk it out. What an outrage.

It eliminates international family planning.

Let me wrap up by saying this. I was talking to some of my Republican friends--and I do have many, and I am proud to say so--and one of them said to me: Keith, this thing probably is never going to see the light of day.

I said: Maybe it will and maybe it won't. But this Trump budget is a direct reflection of what he would do if he could do it. And that is scary.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 260.

Mr. Speaker, recently, I sat down with a number of activists in Minnesota to talk about how LGBTQ folks, and especially trans people, are fighting for basic economic rights in a world that belittles, excludes, and dehumanizes them.

The transgender community is more visible than ever. Leaders like Laverne Cox, Caitlyn Jenner, and Janet Mock have become icons for the future of the LGBTQ movement. And in my hometown of Minneapolis, my dear friend Andrea Jenkins just received the democratic endorsement for City Council. She will be the first out trans person to hold office in Minnesota.

But this increased visibility hasn't improved the lives of all transgender people.

Compared to other states, Minnesota's transgender community is a lot safer and healthier. But that's not saying much. Nationwide, violence against trans people--and trans women in particular--is at an all-time high. Even in deeply progressive Minneapolis, my constituent CeCe McDonald was attacked outside a bar and imprisoned in a men's prison for 19 months for defending herself.

This sort of violence has far-reaching repercussions--high unemployment, difficulty accessing lifesaving healthcare, housing instability, and educational barriers. And we need to stop thinking of these injustices as separate from our economic lives.

To get a better understanding about how trans folks are living in the 21st century, I attended Minnesota's LGBTQ Lobby Day in April and hosted a town hall forum. I'll tell you--it's not easy. It takes a lot of courage to hold space for your truth. My friend Kye kicked off the testimony with a story about how important simply accepting people's identities are:

For many young trans people, growing up and going through elementary school, junior high, high school, and even college can be extremely difficult. And these folks don't always have the support system they need. Many talked about the deep opposition they faced from their families.

But it doesn't end there. There's difficulty finding work too. And even when trans people do find work, they can be subjected to cruel behavior from customers and even their own colleagues.

Now most American get their health insurance through their employers. But there are no protections to ensure that trans people can have the medically necessary care covered. This extends to our service members too. But there are also issues of racism and people being excluded because of their disabilities.

Listening to these very real struggles, I get upset thinking about how much time we have to spend convincing others to treat trans people as equals. It's clear we still have a lot of work to do, including in places that are seen as more tolerant to the LGBTQ community. I don't always know the right words, and I don't always get everything right when talking about this issue. And that's okay--I'm not trans. I do not have that experience. What's important is that I listen, that I hear and accept what my trans friends and colleagues are telling me. And that I do the work they ask me to do. That is how you build a movement of generosity and inclusion.

Thanks to OutFront Minnesota and the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition for their help coordinating this town hall. But more importantly, thank you to those who shared their stories.

The following are excerpts from various LGBTQ activists I recently invited to a town hall forum:

Kye Allums: I was a sophomore in High School. I was unaware

of all things transgender and had no words to describe who I

was. Constantly fighting with my mom to prove I liked who I

liked, and that I would rather wear basketball shorts instead

of a dress. I was invisible; never validated or affirmed. My

mom let it be known that she was the one who defined me. I

was her daughter; I was her girl. Until one day I went with

her to meet a friend. We walked up to his office and he asked

my mom, ``Is this your son? He's a lot taller than I

remember.'' In my mind I was like, ``Yes!'' Before my mom

could say anything, I quickly replied, ``Yup that's me. I'm

her son.'' That moment, I was seen; I was seen by somebody,

and that somebody was Congressman Keith Ellison.

Aaron Dotta: I am a co-president of the GSA at St. Paul

Academy, which is a private school in St Paul. Something I

want to point out is, because our parents have resources to

send us to a private school, we are able to be educated in a

community that supports us, and we are able to be GSA

presidents and we are able to push for things such as gender

neutral bathrooms, which we now have in our school. What we

wanted to say is, this privilege of being able to push for

equality and have our identities be recognized, should not be

limited to private schools. Students at all schools,

including public schools, should be able have their own GSAs

and their identities recognized by their administration,

teachers and peers. Also as gender queer youth, we do face a

lot of hardship when it comes to choosing colleges, when it

comes to trying to finding summer jobs. We have to think

about what names we put on our applications, and resumes.

Looking at schools where we will hopefully be able to spend

four years and get a college degree, we have to carefully

think about what places in the country and what schools will

be friendly to our identities, so that we can focus on

getting an education without having to worry about our indent

threatening our safety and our mental health.

Leo Bukovsan: Most of my college decision making was based

on where I wouldn't get kicked out of school. As a female to

male transgender person, figuring out where I could be

housed, where I could be safe, basically, and that really was

tough, making those decisions. Because I'm in a privileged

situation where I can choose where I go to college pretty

well, based on all those kinds of things, I still have to

make sure that I'm going to be safe.

Zaylore Stout: I live in St Louis Park. I'm a board member

for RECLAIM!, which provides mental health services to

transgender and gender non-conforming youth. Locally, I'm a

member of the Allies of St Louis Park, which is an advocacy

group that started right after the election, in regards to

working towards progressive issues. Today I'm

here representing as well the St Louis Park GSA group. The

focus here is a student-led initiative to try to get the St

Louis Park school board to pass a gender inclusion policy.

Now the school board has been working on this. They came up

with a draft policy that's been enhanced since October of

last year, but they stalled. They stalled because of the

Gavin Grimm case in front of the Supreme Court. They also

stalled because of the Virginia-Minnesota case, as well. Part

of the issue was that they're currently in the midst of

looking for a new super intendant, but students need

protection. There's current no policy on the books in regards

to whether the transgender and gender non-conforming students

can use whatever restroom facilities it is they need. There

is no protection for them in regards to faculty members or

staff outing them to other students, to staff members or to

the parents. There are great model policies that are out

there, but the schools locally need to be able to pass these

policies on their own. It's my understanding that the

Minnesota Department of Education, as well the district

attorney has advised the school boards to hold off, in

regards to passing these policies because of the Virginia-

Minnesota case. But the plaintiffs have pulled back in

regards to that action, so there's not holding the local

school boards in regards to passing these types of

initiatives.

Jannifer Halpaus: My child is transgender. He's a

sophomore. He came out 2 years ago, so it's been a learning

experience. And in this experience, I have encountered

multiple phone calls from the school district because my

child is trans. Because he wants to use a certain bathroom,

because he wants to use a certain locker room and he won't

use the one they tell him to. On a state level, leadership

should pass gender inclusion policies or gender affirming

policies for all the schools in Minnesota, so we can end the

problems we are having. My child is being pulled out of

classes. He's is being sat down with principals, and district

employees, such as Title IX coordinators, upper level

employees, the superintendent. As a child, I did not know my

principals; I did not know my superintendents, personally. I

think my child should have that experience if he chooses. He

should be able to attend schools as a boy, and be one of the

guys. My child has recently been hospitalized three separate

times in a psych ward. Since things were brought to the

school board's attention, he successfully joined the boy's

swim team. The staff supported him. With three swim meets

left in the season, the school board contacted the principal,

who contacted me to say, ``Your son cannot change in that

locker room anymore.'' Three hours later they rescinded that,

but then instead of being allowed to take phy-ed like his

peers, he was told, ``We will give you a phy-ed credit for

having participated in the swim team, in lieu of you not

being in these locker rooms.'' My child is female to male

transgender, and many times when groups speak, they are not

speaking about my child. They are speaking about male to

female transgender. My child has problems with self-harm,

suicide ideation, high level of anxiety, and addiction. And I

can't believe that none of these has been part of why.

