Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is only day 13 into the Donald Trump administration and we are already faced with yet another round of questions about President Trump's potential conflicts of interest over his business holdings.

The most recent issue to raise questions is President Trump's Muslim ban executive order. At face value, this action looks like yet another harmful step in his divisive agenda. Trump's hateful scapegoating of refugees will make us less safe, and it goes against our country's moral fiber and small ``d'' democratic values. It is hard to believe that these seven countries were targeted based on a serious threat that was posed by their citizens who were traveling to the United States.

The people responsible for some of the most egregious attacks on American soil in recent decades, including 9/11, the Times Square bombing, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Pulse nightclub shooting, and others did not come from these seven countries. In fact, refugees from these countries already face a lengthy and rigorous vetting process led by our security intelligence agencies. This 20-step process involves multiple background checks, interviews, and screenings, and it frequently takes between 18 and 24 months for approval.

However, these seven countries do have at least one thing in common. According to Bloomberg News, The Trump Organization does not have business or has not pursued business deals in any of them. President Trump does, on the other hand, have business ties to other countries in the region that were excluded from the ban. His FEC filings indicate The Trump Organization has development projects in Saudi Arabia and business projects possibly related to Egypt. These countries were excluded from the executive order despite their being home to many of the terrorists who carried out 9/11. In Turkey, President Trump has a licensing deal for two luxury towers to use his name--a deal he received up to $5 million for just last year. He also has licensing agreements with businesses in other countries in the region.

I am not saying that we should ban people from these countries. I firmly oppose any ban that is based on nationality or religion, but it is unacceptable that business interests have played potentially a role in such a destructive policy that also makes our country less safe in the long run. This move will likely damage relationships with our Muslim allies who are fighting ISIS militants, and be used as a tool by the Islamic State to increase their recruitment and radicalization efforts.

Of course, my friends in the majority and in the White House claim that the seven countries under this order were similarly targeted by our previous administration. In reality, President Trump's discriminatory ban is drastically different than President Obama's specific changes to the State Department Visa Waiver Program, in which the changes focused on expedited visa privileges for dual nationals and did not target all citizens from specific countries; but I will bet you didn't hear Sean Spicer make that distinction. Instead, the administration is busy downplaying the number of people who were impacted by this decision and is claiming that only 109 people were affected--aka alternative facts. At least 700 people were denied boarding after the order was issued, and 90,000 people in these countries already have visas but will not be able to travel to the United States.

It is time for the President to stop defending his divisive and unconstitutional executive order and start being transparent about his business interests. Every President who has been elected in the modern era has released his tax records to ensure the American people that his actions will not be impacted by financial holdings. After promising throughout the campaign to release his tax returns, President Trump's advisers recently announced that he will indefinitely hide this information from the public. These holdings potentially put President Trump in direct violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution on day one.

The safeguard is designed to prevent corruption and foreign influence over policy decisions by not allowing Federal officials to take money from a foreign entity without there being congressional approval; but we have seen report after report of foreign leaders and diplomats choosing to stay at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., in order to gain favor with the administration. They stand to profit from foreign governments, including a big paycheck from a Chinese bank, which is a large tenant at the Trump Tower. These are just tip-of-the- iceberg examples of direct conflicts in both domestic and foreign policy under this President.

Mr. President, it is time for you to fix this. One, divest your business holdings immediately to remove any suggestion of there being a conflict in your decisionmaking. Two, show us your tax returns so that your business and financial interests are transparent to the American people. Three, get rid

of your unconstitutional executive order, which will make us less safe and only serve to embolden our enemies.

Short of that, we will have to take other actions, including legislative directives, resolutions of disapproval, even exploring the power of impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal) for the Progressive Caucus' Special Order hour.

I was on the floor earlier today talking about my concerns very specifically around this, as it relates to the countries that were selected and the fact that these were not countries that were selected for any reason other than the fact that they are Muslim countries and that Mr. Trump has decided that they should be included.

What I want to talk about tonight is my district and how this affects it. We saw the crowds in New York, California, Chicago, Boston, and other big cities that have international airports and the activities this weekend; but in Madison, Wisconsin, we have had a very direct impact. We have 115 faculty, students, and staff, right now, impacted by this decision. In fact, there is one joint national Canadian-Iranian student who is in Brazil who has been advised not to come back.

What I want to do is read into the Record this statement. We are working on a case of someone who is an Iraqi national, and this is a letter written by someone who served with him in the military. I want to read this very quickly:

I am contacting you regarding John, an Iraqi national who

earned a special immigration visa for his work with the U.S.

Army over two different 3-year periods in Baghdad and another

region of Iraq.

My personal acquaintance with him, where he is a translator

in a small 12-man military training team I led. The recent

executive order curtailing immigration from Iraq, along with

six other countries, has halted his plan to emigrate with his

family.

He and his fellow translators provided an invaluable

service to the team. They braved the same dangers we all

faced. They rode in the same vehicles, walked the same

streets, met with the same people. The only difference is is

they were unarmed and, after missions when we returned to

secure FOBs, they had to return to live in their communities

unprotected.

John was wounded while working with the U.S. Army, and he

provided honorable service to the country for years.

This is who is the target of President Trump's executive order banning Muslims. This is wrong, and we need it to stop.

President Trump, rescind your order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Paul Mickelson--a constituent who dedicated his life's work to public service in his community, his state, and abroad.

Paul Mickelson began his career in public service by joining the Beloit Fire Department. He worked there for 26 years serving several roles including motor pump operator, firefighter, and ambulance attendant. Paul also honorably served as the Fire Department's Union Representative and Union President.

After his retirement from the Beloit Fire Department, Paul joined the U.S. Peace Corps and served in Cameroon. While he was there, he fell in love with the country and wanted to give back to the community where he worked. He founded Paul's Computer Institute (PCI) in Bamenda, Cameroon in 1997 which focuses on delivering high levels of professional training based in the Information and Communication Technology sectors. Thanks to Paul's hard work and dedication to increase access to high quality education and professional training, the PCI has become one of the largest and most respected computer training centers in West Africa.

For all his contributions to public service, Paul was recognized as a Paul Harris Fellow by Rotary Club and was honored by Beloit College for his work and success with PCI.

Paul's commitment to education and public service will live on through the Beloit community and the school he built in Cameroon.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the life of Mr. Paul Mickelson today.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can bring up my amendment, which would block the House GOP majority from cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

President-elect Donald Trump has promised many times throughout his campaign that he would not cut Social Security benefits for seniors nor would he support cuts to Medicare or Medicaid benefits. In fact, at least 15 times he said he would not make cuts to Medicare or Social Security. He even tweeted it; so we know he really, really meant it.

