Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility on San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the Paul Ignatius Post Office.

Let me start by thanking my colleagues for bringing this legislation to the floor and giving us the opportunity to come together, set aside our differences, and honor a truly outstanding American.

Paul Ignatius was born in Glendale in 1920 to Armenian immigrant parents who escaped horrific persecution and genocide overseas. They put down roots on San Fernando Road, the same street where, as a young man, Paul clerked at the post office that will carry his name should this bill pass.

Paul went on to answer the call in World War II as a naval officer and served 8 years across two Presidential administrations as Assistant Secretary of the Army, Under Secretary of the Army, Assistant Secretary of Defense, and, ultimately, as Secretary of the Navy.

He earned too many awards to list here today, but they include the Army, Navy, and Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Awards. The Navy named a guided-missile destroyer after him, the USS Paul Ignatius.

After serving our Nation in the military, he went home and kept giving back to his community well past his 100th birthday. Sadly, he passed away last fall at the age of 104.

As we approach our Nation's 250th anniversary, I keep coming back to his story, the son of Armenian immigrants who fled persecution and built a new life in this country, who answered the call to serve under Presidents of both parties, and who went home and continued giving back to their community until the very end.

He is the kind of American we should all aspire to be.

There is a reason this legislation has brought together the California delegation, Democrats, Republicans, and an Independent, because there is nothing partisan about honoring a patriot like Paul Ignatius. It is simply the right thing for us all to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues again for their support, and I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 111th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, the systematic murder of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. For more than a century, that truth was denied.

I represent California's 30th District, home to the largest Armenian- American community outside of Armenia. For my constituents, this anniversary is not history. It is living memory. It is their friends and family.

Unfortunately, aggression against Armenians is happening again. More than 120,000 Armenians have been ethnically cleansed from Artsakh, their ancestral homeland, and 23 prisoners remain unjustly detained in Azerbaijan. Sacred cultural and religious sites are being destroyed. These are sites that I had the honor of visiting several years ago.

Today, I recommit to fighting to demand the release of every Armenian prisoner of war, the end of military aid to Azerbaijan, and the right of displaced Artsakh families to return home to their lands. I will fight to protect Armenia from ongoing threats from Turkiye and Azerbaijan.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to mark this solemn occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Morelle for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-called SAVE Act, a bill that is a modern-day poll tax targeting American women and low- income Americans.

This bill bans voter ID. It bans using driver's licenses as a voter ID unless they are backed by additional proof of citizenship, a requirement that excludes nearly all driver's licenses and REAL IDs issued today.

For women who have changed their names, often through marriage, this means showing a passport or a birth certificate that may not match their legal name. That would have meant that my grandmother, who had long since lost her birth certificate, would have been ineligible to vote under this bill.

In California alone, that would include more than 7 million women. This would force those women to pay $130 just to get the passport they need to vote. With nearly a third of Californians lacking passports, this bill would cost them more than $1.25 billion statewide.

If you have to pay to vote, that is called a poll tax, plain and simple. It is also unnecessary red tape for people just trying to cast a ballot.

This is a bill in search of a problem. We have enough trouble getting American citizens to vote.

Mr. Speaker, the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not to the President, and this has nothing to do with our current President Donald Trump. This is in the Constitution, and it is clear as day, and it has been affirmed over and over again by the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have it both ways. They want to let Elon Musk, an unelected billionaire, wreck our government with illegal cuts, but they seem to lack the courage of their convictions to actually vote on these cuts. They lack that courage because they know how toxic these cuts are, deep cuts to healthcare, cuts to childcare, cuts that help the most vulnerable among us.

They won't even allow a vote on my amendment when all it would do is force the President to follow the Constitution. I am here with a simple request for my Republican colleagues.

Abide by your oath. Stand up for the Constitution. Allow a vote on this amendment. Stand up for your own constituents. Stand up for your own constitutional authority. That is what we are elected to do. That is why we are here. It is one of the main reasons we are here. Do not give our authority as Congress away to an unelected bureaucrat.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Garamendi for organizing this Special Order this evening.

I am Laura Friedman, and I represent the 30th Congressional District in Los Angeles, a district that has really undergone a terrible tragedy with fires, for which we are very much hoping for the kind of support from the Federal Government that so many other regions have received unconditionally after natural disasters.