Dave Edwards: I am a board member at Transforming Families

Minnesota it's a peer group and community organization that

supports families with gender diverse youth. I appreciate you

being here today and focusing on future outcomes for trans

people, because that's where my daughter will be not that

long from now. I love the focus on the future; I think that

always has to include our youth's experiences in public

schools. We can't expect our landlords to rent to a trans

person when they watch their high school principal tell a

trans student where they can and can't use the restroom. We

can't expect managers make hiring decisions equitable if they

have watched their teachers minimize or diminish the

discrimination that their trans classmates faced. I'm glad we

brought up the gender inclusion policy; I worked with

Minnesota Department of Education create the Model Policy. It

has been completed and sitting since October and needs to

come out and be available to schools before the 2017-2018

school year.

Danny Roman: A lot of the times people don't realize it but

home life isn't very good either, along with school. It's

kind of hard for me, I suppose, because I don't get all the

support, but I get the support from friends and stuff and the

school does supports me.

Dasia Timmerman: Growing up is really hard in this state. I

came from the Montevideo, Fairmount, and Morris area, finally

the Twin Cities, Bloomington, and Eden Prairie. I didn't get

to come out. I tried in 1996; I couldn't find services and I

was with a really belittling family, and I eventually

disowned my dad because of all his hate. He would get red in

the face, and looked like he was going to get violent.

Kaylee Jakubowski: It took me three years to come out to

myself because it was terrifying. Once I finally did, soon

after coming out to my parents, they told me (their exact

words): not in this house. So, I was not allowed to come

home. I got abandoned from all the financial stability that

they offered. And I was kind of set out to figure it out

myself there on out. I was going to university at Winona

State at that time, and being very financial responsible, as

I thought I was, I took out just enough money so that I can

survive from beginning of fall semester to end of spring

semester. What I didn't foresee was losing the financial

stability for the summer. I had no other option but to take

out a credit card in order to feed myself. I maxed out the

credit card, fifteen hundred dollars throughout the summer,

to survive. I took out even more loans to go back to school.

Funny thing about signing up for student loans with your

parents as co-signers is that once you have to pay them back,

they assume that you're still under your parents' budget. So

when they're making $80,000 a year, I have to pay my loans as

if I'm making $80,000 a year. When in reality, after taxes,

I'm making 18 to 19 thousand dollars a year. That is very

difficult. Turns out to be six to eight hundred dollars a

month, depending on whether or not I want to skip one.

Getting through the day, day to day, is an incredible

challenge.

Hayes McRoy: One of my groups I go to, a LGBTQ group, is

losing some of its funding. It is a free group, but they

supply snacks and activities. One time, there's a trans girl

there who doesn't have any clothes because her family doesn't

support her. And we went out, we got her some clothes so she

can feel more comfortable. And a great resource like that is

currently losing funding, and along with that there also

homeless shelter for LGBT youth, which will take up 20-40

percent of homeless population, is also losing some funding.

And that just seems very wrong to me.

Dasia: At first I got some part time jobs. I wasn't paid

for three weeks because they had a problem with my preferred

name versus my legal name. I've since changed my legal name,

all my documents, but I'm starting my own business to escape

transphobia. I am house cleaner and I am good at it. It's

awesome.

Kaylee: I tried to get a job [after my parents cut me off],

but that posed to be another difficult challenge. There's

nothing I can do legally about the hiring discrimination that

I faced. Because the evidence is seeing the hiring

professional come out with all this little books, looking

over the papers as he was going to ask me questions about [my

application]. Looking up and seeing who I am, and then losing

all that energy and giving me half of an interview because he

didn't want to. There's nothing I can prove there, but it's

everything that I feel to know that I was not allowed to get

a job in that establishment. I went back to school at this

time. Tried to get a job on top of school and ended up

working at McDonalds because they're very easy to get a job

with. I worked there for seven months until it culminated on

me that all the bullying I was getting from co-workers and

customers was too taxing on my mental health. The entire last

week that I worked at McDonalds, I remember just crying in

the washroom because there nothing else to do. This is not a

way that anyone deserves to make money. To make $7.25 an hour

to try to feed themselves.

Zaylore: As a labor and employment law attorney, I still

see discrimination cases and handle discrimination cases from

individuals within the LGBTQ community. Whether it's

employers not providing reasonable accommodations to

individuals who are HIV positive, or terminating employees

once they find they are HIV positive, or outing transgender

employees at their facilities. And when they report to HR,

they end up getting retaliated against in regards to that. So

this is still an issue, even though we have laws on book

protecting individual. We still need the support from our

local officials regards to making this type of things get

addressed and taken care of.

Emily Ott: My specific concern is the First Amendment

Defense Act and the similar bills that are popping up around

the United States, one of which is here in Minnesota. I feel

that these bills set a dangerous precedent. These bills will

allow blatant and open discrimination against members of our

community based solely on individuals saying, ``I have a

religious objection to who you are,'' or to how you live your

life, or who you love. I cannot think of anything more

potentially damaging to the concept of American liberty and

freedom and justice for all people than these bills. It sets

a dangerous precedent for future minority groups that might

also run afoul. For example, what about Wiccan people? Do I

throw them out of my business because I don't agree with

their philosophies and their religious beliefs, and they're

objectionable to me? Do I refuse service as a medical

provider to somebody because, ``I'm sorry but I can't treat

your child you're a lesbian couple and I don't agree with

your lifestyle''? These things are happening already, and I

fear what this does and what it can do to the United States

of America and to its people if these bills are allowed to

become law.

Dasia: We're facing insurance things in this state that

would prevent me from my HRT, which I have been on for seven

months. It's good insurance, Minnesota state insurance. She

works for MNSCU, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities.

It's awesome insurance. Apparently it's not going to be soon.

Dave: I am an employee of the University of Minnesota. I

work in the Educational Psychology department. I have great

health insurance. Last year my daughter was lucky enough,

after being on the waiting list for over a year at the Center

for Sexual Health, to finally get in. The second they ran my

insurance, they wanted to let me know that there was a

categorical exclusion for any kind of medical intervention.

While that is many years down the road, that's something

we need to fix. If the University of Minnesota can't provide

coverage for the services they offer as an institution to

their employees, something's wrong. The Center for Sexual

Health is leading in the Midwest as the expert location for

affirming Trans care; all the service that they either

provide or refer to should be covered by our insurance.

Kaylee: I fought very hard to get HRT programs in Winona

because, before I petitioned Semcac, which is essentially our

Planned Parenthood, about getting hormone procedures in their

office, we would either have to go up to Rochester, an hour

away, or down to Lacrosse, out of state and forty minutes

away. So I tried to get those local and I succeeded. And now,

I get to pay about $80 a month for hormones, which is not

doable for me. Right now, I take about half the recommended

dosage. I skip days; I skip weeks at a time because I don't

have the money to take care of myself because all the things

I've had to sacrifice financially have culminated on top of

another and stacked. Now, it's difficult. Even getting here

was challenging. I've counted every penny that every bus has

required of me. $50 for round trip train ticket to here.

$2.25 for the bus here, but I had to pay $3 because I didn't

have any quarters. Bottled of water cost $1.25. I'm counting

all this in my head; keeping it on track so I don't go

negative before my next paycheck. HRT is described as very

big challenge I can't do.

Nicole Vanderheiden: I am a queer trans woman. As a direct

result of my trans status, I have experienced family

rejection, homelessness, hunger, and sexual assault,

discrimination in education, employment, and health care. I

am going to talk about my experience as a veteran in the U.S.