If it is important to the Democrats and if it is important to the President-elect and if it is important to the American people, let's make sure it is absolutely certain that no one has to worry about a cut in one's Social Security and Medicare benefits--not a single cut to anyone. If we could do that, that would be the single biggest success of the 115th Congress.

If you support the idea that you will not cut Social Security and Medicare and that you will protect the promise to our constituents, then support this amendment. But if you are not sure yet or if you might be willing to cut Social Security and Medicare or if you are actually considering cutting these programs, then you should oppose this amendment.

Again, our amendment would block any legislation before the House or Senate which cuts guaranteed, earned benefits under Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid programs; which increases the retirement age for these benefits or which privatizes Social Security. Nationally, over 64 million people receive benefits from Social Security.

I want to read a couple of comments from constituents from the State of Wisconsin, the home State of Speaker Paul Ryan and mine.

Robyn from Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, said: ``Please do everything in your power to oppose Speaker Ryan's legislation to privatize Social Security and Medicare. These are our earned benefits for a lifetime of working as dairy farmers.''

Carol from Madison said: ``I am a retired Navy veteran and a cancer survivor. My grandfather, a World War II

and Korean war vet, is living in a home on Medicaid and Medicare. What is going to happen to him if . . . Republicans are successful in drastically altering these programs?''

Democrats believe we need to protect our senior citizens and the most vulnerable in our society. Democrats believe we need to strengthen the middle class through the preservation of Social Security and Medicare, and so do the American people.

Do Republicans share our belief? Let's make it crystal clear. Do you want to protect Social Security and Medicare, or do you want to cut these earned benefits? You can decide that with this vote.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can bring up the CPC--the Pocan-Ellison-Grijalva-Lee-Schakowsky amendment--and find out who truly supports Medicare and Social Security in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is having our Special Order hour today to talk about the Nation's need for infrastructure--the fact that we need to keep serious investments in infrastructure not only to keep our roads and bridges and other important parts of our country together but also to help the good, family-supporting jobs that come along with these important investments in our infrastructure.

I serve on the Budget Committee, and we were talking one day with Dr. Elmendorf from the Congressional Budget Office, our nonpartisan agency that we deal with to talk about budgetary matters.

Specifically, I asked the question of Dr. Elmendorf about the Recovery Act that we passed in this country a number of years ago. Dr. Elmendorf said that, thanks to that Recovery Act, over 3 million jobs were saved or created because of the investment we put into our Nation's infrastructure.

In my State of Wisconsin, I was at the State legislature at the time and I chaired our budget committee. We had a report from the road building industry and the vertical construction industry that said 54,000 jobs just in Wisconsin were saved or created because of the Recovery Act.

As much as that helped provide a boost to the economy and help fill our infrastructure needs, we still have so many more to take care of. We have been given a grade of D-plus by the very engineering society that grades our Nation's infrastructure. We have been told that we have 100,000 bridges in this country, or 16 percent, old enough that they can qualify for Medicare.

As we know from recent disasters that we have seen in different parts of the country where bridges have fallen and people have literally been killed, we need to reinvest in that infrastructure so that we have a country that operates, that businesses can function.

Also, we need to help create those jobs now for people who are still out of work. As the economy is coming back, we know that wages have been stagnant, and these are good, strong, family-supporting jobs that can provide it.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus will soon be putting out our version of the budget, just as we will among the Democrats and the Republicans, but we will put out our version

of the budget--just as the President has--with a deep investment in our infrastructure needs because we know that that investment is one of the pillars of the strong economy.

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

Thank you, Representative Tonko, for your leadership. I really enjoyed working with you over the last several years. We are actually getting to the point that it looks like this may be coming to a vote in Congress.

This is perfect timing, with another round of negotiations upon us. I am so glad we are on the floor tonight talking about this and trying to channel the energy from the gentlewoman from Connecticut. I love her passion.

This is an issue that goes far back for me. When I was 23, I started a small business in Madison, Wisconsin, a specialty printing business. One of the things we did is source American-made and union-made products. We screen-printed T-shirts and did promotional items like pens and lapel pins we wear as Members of Congress, all things that were done in the United States.

Over the last almost 28 years, trade deal after trade deal, I have watched the number of products made in the United States diminish. T- shirts, it is almost impossible to find a mill that still makes T- shirts and apparel in the United States. Almost everything is done in other countries or overseas, things like pens and our emblem pins. It is almost impossible to find American-made pens.

In my area, just 45 minutes south from Madison, is the city of Janesville, where Representative Paul Ryan is from and represents. That town used to have a thousand good, family-supporting wages at a company called Parker Pen which made quality, American-made pens. At one point, that was a thousand jobs in that region.

With trade deal after trade deal, finally, a few years ago, we watched the last 150 of those jobs go to Mexico, those family- supporting wages that no longer exist in the company. They were then hit by GM closing down, which allowed even further job loss in that community.

As Representative DeLauro said, it is those people that used to make $25 an hour in a manufacturing job who lost their job and, now, the best that might be available to them is a $10-an-hour job. You can't pay your mortgage when you go from $25 an hour to $10 an hour. You can't send your kids to college when you used to make $25 an hour and, now, you are making $10 an hour.

Those are the jobs we have seen all too often leave because of bad trade deals; whether it be New York, Connecticut, Ohio, or Wisconsin, we have all seen the same thing happen across our communities.

As much as I do agree with the President when he said in the State of the Union, Look, I'm the first one to admit that past trade deals haven't always lived up to the hype--I think we all agree on that. We have seen that. We have seen that the jobs promised don't happen, and that is why we have concern.

Tonight, I want to talk specifically about fast-track authority. That is where we give up our right as Members of Congress, which means we give up our constituents' right--a say--in these trade deals. This isn't a Democratic issue. It isn't a Republican issue. It isn't an Independent issue. It is in the Constitution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says the Congress has the sole power ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.''

For 200 years, that is the way it was, but President Nixon changed that when he seized those powers through a mechanism called fast track. It is a legislative technique used to kind of skid the way through for these trade deals.

The problem with that is when we do fast-track authority, we give up our rights as Members of Congress and, therefore, the public's right to question what is in one of these trade deals, the next trade deal that can have even more jobs leave the United States.

We give up our ability to debate and to amend these agreements, and that is what fast-track authority is. That is very likely the first vote we would see on the floor of Congress, which the President asked for in the State of the Union, but that gives our sole authority to the President.

Now, I have a lot of respect and I agree with so much of what President Obama has done, but this isn't about President Obama, and it is not about President George W. Bush and not about President Nixon or any other President who has tried to get these powers. It is about our ability as Members of Congress and the public to have a say through these trade deals.

When you look at this and you think about the history of the fast- track process, the last time we authorized fast track was in 2002, at 3:30 in the morning, right before a congressional recess, to bring this antiquated mechanism into place, and it was approved by only three votes.