Last night, I stood on this House floor, united with every single House Democrat, to stand in opposition to the Republicans' slash-and- burn budget scheme that will take critical programs away from hardworking Americans that so many of us rely on, particularly in these difficult times.

Now, was this done by the Republicans out of a sense of fiscal responsibility?

Well, I have got to say no. It is not fiscally responsible to take money away from Americans just to provide a $4.5 trillion tax break to the richest 1 percent of this country and to large corporations who weren't even asking for a tax break.

Let's be clear: This slash-and-burn budget is an attack on families, seniors, veterans, and children. It is a direct attack on Medicaid, meaning that fewer families will have access to affordable healthcare at a time when healthcare access is so out of reach for Americans.

It is an attack on SNAP food benefits, leaving millions struggling to put food on the table.

It is an attack on Head Start, robbing children of the most critical early education opportunities, opportunities that will lift young people out of poverty.

It is even an attack on the tax credit and on many other programs that help our young people afford a higher education. That will make it harder for the next generation to afford college. It will also have the effect of stifling innovation, weakening Americans' ability to lead by staying on the cutting edge of technology.

Now, in California we very much value our public education system. We have Silicon Valley, the entertainment industry, and huge biotech industries. Those are all fueled by the education that our UC system and our private colleges provide. However, because of this budget, so many young people who today are able to achieve that education and power our economy in California, which powers the United States' economy, just leaves us with a brain drain that will keep us from being competitive with other nations.

Why is this happening?

It is just to pad the pockets of the wealthiest Americans, the same people who don't need another handout. Trump's tax proposals will give the richest 1 percent an average tax break of more than $300,000. Think about that, $300,000.

What do Californians and Americans across the Nation get in return? What do ordinary people get?

They get higher costs. They get worse services as we lay off public employees. Those are the same people who answer the phone if you need to help a veteran get services or help yourself get Social Security or need to access Medicaid. The people who answer those phones are being laid off. That will make lives harder for our families.

In fact, on average, families making less than $157,000 a year are going to see their taxes increase by more than $1,500. That is higher taxes on more than 265 million Americans. Instead of making life more affordable, this is going to make it harder for people to get by.

For all the talking that Republicans do about cutting the deficit, with more than $4.5 trillion in tax breaks for the ultrawealthy, this is an upside-down approach that will still manage to increase and blow up the debt by almost $3 trillion. That is not responsible governing. That is not fiscal responsibility. It is slashing critical programs, raising taxes on the majority of Americans, and handing out checks to the top 1 percent. It is a betrayal of the American people.

I am now, and I will always be, a big fat ``hell no'' on this slash- and-burn Republican budget. Democrats stand united against raising costs on American families, and I will continue to fight for an economy that puts hardworking families first and that will invest in the kind of educational opportunities that will truly make our Nation great.

Absolutely. I am a mom, and I have an 11-year-old. One of the most important things to me is to make sure that my daughter has access to the highest quality education possible so that she can achieve as much as she is capable of.

That starts right at kindergarten and goes all the way up to wherever she wants to go, whether that is through high school, into a trade school or to higher education. All of us want to know that if our child can get into a college that we can afford to send them there.

So many Americans worry, can I pay for my child's education? So many people in my district and other districts worry whether or not their child is getting a quality education at their public schools.

I was at a school this week that has Head Start, where a majority of their children are taking advantage of Head Start because they are low income. In fact, at the particular school in my district that I toured, they also educate children with disabilities, children who are blind or have autism. Head Start is what supports a lot of that.

The Department of Education is tasked with making sure that we have an equitable distribution of resources around the country, and if a child is facing any kind of discrimination in their school, if they are not able to access Head Start, if they are not able to access programs because of their disability, the Department of Education is there to make sure that they get what they deserve, what their taxpaying parents are paying for. Without that, there is no guarantee that this money gets to these young children.

That is right. I have spoken to a lot of our universities that have seen either the programs that they use to deliver scholarships to children who couldn't otherwise go to college be frozen and certainly threatened by this budget.

In addition, one of the great benefits of our universities is the research that they do. This is research that powers our economy, that gives us the next generation of inventors, and gives us the inventions which have led to the internet, which have led to a lot of what we do with the space program, which leads to advancements in clean energy. All of those are being piloted through our universities. They have seen their funding frozen, absolutely frozen.