Forces. Like many other trans folk who serve in the military

at a proportion twice that of the general population, I

served honorably in the U.S. Air force. I get my treatment

solely from the Department of Veteran Affairs, which

currently operates under blanket exclusion for transgender

surgical care. It is unconscionable that in 2017 we have a

federal agency that is not only failing to prohibit

discrimination, but also operating under policies that

prescribe discrimination. I really want to ask you to take

action to end those polices, and to prevent our federal

agencies from discriminating against trans folks.

Luci Peterson: I am transgender, male-to-female, I am

autistic, Jewish, and just recently was hired as a para-

educator with a great company. The real reason I want to

share and testify, whenever it comes to the LGBT community in

conversation, wherever I go, I experience what I consider a

gap in the conversation. That gap is around disabilities. The

one I can specifically speak about is autism. I volunteer a

lot with Autism Society of Minnesota, Awesome.org, and AUSM.

I just think that it is very dangerous for those people out

there, because there is a lot of nonverbal autistic people

and then people of all types of disabilities that, depending

on where they are living or what their current situation is,

they may not have the freedom that able-bodied people do to

speak for themselves. We're trying to get a mentorship

program going for autistic adults like me to mentor younger

autistic people, and I'd like to see more programs like that

in the LGBT community, where no matter what your other

identities are that LGBT adults could come along LGBT youth.

Showing them how they have coped and managed to live a

healthy and successful life.

Roxanne Anderson: I want to talk a little bit about where I

work and spend time at 3405 Chicago, The Minnesota

Transgender Health Organization and Coalition. We're formed

by and for transgender folks. We're the only transgender led

by-and-for 501(c)3 nonprofit in Minnesota. We do a lot of

work, and we've been doing that work since 2007. We offer

services that are inclusive, and serve about 165 Trans and

gender non-conforming folk throughout the week. We do six

support groups. Our shot clinic serves over 40 people in the

six hours that we are open during the week. We spend a lot of

time working with Dave [Edwards], and others with the

Minnesota Department of Education to be gender-inclusive in

schools, and to insure that trans and gender non-conforming

can mark their identities on the student survey, something we

need to make sure we keep in place in Minnesota. We do harm

reduction through syringe exchange; we have food selves,

clothe shelves, gender gear. We do shot assistance, and we do

that all through the support of volunteers. We do that all

under a budget under $30,000 a year. That sounds awesome, and

it is not sustainable. It means that everybody that gives

their time, and energy, and effort to MTHC does so without

pay. We are located at 3405 Chicago which also houses Cafe

Southside, which employs at about 80-85 percent trans and

non-gender conforming folk. I don't know if there is any

other place in the whole state that can say that the majority

of the people that they employ are trans. It also houses Rare

Productions, which is an art and entertainment for LGBT folk

of color. The reason I am mentioning this is because like

lots of folks have said, we're in jeopardy. We don't have a

lot of funding, and we don't get a lot of support from

foundations or big business. I think to the point of

economics it's really important to know that those

organizations that are specially supporting trans folk, and

figuring out how to support them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Reverend Peg Chemberlin, for her many years of public service to the citizens of the Fifth Congressional District, the Minnesota Council of Churches (MCC), and to the great state of Minnesota.

As the leader of the MCC since 1995, Reverend Chemberlin has led the organization into one of the premier state councils of churches in the nation. The Rt. Rev. James L. Jelinek, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota, described Reverend Chemberlin as, ``both a professional and a volunteer, with the gift of leadership and inspiration.'' During her time leading the MCC, the membership has grown by over 30 percent, half from historic Black Churches.

She has been a key voice against religious bigotry, working hard to unite interfaith communities, foster interfaith solidarity, and to uphold the constitutional right to religious freedom without the fear of violence. Following the attacks of 9/11, she organized a diverse group of faith leaders for a massive gathering at the Minnesota State Capitol. She also aided in organizing a broad group of religious leaders, including Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus,

and more to pray after the 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

Reverend Chemberlin also had the honor of being the 25th President of the National Council of Churches from 2009 to 2011. She was the first Minnesotan and the fourth woman to hold that position. The NCC has been a leading force in increasing collaboration among various Christian groups throughout the United States.

Reverend Chemberlin has also been the recipient of numerous awards, including former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson's Woman of Excellence award in 1994, the NOVA (Non-Violent Alternatives) Peace and Justice Award presented by St. Cloud State University, and Angel of Reconciliation award from Unity Baptist Church.

After 21 years, Rev. Peg Chemberlin has chosen to retire. Twenty-one years of mobilizing faith communities to engage in civic matters, strengthening ties within different religious denominations, and emphasizing the importance of welcoming refugees to our nation. Through her accomplishments, she has excelled in bringing to life MCC's mission to manifest unity in the church and to build the common good in the world.

I commend Rev. Peg Chemberlin, and all she has done for the state of Minnesota. I want to thank her for her dedication and service in creating interfaith connections and a safe atmosphere for people of all faith communities.

Mr. Speaker, today we consider another bill requested by large corporations. But, I have to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the Securities and Exchange Commission rules--Section 701 to be precise--the priority for this week?

We've been here for three months now. House Republicans set the agenda. They lead this governing body. Why do they keep bringing us bills that are the priorities of corporate

America? In the past few months, Congressional Republicans, who decide which bills get considered have brought forward a hodgepodge of corporate requests.

Here are some of the bills that are now law:

1) Republicans passed--and the President signed--a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations--like wage theft--before winning government contracts (H.J. Res. 37).

2) Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation (H.J. Res 42).

3) House and Senate Republicans--and the President signed--H.J. Res. 86 which allow Internet Services Providers to sell your browser history.

4) Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams (H.J. Res. 38).

5) Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption. H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments. This is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations.

6) And, a law preventing state governments from setting up retirement plans for residents who do not have a work-based plan (H.J. Res 66).

So, in the three months we've been back, these laws, removing competition, disclosure, and consumer privacy, are the priorities of Republicans who set the agenda. These are all asks of corporate America--

1) don't punish us for polluting streams,

2) let us sell your internet browser history,

3) let us make money drug testing laid off workers receiving unemployment due them and do not make us disclose our payments to foreign governments when we drill for oil or minerals.

When I talk to my constituents, they don't ask for any of these. They say, ``Where's the jobs bill?'' My constituents say, can't we raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour? They say, our roads and bridges need work. Let's raise the gas tax a bit and invest in infrastructure. They say, we want to increase our skills; let's invest in pre-school, Pell grants and community colleges.

Let's put people, not corporate wish lists-- first.

But, nope, today we are asked to vote on a bill that makes it easier for private companies to provide options--like stocks--rather than compensation to their employees.

This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to their employees without disclosing financial information to them. While I'm glad to see companies reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive. Not some IOU that they cannot cash in any time soon.

With this bill, H.R. 1343, it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised, or even, completely worthless. So, employees could decide to forego a salary increase--or accept lower pay--in order to receive more stock options, yet, those stock options could be worth way less than expected. And the market to sell them could be non-existent.

Why should employees receive less information than that of any other minority shareholder? Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision about whether to invest in securities.

If an employee is trusted enough to run the day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the company's financials. It's not difficult to allow participating employees to sign non-disclosure agreements. It can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm. These companies prepared these types of disclosures to receive the Rule 701 Exemption from the SEC in the first place.

I'm also concerned about the mismatch in power between the corporations and their employees. I am very concerned that employees can be more susceptible to pressure to take options instead of salary increases. For example, we could ask George Maddox. George was one of the 21,000 people who worked at ENRON. After working at ENRON for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock. It was valued at $1.3 million. Then ENRON collapsed, and he had literally nothing. All his retirement was in ENRON stocks.