Since 2007, Congress has refused this extreme procedure, even after it was getting renamed to try to make it sound a little more palatable.

There are so many reasons why we shouldn't give up our authority. If you think about it, people say: If we don't give the President authority, we won't get trade expansion.

Well, fast track isn't needed for that. In fact, President Bill Clinton was denied fast-track authority for 6 of his 8 years in his office, but he completed more than 100 trade investment pacts without fast track.

We are giving away our ability to actually see this document which, as you know, we haven't seen. There are 29 chapters, only of which about five affect trade, and everything else from currency manipulation to medicines to food safety, all those things now are thrown into these deals that go way beyond what it was originally in place for, and we would have no say in that.

Fast track has been used 16 times in the history of this country, and usually, it is to enact more controversial trade pacts.

Bottom line, we know that the U.S. Trade Representative right now is redoing their Web site to make it more transparent. Here is transparency to

me: show us the text, show Members of Congress the text, show our staff the text, show the public the text.

If this deal is as good as they have promised, then show us how great it is; but if this is nothing more than warmed over fast track or something else that is going to cost us jobs and depress our wages, then that is usually when this procedure is put in place. No offense to this President or to any President, but Congress has to have its say on fast track.

I just want to commend you, again, for doing this. I just wanted to come by for a very few minutes to talk about that, but as this procedure could be coming before us in the coming month or months, we have to be ready.

We are going to work together, as we have been, to make sure we do everything possible to make sure the public knows what is in this deal, and that means Congress has to have our say, and that is why we have to oppose fast track.

Again, I thank the gentleman for this time. I continue to look forward to working with you on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, on January 12, 2015 I missed recorded votes #17-19 due to travel delays.

I would like to reflect how I would have voted if I were present for these votes.

On Roll Call #17, I would have voted YEA (Passage of H.R. 203).

On Roll Call #18, I would have voted YEA (Passage of H.R. 33).

On Roll Call #19, I would have voted YEA (Approval of the Journal).

Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in our Special Order hour where we want to share with the American public our concerns about a trade deal that we think will be coming through Congress in the first few months or first half of this session.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the biggest and the baddest of the trade deals that we have seen come before this country. It represents a dozen countries. From Chile to Japan, almost 800 million people are represented by countries that would be included within the Trans- Pacific Partnership, and it represents 40 percent of the world's economy.

Yet the trade agreement has been drafted largely in secret. No one from the public has seen it. Quite honestly, Members of Congress haven't seen it. But about 600 people in this country are involved with the drafting of this trade deal. It has great ramifications that go beyond trade, the 29 chapters that make up the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

We anticipate there also could be a move from leadership to introduce legislation to Fast Track the trade deal. What that means to Fast Track it is to really take away the public's ability, through their elected Members of Congress, to have a say, to be able to debate and to amend the trade deal.

We anticipate that could be one of the first votes that would come to us this Congress about trade. We at the Progressive Caucus want to share with the public the various concerns that we may have about this very, very large, all-encompassing trade deal that could affect American jobs, could affect food safety, could affect environmental concerns, could affect things like buy American laws, currency policy, and many, many more issues.

I am joined by a number of Members of Congress today who would like to take part in this, and I would like to, at this time, yield to my colleague from the great State of New York, who has put a number of efforts towards this in working very strongly to make sure the public knows what is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

I would like to yield to Mr. Paul Tonko from New York.

Thank you, Representative Tonko. As you mentioned, one of the concerns we have, not only in your region but in my district, is the loss of jobs that we have had because of some of these past trade deals that haven't quite gone as promised.

It has been estimated we have lost 4 million U.S. jobs due to just three trade deals, and three-quarters of those jobs lost were in the manufacturing sector.

I had mentioned earlier today at a press conference in Rock County, Wisconsin, a county that I share with Representative Paul Ryan, we used to have Parker Pen, made good American-made quality pens. A thousand jobs at one time were in that community working at Parker Pen. In early 2010, the final jobs had moved to Mexico. That is just one example of the number of jobs that we lost just in south central Wisconsin, much less Flint, Michigan, and Los Angeles, California, and other parts of the country. So we appreciate your efforts and your comments.

I would like to also yield to another colleague of mine from the great State of California, someone who has been a strong member of our Progressive Caucus. I would like to yield to Representative Janice Hahn of the great State of California.

Thank you, Representative Hahn. I think you said it very eloquently. We are all for trade. I don't think there is a Member in this body who doesn't want to see trade happen, but we want fair trade. We don't want the so-called free trade that makes it harder for American workers, that depresses our wages and ultimately includes a whole lot of other things that affect everything from food safety to environmental concerns to our ability to have something as basic as buy American laws and buy local laws. So thank you for your comments.

I would also like to yield to a gentleman, a colleague, and a friend from the State of Michigan, someone who represents the Flint and Saginaw area. I would like to yield to Representative Dan Kildee from the great State of Michigan.

Again, thank you so much, Representative Kildee.

When you mentioned the auto industry, I have to admit that I grew up in Kenosha, Wisconsin. American Motors was the company that ran the town. Almost everyone had a family member or a neighbor who worked at American Motors. Now, granted, we made Pacers and Gremlins, so there were some mistakes along the way. American Motors eventually went away to Renault, and it went away to Chrysler. It went away to nothing as well as the people who had the strong family-supporting wages from that auto industry. Now the companies that have replaced the auto industry are, quite honestly, jelly bean manufacturers and companies like that. It does not pay the same wage. It doesn't support the family in the same way.

Just as we were promised with the Korean free trade agreement, especially around autos, in that 70,000 jobs would be created, instead, 60,000 jobs were lost. That is exactly why we have to be involved now while it matters, not after it has been negotiated. We don't have a debate, and we don't have a chance to amend it. So thank you for all of your work on this on behalf of the people of Michigan.

I would also like to yield to another colleague of mine, someone who has been a stalwart in the Progressive Caucus, someone I respected long before I ever had the chance to come to Congress. I would like to yield to my great colleague, Representative Barbara Lee, from the great State of California.

Thank you, Representative Lee.

I look forward to working with you on our Progressive alternative also for the budget, when, I think, we will showcase many of those initiatives that we would much rather see the country do to help create good-paying jobs and get more people back to work. So thank you for all of your efforts.

At this point, I would like to yield to a colleague of mine from the great State of Ohio, who has seen much of this firsthand and who, today, has very eloquently explained her experiences of being around when NAFTA had passed. Let me yield to Representative Marcy Kaptur from the great State of Ohio.