Even though a Federal judge told the Trump administration that that was illegal and those payments have started again, they are unsure whether that money is going to continue. Clearly, the administration's goal is to end the funding for that kind of R&D that is done at every university, which is part of our kids' education and part of the production of the United States of America. These are the things that we are proud of coming out of our national labs and coming out of our universities.

The benefits are for education, but they are also to power our economy through the inventions that the American mind has been able to create.

Why would we stop that? Why would we stop the very engine of our advancement in the world, the thing that makes us the number one Nation on Earth? Why would we want to cut the funding off for that? It doesn't make any sense.

People who are undergoing programs right now that have seen some funding coming back can't even reach the NIH, who administers these grants, because of a gag order from this administration. There are so many threats through this budget and through this administration, to college, to your kids' ability to access higher education, and to the very institutions that make up our collegiate system in the United States.

Yes. Besides being a mom, I am a breast cancer survivor. After I was diagnosed, I found out that one of the treatments that has been a revolution in terms of saving the lives of women suffering from breast cancer was developed, I believe, at UCLA.

So many of our medical advancements come through the R&D that is done at our universities. That is funding that right now is frozen and funding that is under direct threat.

For those of us who care about the health and well-being of our families, it is not just about Medicaid, even though that is important. It is also about the treatments of the future that have already shown so much progress not only for the United States to be able to sell treatments around the world, but to cure diseases like cancer, to treat heart disease, to help with longevity.

Those come through our universities as well, through partnerships that they have with private industry. We are talking a huge section of our economy that not only drives us in terms of jobs and making life more affordable, but literally keeps us alive. That is all right now on the chopping block in the Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, it is very--when you get down into the details here, the research programs, some are stopped. Some will not be refunded and will not go forward. It appears as though the proposal that the administration or the policy that they are pursuing is to limit the money that the university uses to build the facilities and to provide the equipment.

I believe 15 percent--it is about a 50 percent cut from the current funding. The result of that would seem to be, well, certainly that isn't direct; but it is. It is the foundation upon which that research is being used by multiple researchers. It is the hospitals and it is the laboratories.

I would draw the attention of the House to beware of this proposal that is actually being implemented now to reduce the total research money that is available for the foundation upon which the individual researchers carry out their research.

The bottom line of this is that America's progress really comes in five different ways. This has been something I have been working on for many years.

First, it is the best education system in the world, as the gentlewoman put forward in her comments, it is absolutely fundamental. If you get a good education, you have a chance. If our society has well-educated children, then there will be advancements.

Secondly, research is tomorrow's economy. We have seen this through the years. It has certainly been one of the critical elements of California's success in building the fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world.

Thirdly, infrastructure--infrastructure comes in many ways. It is the facilities that the researchers use at the universities. It is the roads, the streets, the sewer systems, and the like.

I suspect that in the Republican budget proposal there will be reductions in critical research, particularly in the research but also in the infrastructure. It is particularly in that portion of the infrastructure that allows us to deal with the critical issue of climate change which brings me to that issue and the infrastructure needed to address that. That is electrical systems, grid systems, and the like.

We also need to make sure that in this process we not only pay attention to those elements but we also pay attention to the international situation that is out there. We compete internationally.

The solution that the President is proposing is that we are going to protect ourselves with tariffs. If we are interested in keeping the cost to individuals down, then don't go to tariffs. There is a need for balance here, and tariffs have a role. No doubt about it. The use of tariffs being proposed by the President will raise costs and will not enhance because the other elements that we need--a well-educated society, infrastructure, and access to research--will not be available.

We have a complex situation out in front of us. I thank the gentlewoman so very much for joining us today and for bringing to all of us the issues that she is concerned with in her district and with her family. I thank my colleague so much for joining us.

We are now near the end of this Special Order hour. I notice that my Republican colleagues have hopefully been listening carefully and have learned and would not continue to pursue policies that are detrimental to the progress of our Nation. I would also hope that they would keep in mind Franklin Delano Roosevelt's words: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''

I would add to that, that we create a level playing field and that we pursue policies that create that level playing field, that provide access to education, and that provide the necessary support for families who are in need. We can do better.

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