If you haven't watched the movies ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room recently, I'd urge you watch it again. You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name. One image has consistently stuck with me. A staff rally where leadership extolled the virtues of the firm. Leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy ENRON stock even as the leaders knew it was worthless. In fact, corporate leaders had already their stock. Yet, they were urging employees to buy!

ENRON had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring the new employees to buy ENRON stock to keep the stock price inflated. And since ENRON usually fired 10 percent of workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show a commitment to the firm.

I don't think the supporters of this bill are doing this for nefarious reasons. I'm sure they find my reference to ENRON hyperbolic. They might also say that it's irrelevant since ENRON was a public company and we are talking about private companies.

So, let's talk about Palantir Technonologies. This $20 billion company convinced top-tier engineers to accept below-market salaries by promising them generous stock options. But some employees who accepted this bargain, hoping to make money on selling their shares, cannot sell them. The only buyer of their stocks is Palantir Technologies themselves--or a buyer approved by Palantir Technologies.

Palantir is not a small firm. Palantir is the third biggest American tech startup, behind only Uber and AIRbnb. It was also founded in 2004, which makes Palantir as old as Facebook. Which is a long time to wait to cash in your options.

Pushing employees to own more of employer's stock exposes workers, like George Maddox, to put all their retirement eggs in one basket-- what we call ``concentration risk.''

I just can't support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors. I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forego cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option. We should not make it easier for employers to pressure workers to choose options over salary without adequate disclosures.

I ask this Congress to stop doing the bidding of corporate America until we address the priorities of American families and workers. We should increase wages and access to affordable housing, provide clean air and clean water, and protect our privacy

Vote no on H.R. 1343.

I would like to include in the Record an article from BuzzFeed News regarding ex-Palantir employees struggling to sell their shares:

[From BuzzFeed News, Oct. 28, 2016]

Ex-Palantir Employees are Struggling To Sell Their Shares

``Demand has evaporated'' for the shares that make up the

bulk of Palantir's pay packages, and the company's CEO seems

aware of financial angst among his staff.

Former employees of one of Silicon Valley's most valuable

startups are struggling to cash out of the stock options that

formed a major part of their pay packages.

As it grew into a $20 billion company, Palantir

Technologies convinced top-tier engineers to accept salaries

considered meager by Silicon Valley standards, pairing the

relatively low wages with generous stock option grants. But

some former employees who accepted this bargain, banking on a

future windfall, are now complaining that the market for

their stock has gone ``completely dead.''

The complaints add to pressure on Palantir CEO Alex Karp,

who has long contended that the company would avoid the

public markets. This week, Karp acknowledged publicly that he

was ``positioning'' Palantir for an initial public offering,

as part of efforts to reward cash-starved employees.

This reversal didn't come out of the blue. A chorus of

complaints has arisen in a private Facebook group for

Palantir alumni, with many former employees expressing

concern and regret over their inability to sell their shares.

In September and October, two former employees promoted

possible opportunities to join together to sell a block of

shares, including an unsuccessful attempt to organize a sale

in China.

Numerous other former employees shared personal stories:

Some said they needed the cash to buy a house or pay down

debt, while another said they took out a loan to fund the

process of turning the options into shares. One said it was

``infuriating'' trying to sell their shares in a ``crap''

market.

Compared with last year, when the stock was highly sought

after, demand among big investors for Palantir shares has

recently gone cold, two brokers who specialize in startup

shares told BuzzFeed News.

This chill reveals more about the fickle and sometimes

inscrutable nature of markets for startup stock than it does

about the business health of Palantir,'' which makes money by

analyzing data for government and corporate clients But it

has stirred frustration among current and former employees.

A complaint about Palantir's below-market compensation was

the most upvoted question in an internal question-and-answer

session in the first part of this year, with 259 votes from

employees, an internal document reviewed by BuzzFeed News

shows. ``Our cash compensation + bonuses are below the market

for tech and our equity growth has slown significantly,'' the

question, posed anonymously by an employee, said. ``The total

comp is not competitive; even more so due to the

illiquidity.'' The questioner continued, ``Are we planning to

change our compensation model?''

Palantir did move to address such concerns in April,

announcing it would raise salaries for many employees by 20%

and offer to buy back a portion of employee shares.

But on Wednesday, Oct. 26, in another move that seemed

aimed at placating employees and investors, Karp gave the

strongest indication yet that an IPO could be on the

horizon--though it is hardly a certainty. ``We're now

positioning the company so we could go public,'' he said from

the stage of a tech conference hosted by the Wall Street

Journal in Laguna Beach, California. ``I'm not saying we will

go public, but it's a possibility.''

An IPO would provide a payday to major investors, including

Palantir co-founder and chairman Peter Thiel. ``Of course I

want my investors to be happy,'' Karp said, ``but the primary

people I care about are the wide-eyed people at Palantir who

are working day and night.''

A Palantir spokesperson declined to comment.

With a $20 billion valuation, Palantir is the third biggest

American tech startup, behind only Uber and Airbnb. It is

also by far the oldest of that elite group, meaning its

workers have waited a long time for their stock-option

payday. Founded in 2004, Palantir is as old as Facebook--

which went public in 2012. In tech years, it is a generation

older than Airbnb, founded in 2008, and Uber, which was

founded in 2009. The much younger Snapchat, which was founded

in 2011, is reportedly laying plans for an IPO early next

year that could cause its valuation to leapfrog Palantir's.

Stock options have long been central to compensation at

Palantir. A 2015 template for a Palantir offer letter gave

new hires the ability to choose among three different pay

packages, with lower cash salaries corresponding to higher

amounts of stock options. ``It is our hope and belief that

these options will ultimately constitute the bulk of your

overall compensation,'' says this internal Palantir document,

which was reviewed by BuzzFeed News.

To illustrate the potential value of the options, the offer

letter template invites new hires to imagine a scenario in

which Palantir's valuation were to grow to $50 billion, or

$100 billion--or even $200 billion. ``Although the values in

the table below are hypothetical and inherently uncertain, we

want to emphasize our belief in Palantir's potential to

become a $100 billion company,'' the letter says. .

While it waits for this dream to materialize, the company

has sought to ease financial angst among its employees. It

held a ``liquidity event'' this year that gave current and

former employees an opportunity to sell a fraction of their

shares. But Palantir also indicated it wanted to curb share

sales done outside of its official channels, warning that

selling to outsiders could make staff ineligible for future

liquidity events.

That outside market hasn't exactly been humming with deal

activity anyway. Trading in private company shares is opaque

and fragmented, and data is hard to come by. But the two

brokers who spoke with BuzzFeed News said Palantir's prolific

fundraising--the company has raised more than $2.5 billion in

capital, according to data provider PitchBook--may have

dampened investor appetite. A number of big investors who

would want a piece of Palantir already have one, they said.

In May, BuzzFeed News revealed some of the setbacks

Palantir has experienced as it seeks to expand beyond its

roots as a government contractor and woo major corporations.

The article, based on internal documents and insider

interviews, reported that Palantir had lost some blue-chip

corporate clients, was struggling to stem staff departures,

and had recorded revenue that was a fraction of its customer

bookings.

At the conference Wednesday, Karp was asked about those

customer losses, which included Coca-Cola, American Express,

and Nasdaq. ``We date heavily before we marry,'' he answered.

Even before the article was published, members of the

private Facebook group for Palantir alumni voiced concern

about selling their shares in the so-called secondary market.

BuzzFeed News is withholding the names of former employees to

protect their privacy.