Thank you, Representative Kaptur, for all that you have done. You have been an articulate spokesperson on behalf of jobs and the effects of these bad trade deals on jobs. And I have to say, I am really glad you brought up the textile industry, because when we talk about the need to work together in this Congress, this is an issue where Democrats and Republicans can absolutely unite.

About 12 years ago, I was on a delegation of the American Council of Young Political Leaders. And one of the people on the delegation was a very conservative judge from the State of Mississippi. She and I and the group had met with some sweatshop workers in Indonesia to talk about all the mills that have left, especially in the southern part of the United States, and those jobs are pretty much gone forever.

I have been in business for 27 years, since I had hair. I have had a small business. And in that role, we screen-print on T-shirts. And I have watched over the years all of the mills that made T-shirts in the United States pretty much leave. It is pretty hard to find clothes still made in the USA. It is even harder to find them union-made in the USA. And this is something that unites people of different political ideologies because we see those jobs leaving. It doesn't matter. It is not a Democratic job or a Republican job. These bad trade deals too often just cost us jobs.

I appreciate you bringing that up, and thank you again for all that you do.

Next I would like to yield to someone who has been an extraordinary leader in this area. She has helped to coordinate Members of Congress like no one else, not just on this issue but on many other issues. She is an absolutely tireless advocate for the American public and for making sure that Congress has the proper role when it comes to trade agreements. She is someone whom I am extremely honored to have as a colleague and a friend. I would like to

yield to the great Representative Rosa DeLauro from the State of Connecticut.

Again, thank you so much, Representative DeLauro, for all your leadership. You are helping to coordinate all of our voices in this battle, and we really appreciate that and all your efforts. Thank you so much.

When you brought up the public opinion of Congress, there is no question. If you were actually to explain this process to anyone, regardless of their political ideology, that for the last 2 years, about 600 people in this country from America's biggest corporations and Wall Street's biggest banks have been involved in trying to craft this legislation that we haven't seen and the American public hasn't seen and we are going to be asked to vote on something that would take away our ability, sight unseen, to vote to limit our ability to debate and to amend any kind of a trade agreement--that is exactly what is wrong with Washington. That is why people, I think, get so disgusted with Washington.

We need to stand up, Democrats and Republicans together, to make sure that we have our ability to have our voices heard, which is the public's voices through Members of Congress. So your efforts on Fast Track, on TPP, food safety, and so many areas, thank you so much. Again, I appreciate it.

Another one of our leaders of our caucus is here who has been an articulate fighter on so many progressive issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the State of Maryland, Representative Donna Edwards, my great colleague.

Thank you again so much, Representative Edwards. When you talked about the job loss in Maryland, we lost nearly 75,000 manufacturing job through the NAFTA-WTO period in the last 20 years.

When I was a legislator in the State of Wisconsin, it was a Buy American law that I got passed with a bipartisan vote in the Wisconsin Legislature. The fact that we are going to give up our sovereignty to have that law and some multinational corporation can sue any local unit of government so that they can contest those laws and we can lose that ability, I think the average person, if they knew that was something even being discussed, would be opposed to that, much less the other 28 chapters in addition to procurement that are included in this Trans- Pacific Partnership.

Thank you so much for all the work you have done on this and for making people aware of all the little hidden gems that if we don't have an ability to have a full and fair debate in this House, things that could happen in the biggest and the baddest of the trade deals yet we have seen in this country, so thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Caucus is going to be doing everything we can in the coming months to fight this, to make sure that Congress has a say. We aren't against trade, we want fair trade, but the so- called free trade that is out there right now that is being drafted by corporate CEOs and Wall Street banks doesn't include the public and doesn't include Congress, and it needs to have every single person represented.

We are the voices of the American people. We need to be able to have a full debate in this body, and we need to be able to amend any deal that we don't like, the particular deals that have been decided by others, by corporate leaders in this country. The American public has to be included.

Before I ever came to this Congress, the last 27 years, I have run a small business, a small specialty printing business. One of the things we do is we source American-made and union-made products for people.

I watched, over that 27 years, companies leave this country over and over and over, whether it be the mills that I mentioned from the South that made T-shirts to things as simple as pens. Companies like Parker Pen used to have up to 1,000 jobs in Rock County, Wisconsin, that now have all gone out of this country. Those are the types of jobs that we have seen leave over and over.

When you go back into these communities, they have not replaced the same quality paying jobs. That is part of why we have got a problem. While the economy has been coming back, unfortunately, many people are being left behind, and they are not having the same family-supporting wages that they need out there.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is 29 chapters, but only five of those chapters actually relate to trade. So much of what we have talked about has been about the job impacts and your income impacts of a trade deal, but this also covers environmental law, currency law, intellectual property law, food safety, and the ability for procurement, as we just talked about on Buy American laws, and on and on and on.

This Congress, I think, can work together, Democrats and Republicans, who have a concern about giving carte blanche authority to simply the U.S. Trade Representative and the White House and leaving the people out, leaving the Congress out of that conversation.

We are going to continue to fight this, to talk about this and to make sure that people understand what Fast Track is and what it isn't and to make sure that those myths that may be out there about how to help create jobs may not be true, and there is a lot more ramifications that are out there.

Mr. Speaker, we thank you so much for this time this evening. We appreciate the ability to talk about this on the floor of Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 555, had I been present, I would have voted ''yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Centro Hispano of Dane County as it hosts Fiesta Hispana, an annual celebration of the Latino community in Madison, Wisconsin.

The festival is an important community event that showcases Latino heritage and culture. Fiesta Hispana offers traditional cuisine and features wonderful dance and music performances as well as fun activities for all family members to enjoy.

The impact of Centro Hispano is felt every day throughout the community, not just through today's event. The center engages with the community and connects residents with vital education, career and general support resources.

I commend the mission and tireless work of Centro Hispano of Dane County to serve and empower local Latino youth and families.

It is an honor to celebrate Fiesta Hispana 2014 as we come together to celebrate the diverse Latino cultures that enrich our community and make it stronger.

Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. And I will be joined by some other members of the Progressive Caucus to talk about issues that are important to this country and issues that are important to have a debate about in public.

This is our first week back. After 5 weeks of being in our home districts, we have a lot to get done in this Congress. And so far this week, we have not exactly risen to the occasion. We have important things to do regarding the continuing resolution. We have important things to do regarding situations overseas. We have important legislation that this Congress simply has not gotten done. And, instead, another week has gone by without addressing some of the most important issues of the day.

One of those issues that, I think, is front and center in people's minds is what is going on overseas, what is going on with ISIL in Iraq, perhaps in Syria, and what does that mean for the American people.

And I am here today asking many of the questions that I get from people in the district. The President is going to address the Nation this evening, and he is going to give us his vision for where he thinks this country should go. And I am asking the President to please come to Congress before military action is taken against ISIL because it is so important that we are a part of this debate. We are the closest to the people in this country, and Congress needs to be involved. And I have some questions that I would like to see Members of Congress debate and the President help us address as we decide this extremely important issue.

I want to give props to Rachel Maddow who, last night, I thought did an excellent job on her program in looking at some of the questions that we should be debating in this body to make sure that we are doing the right thing by getting involved and that we have got the thought ahead of time going into it, unlike I think what we have done previously when we have gone into Iraq, as a country.

So these are some of the questions that we would like to have answered and we would like to have assistance with. One, why should the President seek congressional authorization and debate for military action against ISIL? Well, for one, it is in the Constitution. The Constitution, article I, section 8: ``The Congress shall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than 2 years.''

Directly in our United States Constitution is the power that this body, Congress, has to be involved if we are going to get involved in what would essentially be seen as war. And I think the debate that we have to have is, what are we looking at as we look at the situation in Iraq and perhaps in Syria.

John Nichols from The Nation magazine wrote: ``It is a healthy respect for the complex geopolitics of the region, combined with a regard for the wisdom of the system of checks and balances and the principles of advice and consent outlined in the US Constitution'' that we have a say. Those are the words of John Nichols.

This Congress, in July, before we left to go back to our districts, voted 370-40 for H. Con. Res. 105. We don't get many 370-40 votes in this House. It was a bipartisan resolution. It had overwhelming support and said: ``The President shall not deploy or maintain United States Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific statutory authorization.''

That is the resolution that was passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way by this body just weeks ago. We are facing these questions today. And the President is going to present to the Nation this evening exactly what he would like to see us do and hopefully will let the Congress have a say in it because, clearly, the situation has escalated. It needs a debate.

The beheadings have certainly caught the attention of the country, but we want to make sure that attention is on our behalf, not the attention of someone who did that to try to provoke a reaction, and that we don't fall into the hands of doing the reaction that some people would hope that we would do to engage in a region that could be very complex.

And after this country has had so many unfortunate failures in Iraq-- twice in my adult lifetime we have gone into this region, with very limited success, and we have gone into Afghanistan--we owe it to the American people, to our veterans, our servicemen and -women and their families, those who have gone in and put their lives at risk following 9/11, to have this rigorous debate in this very body before us.

This is a complex situation. But given the failures that we have had previously in going into Iraq--whether it be the lack of debate, the lack of buy-in from other nations and other partners specifically in the region and, quite honestly, the faulty intelligence that we had or that were told at the time--it has put us in a bad situation in the past in this region.

In fact, one of the reasons we have to have this debate is there are a number of Members who are right now writing authorizations for us to go in. In fact, there is one from the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Frank Wolf, that would essentially be an Authorization for Use of Military Force that could authorize force virtually anywhere, with no expiration date and no specific targets.

And I can tell you, when I talk to people across Wisconsin, when I talk to my colleagues in this room and they talk to their constituents, I think people want better answers than that. I know a year ago, when we had the debate about whether or not we would get involved in Syria, within 2 weeks in my district, I received 2,200 responses, 97 percent to 3 percent who were leery of us getting involved in Syria. And while the situation is different from a year ago and is even a situation different from a month ago, I think the public still has questions, certainly questions that we need to debate in this body. So we need to have that debate in Congress.

What do we want from the President in a new authorization? Well, I think there are three things that should be in that. One is that Congress has a say. Again, we have the ability to have a vote. We are elected and accountable to our districts, and these decisions are not just made behind closed doors without the advice and consent of Congress. We will have a stronger effort if we have that public debate. So that is one. Two, that we have a narrow scope. We simply can't bomb our way into success.

And let me just go over a little bit of the timeline just in the very few months since ISIL has been out there.

Let me just talk a little bit about that timeline. Back on June 16 of this year, the administration announced it was sending 275 military personnel to protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Three days later, they announced that 300 military advisers would collaborate and train Iraqi forces--3 days later. On June 30, the administration announced the deployment of 200 more troops to Iraq. On August 7, the President authorized airstrikes in Iraq. On the 12th of August, the administration announced 130 additional U.S. military personnel to assess the scope of the humanitarian mission. On the 26th of August, the President authorized surveillance flights over Syria. On September 2, the administration announced the deployment of 350 additional military personnel to Iraq, bringing our total to 1,100 U.S. troops now deployed in Iraq. And in the last month alone, there have been 153 airstrikes in Iraq. Just in the little bit of time that has passed, that is what we have seen happen. And I think we need to be very specific in the limited scope of what that is going to be so we don't have mission creep leading us into perhaps more involvement than we thought was going to happen in the beginning.

And third, I think--and others that I talk to think--it is important that we go in with a coalition, that we are not doing this either alone or largely alone and that we are doing this with partners from the region. Right now, there are 10 other countries that I know of that are involved in saying that they will commit to help work with us. But we need to build a moderate Sunni support and buy-in from some of the Arab States specifically to help us in this region because right now, this is a regional situation, and we need to have partners within that region to make sure that we can accomplish any goals.

There are many questions that we continue to have, and I think there are many about what that strike would look like, what exactly does it mean to have that involvement.

I just mentioned who are some of the allies that we are going to have. But what are some of our short-term goals? What do we expect to accomplish when we decide that we are going in? What would we carry out in military action? It is one thing to say that we are not going to have boots on the ground, but clearly, we are having pilots in the sky.

Right now, we are using U.S. attack aircraft, fighter aircraft, and drone aircraft to do attacks within that region. So you already have a presence that--I don't like the term ``boots on the ground,'' because these are people with families, sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, brothers and sisters that we have who are overseas, and we need to know exactly what that means.

There has been potentially a request to aid some of the moderate Syrian rebels that may come out of the conversations. And, once again, I think there are questions that this body has to have a debate on. Steven Sotloff, the journalist, who was the second person that was beheaded, that we have followed very closely, as an American citizen, his family recently said that it was moderate Syrian rebels who essentially sold access to ISIL to get Steve Sotloff. And who is it that we are going to provide assistance to? And what does that assistance mean? And who are the people that we can potentially be doing that for?

What is our long-term commitment to military action? Now, if we would have asked this question years ago when we first looked at Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think anyone would have expected to hear a 13-year commitment to Afghanistan. More than 2,000 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan and more than 4,000 in Iraq. The cost has been estimated to be 4 to $6 trillion in that region just since that last action was called years ago. And, as I mentioned, there have been 153 airstrikes just in the last month. How many more airstrikes will it take to say that that is enough? So we need to have more meat put onto this to have an idea of what that involvement is if we are going to be authorizing something.