``Any 2nd market shares going on right now? My broker

disappeared,'' one former employee posted in April.

``There are still periodic deals happening,'' another

replied. ``One that I know of right now, but it's full

already.''

``Yeah, the demand has evaporated,'' another said.

More recently, however, some of the posts took on an urgent

tone, as sales appeared to grow scarcer. Options are

contracts to buy shares at a certain price; to use them, the

owner must pay this price in addition to applicable taxes--

which can amount to a large bill. What's more, options expire

at a certain point if they're not used, adding time pressure

to the equation.

In the public market, owners of options can easily sell a

portion of their holdings to cover the tax bill and the

exercise price. But this strategy is much trickier in the

private market, and there was some debate in the Facebook

group over whether Polar would even allow it.

In September, one former employee asked the group whether

anyone was ``coming up on their 3-year expiration,''

soliciting advice on ``approaches people are taking given the

less-than-stellar private market.''

Among the replies, one former employee reported taking out

``a personal loan to meet my exercise deadline.''

Another wrote: ``I'm in the same boat: 3 years coming up in

April, market is crap, and I probably don't have the

resources available for a loan. The fact that it's so

difficult to sell is infuriating and I'm wishing that I'd

taken the `high' salary option (which TBH wasn't that high to

begin with).''

``On the same boat,'' wrote another. ``Hoping to buy a

house next year and really couldn't wrap my head around

throwing so much money in addition to the stress and work

needed to process.''

The former employee who started that thread apparently

didn't receive much solace. In response to a later post,

which asked whether there were ``any secondary market sales

brewing,'' this former employee wrote, ``Sorry to be the

bearer of bad news, but the market is completely dead at the

moment.''

This person then quoted an unidentified broker as saying,

``There is absolutely nothing moving in Palantir. People who

have bought through us are trying to sell now. I don't see it

changing without the company changing their tone on an IPO.''

Others in the thread shared snippets of information they

said they had heard from brokers. According to one, a broker

``told me that there are a few `price insensitive' sellers

satisfying what little demand exists.''

Another former employee wrote: ``I'm interested in joining

any sales going down too, I've got a year to pay off a hefty

debt with the proceeds.'' The person added a neutral face

emoji.

With buyers scarce, one former employee tried looking

across the Pacific.

``I spoke to someone that brokers sales in China, they said

they might be willing to get something together if there's

enough of us,'' they wrote above a link to a Google Doc that

asked others to report information about their holdings

One of the repliers questioned whether this process would

actually turn into a sale--potential investors might just be

``fishing for information on prices''--and another cautioned

the original poster against ``acting as an agent for a group

of sellers.'' (The poster said the query was ``just intended

as an interest check.'')

In the end, none of that mattered. ``Not likely to go

anywhere in the next couple of months,'' the former employee

who posted the opportunity wrote later. ``Sorry if I got

anyone's hopes up.''

Early this month, another member of the group posted about

an opportunity to sell options through EquityZen, a startup

that arranges small transactions of private company shares.

This former employee advised others to contact the EquityZen

CEO, providing the CEO's email address. But less than 12

hours later, another former employee replied to say that the

deal ``has been already submitted,'' meaning the opportunity

had passed.

``Dang,'' another member wrote.

Discussions in the group about news related to Palantir

often come back to a familiar theme. In September, for

example, the Department of Labor accused Palantir of

discriminating against Asian job applicants, a claim Palantir

later rejected as ``flawed and illogical.'' In a thread

discussing the allegations, one former employee found a

financial angle.

``I sure hope this isn't an expensive lawsuit for them to

defend,'' this person wrote. ``I don't claim to understand

how the legal system works in cases like this, but geeeeez

this doesn't bode well for any of us looking for liquidity at

a fair price over anytime soon.''

Mr. Speaker, the value of companies doesn't always go up. It is not true that the stock market always goes up and only goes up. It would be nice if Methuselahs at Google and every other company in America could get stock options and end up millionaires, but the truth is the world doesn't work that way. That is why disclosure is very important. That is why there is nothing wrong and no one objects to employees being compensated with stock options, but those employees ought to at least know the value of those stock options.

If you give me a check and it has a monetary value, I can read it and I know how much it is. If you give me stock options and you don't tell me because you don't have to disclose how much they are worth, then that is not fair, and that is what we object to.

This bill simply allows companies to avoid disclosure to employees of what those stock options are worth. That is wrong, and that is why we oppose it.

Let me just start in terms of the context, Mr. Speaker. Today we consider yet another bill in favor of the moneyed interests. Today we consider another bill that basically helps out people who have a lot while so many Americans are struggling to get by and problems abound almost everywhere.

I have got to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the SEC's rule--section 701, to be precise--the priority for this week?

We have been here for about 3 months now. The Republicans have set

the agenda. They are in the majority. They get to decide which bills come up. Why do they keep on bringing up bills that only the moneyed interests want?

Mr. Speaker, in the past few months, congressional Republicans--I almost called them corporate Republicans--who decide which bills are the priority, have brought forth a hodgepodge of pieces of legislation. I will just review a few.

Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation.

Do you think the unemployed want that?

I doubt it.

Republicans have passed and the President even signed a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations like wage theft before winning government contracts. I have got a feeling the employees were not calling for that.

House and Senate Republicans passed laws that allow internet service providers to sell your browser history. I don't think most folks on the internet today were clamoring for that gem, which I was proud to vote ``no'' on.

Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams.

Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption.

H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments, which is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation comes within a certain kind of context--a context where we are not talking about increase in pay, making people safer, making water cleaner, making foreign governments more honest. It is quite the opposite.

In the 3 months that we have been back in Congress, these laws removing competition, removing disclosure, and removing consumer privacy are all priorities of Republicans, who set the agenda.

Mr. Speaker, people who might be clued into this broadcast today need to know what the majority has been up to. It has not been up to business.

These are all multinational corporate interests that don't punish people for polluting, allow them to sell your internet browser's history, allow them to make money off of testing laid-off workers receiving employment compensation that is due them, and don't make corporate interests disclose payments to foreign governments when they drill for oil and minerals.

I just want the American people and Members to understand what is going on here, what is the larger context of this piece of legislation that we look at today.

When I talk to my constituents, they don't bring up any of this stuff. Mr. Speaker, they want to know: Where is the jobs bill? When are we going to get back to work? Somebody said we were going to work on real infrastructure, real fair trade. When is that going to happen?

Well, the people who are in charge around here, I guess they are going to get around to it at some point.

My constituents say: Can't we raise the minimum wage from something higher than $7.25 an hour, which is the Federal minimum wage? When is that bill coming up? Or, what about reconstructing our roads and our bridges and allowing us to raise a gas tax to invest in our Nation's infrastructure?

They say they want to increase skills. Let's invest in preschool, Pell grants, and community college. Let's put the people, not the corporate wish list, first.

Today we are asked to vote on a bill that basically makes it easier for private companies to provide options, like stocks, rather than compensation to their employees. As I have said, fundamentally, this may not be a bad thing if disclosure is made. This bill makes it not required. This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to employees without disclosing financial information to them.

While I am glad to see employers reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive. I don't think that is asking too much, Mr. Speaker.

With this bill, H.R. 1343, it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised or even completely worthless.

Employees could decide to forego a salary increase and accept lower pay in order to receive more stock options; yet, those stock options could be worth way less than they expected.

Why should employees receive less information than any other minority shareholder?

If an employee is trusted enough to run day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the stock. Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision.

It is not difficult to allow participating employees to sign nondisclosure agreements, and it can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm. These firms prepare these types of disclosures to receive rule 701 exemption from the SEC in the first place.

So I am also concerned about the mismatch of power between corporations and their employees, and I am very concerned that employees can be susceptible to pressure. Let me do a quick example.

George Maddox was one of 21,000 people who worked for Enron. After working at Enron for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock valued at $1.3 million. When Enron collapsed, he had literally nothing, Mr. Speaker. All of his retirement was Enron stocks. If you haven't watched the movie ``Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room'' recently, I would urge you to watch it again. You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name.

One image consistently stuck with me: a staff rally where leaders extolled the virtues of the firm. Just as we heard on the other side of the aisle a moment ago, leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy Enron stock, even as leaders knew it was worthless. In fact, corporate leaders had already sold their stock while urging employees to buy. Enron had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring new employees to buy Enron stock to keep the stock price inflated. Since Enron usually fired 10 percent of the workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show commitment to the firm.

I can't just support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors. I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forgo cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option. It is not right.

Mr. Speaker, I see you reaching for the gavel. I will include the rest of my comments in the Record. I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular piece of legislation until it allows for disclosures.

Today we consider another bill requested by corporations.

But, I got to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the Securities and Exchange Commission rules--Section 701 to be precise--the priority for this week?

We've been here for three months now.

House Republicans set the agenda.

They lead this governing body.

Why do they keep bringing us bills that corporate America wants?

In the past few months, Congressional Republicans, who decide which bills are priorities have brought forward a hodgepodge of corporate requests.

Here are some of the bills that are now law.

Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation (H.J. Res. 42).

Republicans passed--and the President signed--a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations--like wage theft--before winning government contracts (H.J. Res. 37).

House and Senate Republicans passed laws that allow internet services providers to sell your browser history.

Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams (H.J. Res. 38).

Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption.

H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments.

Which is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations.

And, a law preventing State governments from setting up retirement plans for residents who do not have a work-based plan.

So, in the three months we've been back, these laws--removing competition, disclosure, and consumer privacy--are the priorities of Republicans who set the agenda.

These are all asks of corporate America--don't punish us for polluting streams; let us sell your internet browser history; let us make money drug testing laid off workers receiving unemployment due them, and; don't make us disclose our payments to foreign governments when we drill for oil or minerals.

When I talk to my constituents, they don't ask for any of these.

They say, ``Where's the jobs bill?''

My constituents say, can't we raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour?

They say, our roads and bridges need work. Let's raise the gas tax a skoch and invest in infrastructure?

They say, we want to increase our skills; let's invest in pre-school, Pell grants and community colleges.

Let's put people, not corporate wish lists--first.

But, nope, today we are asked to vote on a bill that makes it easier for private companies to provide options--like stocks--rather than compensation to their employees.

This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to their employees without disclosing financial information to them.

While I'm glad to see companies reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive.

With this bill--H.R. 1343--it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised, or even, completely worthless.

So, employees could decide to forego a salary increase--or accept lower pay--in order to receive more stock options, yet, those stock options could be worth way less than expected.

Why should employees receive less information than that of any other minority shareholder?

If an employee is trusted enough to run the day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the stock.

Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision.

It's not difficult to allow participating employees to sign non- disclosure agreements.

And it can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm.

Because these companies prepared these types of disclosures to receive the Rule 701 exemption from the SEC in the first place.

I'm also concerned about the mismatch in power between the corporations and their employees.

I am very concerned that employees can be more susceptible to pressure to take options instead of salary increases.

For example, we could ask George Maddox.

George was one of the 21,000 people who worked at ENRON.

After working at ENRON for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock. It was valued at $1.3 million.

Then ENRON collapsed, and he had literally nothing.

All his retirement was in ENRON stocks.

If you haven't watched the movie ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room recently, I'd urge you to watch it again.

You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name.

One image has consistently stuck with me.

A staff rally where leadership extolled the virtues of the firm.

Leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy ENRON stock even as the leaders knew it was worthless.

In fact, corporate leaders had already sold their stock while urging employees to buy.

ENRON had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring the new employees to buy ENRON stock to keep the stock price inflated.

And since ENRON usually fired 10% of workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show a commitment to the firm.

I just can't support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors.

I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forego cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option.

I don't think the supporters of this bill are doing this for nefarious reasons.

I'm sure they find my reference to Enron hyperbolic.

They might also say that it's irrelevant since Enron was a public company and we are talking about private companies.

So, let's talk about Palantir Technologies.

This $20 billion company convinced top-tier engineers to accept below-market salaries by promising them generous stock options.

But some employees who accepted this bargain, hoping to make money on selling their shares, cannot sell them.

The only buyer of their stocks is Palantir Technologies themselves-- or a buyer approved by Palantir Technologies.

Palantir is not a small firm.

Palantir is the third biggest American tech startup, behind only Uber and AIR B-N-B.

It was also founded in 2004, which makes Palantir as old as Facebook--which is a long time to wait to cash in your options.

Pushing employees to own more of employer's stock exposes workers-- like George Maddox--to put all their retirement eggs in one basket-- what we call ``concentration risk.''

I ask this Congress to stop doing the bidding of corporate America until we address the priorities of American families and workers.

We should increase wages and access to affordable housing, provide clean air and clean water, and protect our privacy.

We should not make it easier for employers to pressure workers to choose options over salary without adequate disclosures. Vote no on

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition, Minnesota's largest organization led by and for the trans community.

In 2002, concerned community members began to organize around the difficulties they and other trans people face in finding accessible, culturally competent healthcare. Organizers began hosting meetings and events as part of the University of Minnesota's GLBTA Programs Office and the Schochet Center for GLBT Studies. After years of activity, the group incorporated on March 30, 2007 to become a trans-led health service and rights organization, founded on their principles of racial, social and economic justice.

MTHC is a unique organization. In addition to organizing for trans- inclusive public policies, they provide direct medical and psychological support for hundreds of people from all over the Midwest. Through their Shot Caller program, MTHC ensures that trans folks, people with diabetes, and anyone else prescribed shots can get free help taking them in a safe, supportive space. They run a successful harm reduction program that includes syringe exchange, safe sex materials, and more. With a Community Innovation grant from the Headwaters Foundation for Justice, MTHC expanded three youth-oriented programs called Gender Jam, Little Rainbows and GR8. Since November 2016, their longest-running support groups have been pushed to capacity, reflecting both the success and great need for their programs. MTHC's reach also extends far beyond the LGBTQ community; in fact, dozens of people that MTHC helps regularly do not identify as LGBTQ. In this way, they have become a true center of community health in our state.

Through their advocacy, MTHC has worked with the City of Minneapolis, the Minnesota Department of Education, and many other public groups. They've advocated for stronger inclusion for and protection of trans youth in schools, effective policies to address bullying, access to life-saving transition healthcare, and more. Due to their tremendous leadership in the Twin Cities and around the Midwest, MTHC was named a Community Champion of Pride for the 2016 Twin Cities Pride festival.

During my time in Congress, I have been guided by generosity, inclusion, and justice for all. Organizations like the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition represent the best of these values. We know that if we don't fight for all aspects of racial, social, and economic justice, we won't have any of them. I am honored to represent the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition in Congress, and I can't wait to see what they accomplish in the next decade of leadership.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 204 on H. Res. 233, the rule for H.R. 1431, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I should have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I do quite agree with what Mr. Capuano just shared, but I will say this: for anybody listening to this broadcast today, this is a classic fight of the big money against the many. The big money, they say that they want even more money, so they want to be able to dig into your private information so that they can figure out when you get up, when you go to bed, what you looked up, and then write ads just so they could try to sell you more stuff.