And finally, the question I would ask is: How do we define mission accomplished? What is the end goal that we are going to have? And where does that end happen? I certainly hope the end goal is not flying in military gear on an aircraft carrier with a banner behind it that says ``Mission Accomplished.'' Because we all know, there was no mission accomplished at that time. We need to have clear and definite goals of what it means to defeat ISIL and to make sure that that region can have some stability after the instability of so long that it has had.

So, in conclusion, the President has a constitutional obligation, I feel, to work with Congress before engaging in extended military operations. The public is still very war-weary. And while right now, polls may say people think we should get involved in Iraq and Syria with limited airstrikes, we have to have that much longer debate.

Clearly, the public beheadings of two American citizens has raised the ire of the American people and I think many in Congress. It is a different situation than it was a year ago. It is a different situation than it was a month ago. But at the same time, we have got to be sure that we are not falling into doing something that could be counterproductive because, clearly, ISIL did that to provoke a reaction, and I think that needs to be a part of the debate we have.

After being entangled in a global conflict for 13 years, we owe it to the American people and to the servicemen and -women and their families and the veterans who have already made tremendous sacrifices and the support of our country that we have a transparent and thorough debate on any action that would happen with ISIL in Syria or Iraq.

So those are my hopes. Those are my questions. I am looking forward to hearing the President tonight, and I am hoping that this body will be able to have that full debate so we know everything that we can possibly have for information prior to continuing and perhaps enhancing any actions there.

Now, I am very proud to be joined by other members of the Progressive Caucus. We have one of the most senior Members of this body, who has become a mentor and a friend to me, and I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Representative Rangel, you have been an outspoken advocate for equality within the draft, making sure that everyone understands that there is an expense when we go into war. As someone who has had several nephews personally get involved and plenty of constituents, those decisions are something that are mighty, and this body has to have that as part of that debate, and that is why we should have that debate. Thank you so much for your time and your efforts.

One of the other issues that is extremely important that this body get done before we leave is addressing income inequality and addressing how we can best help those who need help the most, those who are aspiring to be in the middle class and helping the middle class. One of the very best ways and one of the priorities of the Democrats in this House is to give America a raise, to raise the minimum wage, through a bill that we have, to $10.10, to make sure that people have more money in their pockets. When that money is in their pockets, they will spend it in the community, and that will lift the economy and help create more jobs. It is exactly what we need right now.

For too long, we have not raised the minimum wage. If the minimum wage were the same and kept up with inflation from 1967, it would be well over $10.60 an hour. And we are not. We are at a much lower rate, and we need to have that.

One of my colleagues from California has been an outspoken advocate for raising the minimum wage, and I would love to, on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, yield to my colleague from the great State of California, Mr. Alan Lowenthal.

If I could just ask you, gentlemen, one question--and I will go to Mr. Rangel again for a comment.

Let me ask you a question. The leadership in this House, the Republican leadership, has refused to schedule a bill to raise the minimum wage, and we have one other device to do that called the discharge petition.

I would like to ask the gentleman if you signed the discharge petition so that we can force a vote in this House to raise the minimum wage in the remaining weeks we have before we finish the session for the year.

And we have done that.

Again, thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.

Because that is the problem--we have been told the Speaker won't schedule the vote, but there are other ways. Every single Member of this body can sign a discharge petition, and if we get a majority of us, 218 of us, to sign that, it will come to this body. So there are no excuses not to get this done.

I would like to yield to my good friend from New York, Mr. Charlie Rangel.

Again, thank you, Mr. Rangel.

One of the things I look at--it is pretty simple math to someone like me, coming from America's heartland, when productivity is going up and wages are flat, the money is going somewhere.

In 1988, the average CEO made 40 times the lowest-paid employee. Now, it is 354 times the lowest-paid employee. Now, if you put extra money in the pockets through raising the minimum wage of someone who is in the middle class or aspiring to be in the middle class, it is going to go back into the economy. If they can afford a long weekend vacation to the Wisconsin Dells in my area, that helps boost the economy, helps create jobs--but you know what? That CEO can't take 354 vacations to make up for it.

Clearly, when the money goes into the pockets of those who need it the most, it is going to go instantly into the economy, help create jobs, and help do everything that we need to, to stimulate the economy to the point that we can be as great as we possibly can be.

To me, it is a no-brainer. I think to many of the constituents I talk to it is a no-brainer.

You are very articulate in talking about the troubles that people go through in trying to just get by. It is another thing this body simply has to take up before we leave.

If we don't take this up before November, quite honestly, those who didn't try to take it up shouldn't come back because we need people who will take it up because it is the will of the people. Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans are looking at this as an issue that is important and has to happen.

Again, thank you so much for all your work on this for so many years. Alan Lowenthal and I are freshman here. We are the newbies. We are taking up the fight, but you have been doing it for so many years and been a mentor to so many of us. Again, thank you, Mr. Rangel, and thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.

Mr. Lowenthal went through all the numbers for the State of California. It has the same effect in my State of Wisconsin. When you look at it, if you raise that minimum wage to $10.10, as the bill from Senator Harkin does and the one that Representative George Miller from California has introduced in this body, not only is it 28 million people in this country that will get a raise, but it is half a million people just in my home State of Wisconsin, a half million people.

One of the things that I have heard sometimes when you talk to people, they say, ``If you raise the minimum wage, all you are doing is giving extra pocket money to teenagers who are living with their parents.''

Well, that is one of the great myths that is out there because here is the reality: the average age of a minimum wage worker is 35 years old. When you look at the exact breakout of who it is, 90 percent are over 20 years old, and

more than half of them are older than 25 years old.

You are not talking about a teenager living at home. You are talking about people who are living independently in the community, trying to get by on $7.35 an hour or close to $15,000 a year, in a job that often has no benefits--health benefits, pension, et cetera.

Fifty-five percent of the people on minimum wage are working full time. Forty-four percent have some type of college education, an associate degree or bachelor's degree or other higher education. That is the reality of the minimum wage worker in this country. It is not the myth of a teenager living at home, looking for some pocket money.

These are hardworking people trying to get by, often on two or three jobs, without the benefits. Without that ability, if they miss their rent, they get evicted, and then they are homeless. As Mr. Rangel said, these are some of the same people that then show up on our health plans that States provide for being low-income.

So you know who then is subsidizing their salaries? We all are. Every single individual who is a taxpayer pays into those programs. While that employer may not offer a wage that they can live on, we all subsidize it, so that they can actually get something as basic as health care.

So there is a real need to pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act that is proposed. We have tried and tried in this body to get a vote on it. We have signed a discharge petition. Virtually every Democrat in the House of Representatives has signed that.

We need those Republicans, especially those Republicans who are on record supporting a minimum wage, to also sign that, so we can get a vote before we leave in a few weeks, before the November elections, before the end of the year--because I think a question that I would want to ask my Representative when I see them in the community in the coming weeks before the election is: What have they done to help make the middle class stronger? What have they done to help people who are aspiring to be in the minimum class? What have we got done in Congress?