And as disgusting as that is, you can see easily how that is not the end of it. What if you have somebody who has something really sensitive that they just want a little bit more information about, that is not of a nature where it is saleable, but it is just their business? Well, somebody else is going to know now. And they may well be able to monetize it, gather it, and distribute it.

It is outrageous what the majority is doing today, and I can't possibly believe that it is conservative, that it is small government. I can't believe that they believe that this is what a government in restraint should do. The government should be protecting our rights, protecting our privacy. Small government means that the individual ought to be protected from the big powers out there, like the corporate interests, yet the majority is handing us over to them at this very hour.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the majority to vote against this. I can't believe that a person who is a constitutional conservative would ever vote for a monstrosity like this. It is beyond my comprehension that a conservative libertarian would say: oh, yeah, give the individuals' information over to the big commercial interests. This is one of those moments.

The majority, you guys have the House, you have the Senate, and you have the White House. The only restraint you have is yourselves. And I know there has got to be somebody in that body who believes that Comcast, Sprint, and all of the rest should not have anybody's underwear size in this body.

It is an outrage. It is an abuse, and I urge a very emphatic ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Representative Eni Faleomavaega. He passed away on February 22, 2017 in his home at age 73. Representative Faleomavaega was American Samoa's lieutenant governor from 1985 through 1989, and congressional delegate from 1989 through 2014.

Mr. Faleomavaega was born in Vailoatai Village, American Samoa in 1943, and graduated from Brigham Young University. He later earned his Juris Doctor and Master of Law degrees at the University of Houston Law Center and the UC-Berkeley, respectively. He served in the United States Army from 1966 through 1969, and fought in the Vietnam War.

In 1973, Mr. Faleomavaega started his life in public service by working as an administrative assistant to American Samoa's first representative, A.U. Fuimaono. Following a six-year stint as staff counsel for the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs beginning in 1975, he became attorney general of American Samoa in 1981.

During his time in the House of Representatives, he helped improve the lives of his constituents, directing essential funding to help the development of schools, infrastructure, and health care in American Samoa. Mr. Faleomavaega was a founding member of the Asian Pacific American Caucus in 1994, and was a tireless advocate on behalf of the wider Asian American and Pacific Islander Community. He served thirteen terms, and was a proud member of both the House Natural Resources Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he was a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia.

He is survived by his wife, five children and 10 grandchildren. Upon his passing, Mr. Faleomavaega's wife expressed gratitude for the trust placed in him for so many years by the people of American Samoa. I am honored to recognize Representative Eni Faleomavaega for his work as a public servant. We are all better off due to his life of service. He is dearly missed by his friends and colleagues.

Congressman, thank you for that introduction, and thank you for your service to the Congress and the great people of Maryland.

I think it is really important tonight to focus on a few key things about what is happening in Congress. One is that 20 million people stand to lose their healthcare coverage. Many have never had it, and the Republican majority is set to snatch it from their hands. That is really sad.

One of the people who come to mind is actually a young woman who works on my staff. Her name is Abby, and she is a young woman who has her whole life to look forward to, but as a young person, when she was born, she had a disease called toxoplasmosis. She doesn't mind me talking about it because what Abby would tell you if she were here is that it was tough growing up.

She had a lot of medical attention growing up. She was a good student, and she really braved all of the medical care she needed with tremendous courage, and her family was there with her the whole time. But she had numerous surgeries growing up, and she also came close to death's door on more than one occasion.

One thing that she says--and says to anybody who is willing to listen--is that the Affordable Care Act helped save her life. Why? Because Abby has a preexisting condition, a pretty serious illness. And she had insurance companies that have lifetime limits and annual limits on coverage and care.

Without the Affordable Care Act and with the provisions that preceded the Affordable Care Act in the insurance industry, she simply was uninsurable, therefore, not in a position to get the care she needed. By some miracle, she made it to adulthood with the status quo before the Affordable Care Act, but the Affordable Care Act made the difference between her being with us and not.

I was talking to a physician who operates an institution in my district called the Hennepin County Medical Center, HCMC, who said: Look, if you were to stack up all of the diseases in our country that end in fatality, you would have to put up there car accidents, you would have to put up there heart disease, you would have to put up there pulmonary illnesses and cancers, of course. But, he said, if you stacked those illnesses up on a list, the most fatal in a given year, he said, the third one would be uninsured, people dying because they don't have insurance.

And our Republican majority is here to tell us they are okay with that. It is hard for me to believe, but it is true.

Right in front of us, we know that this repeal will relieve wealthy individuals of paying taxes. If they are able to repeal the Affordable Care Act, people with a lot of money are going to have more of it, and people who needed health care will have less of it.

People who need help dealing with the doughnut hole and need to be filled in with the moneys that come from the Affordable Care Act won't have that anymore. Now they will go back to the status quo of Medicare part D, which is where they get help up to a certain amount, then there is no help, then they have got to spend up to start getting help again. The Affordable Care Act filled in the doughnut hole, and seniors who can barely afford their prescription drugs now will have even more trouble.

Seniors who need Daraprim, which was a medication that cost about 13 bucks until this guy Shkreli bought the patent for it and jacked it up to about 700 bucks, people who need even things like insulin, people who need all kinds of medications now are going to be staring at that doughnut hole all over again.

I mean, we can get up here and talk about the toll, the human tragedy, the pain and suffering that people are looking at, but none of it seems to penetrate the minds of our colleagues. They seem to be deaf to the pleas of people like Abby and so many other people like that.

I was here when my colleagues on the other side brought forth I think as many as 60 attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We would come forth and we would say: People are getting lifesaving treatments that they never could afford before; people are getting treatments that are literally keeping their families intact, keeping their lives intact; people are getting coverage they never had; people have something more than the emergency room to turn to. Our colleagues would just say: Well, we are just going to get rid of it anyway.

In fact, I remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Republicans shut down the government for 16 days because we refused to cooperate with their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Ted Cruz occupied time and demanded that we repeal it. We said we would not turn people like Abby and others back to the tender mercies of the insurance industry. They said: Well, we will shut down the entire government unless you do it. We said no, and, well, here we are.

It is true that we never thought we were going to lose this election. We never thought we would be this deep in the minority, but we now have gotten in a position where the Democrats

don't hold the Presidency. We have a President who ran on the promise of repealing the Affordable Care Act, and we have two Houses of Congress that are committed to doing it.

The last line of defense really is the American people, Mr. Speaker. The last line of defense is the American people standing on the most fundamental of rights, the First Amendment, which guarantees them the right to redress grievances, guarantees them the right to petition their government, guarantees them the right to freedom of assembly, guarantees them the right to freedom of faith, guarantees them the right to receive information from a free press.

We are relying on that amendment, Mr. Speaker, to stop these Republican efforts to snatch healthcare access out of the way, out of the hands of Americans. We are relying on Americans to stand up and say: We will not tolerate this--going to community meetings, going out on the street, using their rights as Americans to express their right to have health care. This is what the moment calls for.

Governors, even some Republican Governors, are saying: Wait a minute. This Medicaid expansion, you know, we used it. It is not so bad. It is helping us.

Their pleas are being ignored as well. We are at a critical moment: Will the American people continue to make the same advances that people all over the developed world have made with regard to health care?

You know, Europeans look at us and think there is something wrong with us. Even our northern neighbors look at us and say: Wait a minute. Health care is not a right down there?

No. You get it if you can pay; and if you can't pay and answer somebody's bottom line, you are just out.