There was a Congress in 1948 that was called the do-nothing Congress because they got so little done. The first year of that session, they passed 350 bills. Last year, this body passed 88.

Here we are sitting another week back in Congress, and we haven't raised the minimum wage, we haven't passed equal pay for equal work so that women make just as much as men do, and we haven't done anything about the affordability of higher education, allowing students to refinance their loans.

These are simple issues that aren't partisan issues. They are not Democratic/Republican. They are not liberal/conservative. They are about whether or not you are fighting for the middle class and those who aspire to be in the middle class or whether you are here trying to help out the special interests and the lobbyists who represent the special interests. It is really that simple.

So we need to pass a raise for the American people. That means you pass an increase in the minimum wage. As other Members have said, it will lift so many people out of poverty and give a raise to so many people to help stimulate the economy.

So the Progressive Caucus is fighting each and every single day while we are here for a variety of issues: raising the minimum wage, trying to stop wage theft in this country, trying to extend unemployment insurance so that everyone who is out of work can still get some benefits while they are looking for work so that they can get that job. We all know the best social program is a job, and we want to make sure that everyone can get that job.

We need to continue to do the things that Congress needs to get done and we have not gotten done. So the minimum wage is one issue that we wanted to talk about today.

As we have the President speaking to us this evening, we want to make sure that this body has a very full and rich debate. As we passed in a bipartisan way, 370-40, we need to have a real debate and have real questions answered before we get involved, so that we never again have what happened the last time we got involved in Iraq because we are back again. There was no ``mission accomplished.'' A banner and a fly-in in military gear is not a successful end to an involvement.

We need to make sure whatever we do this time is thoughtful, done with consultation of Congress, with narrow scope, and with a partnership with other nations specifically in the region to make sure that we are doing this not alone or not largely alone.

With that, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Caucus appreciates this time this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Wisconsin Institute for Public Policy and Service, at the University of Wisconsin--Marathon, on the opening of their newest facility named after one our state's most dedicated public servants, former Congressman Dave Obey.

The David R. Obey Civic Resource Center will provide opportunities to educate and encourage young people to become active participants in a healthy democratic society.

Many lessons can be learned from Dave Obey's leadership and service in this House.

While, Dave Obey remains a fierce champion of progressive causes, the Obey Center will embody his bipartisan approach and will encourage our citizens to explore the facts and ideas on both sides of any debate.

Dave's impact is still felt within the Wisconsin delegation today as we continue his tradition of working together, regardless of party, to serve the citizens of our state.

I applaud the opening of the Obey Center--a place that will ensure future generations of Wisconsinites become the leaders we need.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be here today on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, along with other members of the Progressive Caucus. We have long fought for the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class. Today, specifically, we want to address Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to help alleviate poverty in this Nation.

Needless to say, we were excited to find out a Republican wanted to talk about poverty, given the votes that we have had this session in this body. Whether it be the draconian cuts that appeared in the House Republican budget, the slashing of food stamps and assistance to the most needy in this country, to see a Republican finally stand up and talk about poverty, we were excited. And we want to have that conversation this evening.

So just what is in Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to help alleviate poverty? I am sure it must be something about raising the minimum wage to $10.10 in the next 3 years so that we can help lift people who are making $15,000 a year out of poverty. I am sure it addresses equal pay for equal work so that men and women are paid for doing the same work. But it doesn't appear that is part of Paul Ryan's plan.

I am sure it addresses some educational issues. I am sure it helps people pay back their loans at lower rates and makes sure we have expanded Pell grants available so that no one should be denied a higher education simply because they can't afford it. No, that is not part of the Ryan plan either.

I am sure there is an investment in early childhood education, because every person in this room must surely know that if we help invest at those earliest years, you can have a lifetime of experiences and opportunities for someone. That is not in the plan either.

Surely, it must address investments in infrastructure. We have crumbling roads and bridges. We have bridges and roads that are old enough that they are eligible for Medicare in this country. Surely, putting people back to work at a time like this and investing in our infrastructure would make sense. It is also not in the Ryan plan.

Let me try one more thing. It has got to be here. We must provide incentives to create good-paying jobs here in America rather than overseas. Clearly, the 21st century Make It In America Act must not be in the plan either.

All those things that I just mentioned--raising the minimum wage, making sure we have equal pay for equal work, expanding opportunity through expanded Pell grants and helping people refinance their student loans, helping people get access to early education and investing in our infrastructure and jobs here at home--are part of the House Democratic Middle Class Jumpstart program. They are what we would do in our first 100 days if we were to take over the majority after this fall.

But surely there must be something we could talk about today in Paul Ryan's plan. There has got to be something equally bold and, hopefully, not just old, a bunch of old ideas warmed over, brought back to us in versions of block grants and not really providing any real assistance that the most needy in this country need.

I am joined by a number of my colleagues today who are going to address exactly what is in Paul Ryan's plan and perhaps how we can offer a little different perspective to help the most needy in our country.

I would like to start out with a very esteemed and respected colleague from Illinois, Representative Danny Davis.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Thank you, Representative Davis, so much for all of your advocacy on behalf of those who are struggling to be in the middle class and for making sure we can try to reduce poverty.

Representative Davis is right. There are a couple of nuggets that are in the Ryan proposal that make sense. I think there could be bipartisan support for criminal sentencing reform. There should be, and it is long past due, and it is good to see that proposed in the plan.

As Representative Gwen Moore from Milwaukee so eloquently put forth, expanding tax credits for childless workers is something through the earned income tax credit we would support except that, perhaps, the Ryan proposal doesn't quite fund it in a way that makes sense.

So there are a few nuggets in there, but there is an awful lot that really doesn't do much about reducing poverty and, in fact, would probably, very likely, increase poverty in the near term.

I would like to yield to another colleague of mine, to someone who has been this body's, really, most outspoken person in talking about poverty. She is leading a task force for the Democratic Caucus that specifically addresses poverty. I would like to yield to my great colleague from the State

of California, Representative Barbara Lee.

Thank you, Representative Lee.

Representative Lee and I and Representative Moore all serve on the Budget Committee, and we have had a lot of time to see the Paul Ryan Republican budget.

When you talk about the SNAP program, I will just give one example. I remember, in this body, we had a debate as to whether we were going to cut $20 billion or eventually $39 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Yet we knew, when the Ryan budget was proposed--the Republican budget that was voted on in this body--the cuts to the SNAP program were $135 billion. Either there has been a rebirth in how we look at poverty from the other side of the aisle or, perhaps, there is just a little different packaging of some of the same bad ideas that just sound a little better, and I really appreciate your bringing those out.