We pay the most for health care in the whole wide world, Mr. Speaker. We pay the most--the most--and yet we don't have the best outcomes. We don't have the best indicators of health. Yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to return us to a day when the number one reason that people would declare bankruptcy was medical debt. That is the world we are looking at, and it is really, really something.

Now, many people have said--you know, Democrats say to me all the time, and I am sure they say it to Mr. Raskin of Maryland: Hey, look, you know, there are things we would change in the Affordable Care Act.

We are not saying that it fell down from tablets in the sky. Of course, there are reasonable amendments that might be made. But I am here to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican caucus has never said: We will talk about how we are going to make reasonable amendments to make it better. They have only said to repeal, repeal, repeal.

They have also said replace, but everyone knows you cannot repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because, if you repeal it, you are repealing all of the taxes that go along with paying for it. And if you repeal the taxes, you are going to tell me that a Republican caucus is going to levy a tax? They think tax is a four-letter word if somebody with a lot of money has to pay it.

Now, they are okay with fees and pushing down regressive taxes. They do that every day and all the time. If somebody with real means has to pony up, even though they are already wealthy, you could never see a Republican do that. It is just not something they are going to do.

The ACA has provided coverage to more than 20 million people. That is 20 million more people who have better patient care, access to doctors and medicines, and are no longer turned away because of preexisting conditions.

The Republican proposal puts the brakes on the progress we have made. People will lose access to insurance coverage. The Republicans gut the preventative health fund, which literally funds programs to invest in keeping people healthy.

Who do Republicans help?

Insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. They get huge tax breaks at the expense of the help and the future of the American people.

The Republican bill doesn't stop there. It is an outright attack on Medicaid. Seniors out there should know that the Republicans are attacking Medicaid. They are attacking Medicaid.

Medicaid is one of our most effective antipoverty programs and provides lifesaving care to millions of elderly, children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. Republicans want to dismantle the program as we know it and kick people off and leave States to pay for the bill.

This bill takes away health care from women and shifts costs to the older, sicker people. It compromises the Medicare trust fund. It destroys Medicaid and gives tax breaks to corporations and millionaires. It is wrong, and the American people need to oppose it. And I oppose what they are trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for being so clear on the issues in front of the American people. It is so important that we have these Special Order hours so that we can really help the American people understand what is at stake; and what is at stake literally is the health and security of our Nation.

When we talk about security, usually people think about law enforcement and military. There is also the security that families can expect, the security of your health. In this situation, the Nation's security of health and family security is absolutely on the chopping block.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. In the district I represent in Minnesota--which I am so proud to represent the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota--we used to have an uninsured rate which we thought was low. It was 10.9 percent. If you remember, in the pre-Affordable Care Act days, 10.9 percent was pretty low. Well, now it is 6.6 percent. That means literally thousands of Minnesotans can now go and get regular doctor care rather than just show up at the ER.

Part of the way that we used the Affordable Care Act in Minnesota in the Fifth Congressional District is that the folks at HCMC set up something called Hennepin Health. What Hennepin Health does is it says: We are going to take some of these Medicaid dollars and we are going to help people who are chronic users of the ER system. We are going to work with other agencies and other providers in the community to help house them stably and then do regular medical surveillance with them.

Do you know what has happened with this program?

The costs at the ER have dropped through the floor. The money has been

saved because of the Affordable Care Act. Not only is it about the money--because if you talk to our Republican friends, all they want to talk about is money--something even more important has happened.

When you talk to the people who would go to the ER all the time, they are saying: I have somewhere to live. I have somebody who helps me stay on my medication. I am beginning to rebuild relationships with my family again. Schizophrenia can be very devastating to your mental health; and I was all out of control when I was off my meds, and I used to end up in the ER within an inch of my life. But now, because of the Affordable Care Act, I can get the care that I need, I can be stably housed, I can be productive in my community, I can be a participating family member again.

It has improved their lives.

I don't understand what the Republicans don't understand. It is a good thing to have people to have an option other than the ER.

I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, well, in America, if you show up at a hospital, there is a Federal law that says they have got to take you.

It is true that if you show up at an ER, somebody is going to have to let you in there. They may move you from one hospital to another, but, eventually, the law does say you will end up with somebody seeing you.

Guess what the medical professionals say about it? It doesn't work. It is the most expensive care. It is usually left to people who have allowed an illness to fester and to go on and to advance, which makes it more difficult to treat, more expensive to treat. It is the wrong way to run a healthcare system.

Yet, people have a straight face and say things like, well, you know, you can go to the doctor if you need to. It is called the ER.

This is absolutely not the right thing. And so here we are again, right at this hour where, really, things look kind of grave, and we need the American people to stand up and object. I tell you, we need people to say that they insist upon a humane society where a person suffering from schizophrenia, who is so afflicted by their illness that the only thing they can do is make it through the day and then, if they get sick, maybe somebody will take them to the ER.

We should have a society where that person can get the care they need, can get housing that they need, can be cared for, and can be a participating member in our society with just a little bit more help.

I think that is what makes us Democrats. That is the difference between us and them. We care about people. We believe people are inherently valuable and all have dignity, and we don't believe that you are only as worthy as what is in your pocket or your bank account. We reject that idea out of hand and believe that people must be--if you are too poor to work, too sick to work, too old to work, we believe our society should care for you; and I don't make any apologies to anybody for believing that.

I believe the government should do everything it can to make sure there are enough good-paying jobs for everybody. Lord knows we have got enough work to do around here, potholes here and there, school kids need help. We have got plenty of work to do. That is not the problem.

We have also got plenty of wealth. We have got plenty of wealth in our society. And I believe that if you live in this greatest of all countries in the world--and I believe that, I am so proud to be an American--and you are allowed to make a profit, which I believe in that, I am a former businessperson myself--I don't think it is asking you too much to put a little bit in the pot so some people who can't afford it can go to the doctor.

I don't think it is asking you too much to put a little bit in a pot so a kid can go to school, or so that a senior can get medication, or so that we can have clean water. I don't think it is too much.

But some people think it is too much to say that, even though I have been blessed by being an American and being able to pursue my economic dream, I don't want to give them anything. This is all for me.

I just don't--we are just not on the same page with that. We think that it is all right to make sure that we fund the basic necessities that people need to have a thriving, humane society, and that includes health care.

So tonight, I just want to say to people that it reminds me of a question that a lady asked Benjamin Franklin when Benjamin Franklin walked out of the Constitutional Congress in Philadelphia, way back so many years ago. The lady said to Benjamin Franklin: What do we have, Mr. Franklin? He said: A democracy if we can keep it.

Part of being a democratic society in this country right now means that we should have health care for people because this society can afford it. Part of what it means to have a civilized democracy in this moment means that people can rise up and lift their voices up to defend their right to have decent health care for all in this society; and we urge people to do that because it is the right thing to do, and this is the right time to do it.

So I want to just yield back to my friend from Maryland. I will be taking my leave at this point, but I want to thank the gentleman for holding down this very important Special Order because the Affordable Care Act is worth fighting for.

As you said, Mr. Raskin, the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. What piece of legislation ever was?

We have amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act. We have amended the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We amend laws all the time because, as society changes and times change, the needs come up. But to just repeal and then not come anywhere close to replacing, it is wrong, and we must oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, due to other commitments, I missed the following roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Roll call no. 100, I would have voted yes; Roll call no. 101, I would have voted no; and Roll call no. 102, I would have voted yes.

Mr. Speaker, due to other commitments, I missed the following roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Roll call no. 86, I would have voted yes. Roll call no. 87, I would have voted yes.

Mr. Speaker, due to other commitments, I missed the following roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Roll call No. 79, I would have voted yes.

Roll call No. 80, I would have voted yes.