Representative Lee, if you would yield to one more question

since we are talking about the bad math that we all too often see from the other side of the aisle: Didn't we also, during the budget, see some incredibly bad math when it came to the budget's repealing the benefits of the Affordable Care Act but its somehow trying to keep the revenue in savings? Wasn't that bad math something like $2 trillion worth of bad math, and now we are supposed to accept this $300 billion, allegedly, ``no cuts'' to the program? What were those numbers?

Again, thank you, Representative Lee. I appreciate it. Your final comments about how hard it is to actually be able to eat a block grant, perhaps, is part of the problem of why we don't quite trust what we see in that it will work as presented. Thank you so much for your time.

I would like to yield to another colleague of mine who is also from the State of California. He is one of my fellow freshman colleagues, Representative Mark Takano.

Thank you, Representative Takano, for all the work you are doing.

Mr. Speaker, next I would like to yield to a colleague of mine from the great State of Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a great friend of mine going back to the days in the State legislature, not only a great friend, but a great mentor to me.

Thank you, Representative Moore. You have been an advocate your entire life for those who are most needy, those trying to aspire to be in the middle class. Thank you for all that you do, and so articulately explaining the problems with Paul Ryan's proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to another colleague of mine, a colleague from the great State of Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the chair of our very important policy and steering committee, and a good friend and colleague of mine in the Progressive Caucus.

Again, thank you so much, Representative DeLauro, for your many years of service to this body and to the people of the country and fighting for those who need help the most.

I now would like to yield to another colleague of mine, but I am not going to say ``Representative Ryan'' because that might be confusing, given the conversation we are having, but let's say maybe the Budget Committee's other Representative Ryan, the Democratic Representative Ryan from the State of Ohio.

So I yield to another Budget Committee member, Representative Tim Ryan.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Ryan, for all you have done in your relentless fight on behalf of the workers in your district, and thank you so much, again, for being here today.

Finally, I would like to yield to a colleague of mine--another freshman colleague of mine from the great State of New York, Representative Hakeem Jeffries.

Thank you, Representative Jeffries. I, too, am skeptical. Having served on the Budget Committee with you, we have seen two different Paul Ryans. We are hoping that maybe this is a reformed Paul Ryan, but we are also fearful this is just a repackaged Paul Ryan. So thank you so much.

Finally, I would like to yield to a colleague from the Progressive Caucus from the great State of Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

Thank you, Representative Jackson Lee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today on behalf of both the Progressive Caucus and the Equality Caucus, as we are here today to talk about June being national Pride Month--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month--as we celebrate every June.

This year has been an especially significant year. We have had a lot of victories. One year ago Thursday--tomorrow--is the year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that ensured that people could have their marriages recognized by the Federal Government.

We have also had a number of States in the last year--bringing us up to 19 States and the District of Columbia--where you can legally be married in this country and several others that have approved it, but are currently in the legal status, including my home State of Wisconsin. We have had a big year, in that Michael Sam was the first openly gay person to be drafted into the NFL.

So we have had a lot of successes in the last year since our last Pride. We are here today to talk about that and what an important contribution to this country we have from our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens, but as much we have had all these successes, we have also had a number of projects that we still have to get done.

Until everyone has access to full equality in this country, we have not provided equal treatment under the law to each and every person as we would expect.

Mr. Speaker, we still have a number of States where you can be fired simply for being gay or lesbian. Michael Sam, as much as he has finally made it into the NFL, could be fired in a number of States in this country under the current law.

We still have too many students and too many youth who attempt suicide who are bullied in school. We have to make sure they have equal access to a quality education, and we still have too much uneven treatment, depending on what State you live in, whether or not your family is recognized. Whether you are in Wisconsin or Massachusetts, the law is different, certainly, in the State level.

We are here today to talk about the many successes we have had and the challenges we still yet have. I am very happy to be joined by a number of colleagues today, and I would like to yield, if I could, right off the bat, to one of my colleagues who has been an outspoken advocate for equality, Representative Al Green from the great State of Texas.

Thank you, Representative Green, not only because you have been a veteran fighter for civil rights for everyone in this country, but I believe that is the first time that that resolution has been introduced in the body of Congress to recognize this month as Pride Month. We appreciate all the hard work you have done to make sure that happens.

I agree with you. I look forward to the day that we actually get a chance to vote on that in the month of June and make sure we recognize everyone in this country, so thank you so much for your contributions.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that, when the gentleman talked about the historical aspect of why this month is so important, he mentioned the Stonewall riots.

In fact, this Saturday--June 28--will mark the 45th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, which is often seen as the real birth of the movement for equality for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities.

The gentleman mentioned Harvey Milk from California, who just this year was recognized on a stamp by the U.S. Government, the U.S. Postal Service, so we can recognize the many contributions that Harvey Milk made for this country, so that so many people could be out and run for office.

Mr. Speaker, I like to remind people that, in my home State of Wisconsin, one of the things is we talk about each coast and the many things that have been done on our coasts for people for equality who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered.

My State of Wisconsin--we were the State that sent the first person who ran out for Congress, Tammy Baldwin, to the U.S. House, the first person elected to the U.S. Senate, in Tammy Baldwin.

With my election, Tammy Baldwin's, and a Republican's--Steve Gunderson, who came out while he was in office--we have sent more openly gay and lesbian people to Congress than any other State in the country--and that is from the heartland, the State of Wisconsin.

So we are really proud of this entire country, from coast to coast and especially in the heartland. We are trying to do everything we can to make sure that everyone is treated with respect and dignity and they have the liberty to live their lives to the fullest, and that is exactly what this month is about.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to another one of my colleagues who has been a hardworking fighter on behalf of equality for every single person. In fact, I think he may have the distinction of being the first person to fly a rainbow flag outside of his office here in Washington, DC, have it outside of his door in his office.

He has been a tremendous fighter from the Long Beach area of California and a very good friend of mine. I would like to yield to my colleague from the great State of California, Representative Alan Lowenthal.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal). You have been an outstanding advocate for every single one of your constituents, including the LGBT community, and I can't thank you enough for all of the work you do.

As Representative Lowenthal mentioned, one of the things we need to get done yet is a bill called the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, or ENDA. In 29 States in this country, you can still be fired simply because of your sexual orientation, and in 33 States based on your gender identity. This is 2014. Our country has moved far beyond the fact that you can be fired simply because of who you love. In fact, most people assume this is already the law of the land, yet it is not the law of the land, and depending upon what States you live in depends on whether or not you can have discrimination against you. That is simply wrong.

The ENDA bill has the support of virtually every Democrat in the House. Eight Republican Members have officially signed on as sponsors. And if that bill were to come to this floor, Mr. Speaker, there would be the votes to pass this bill. The problem is getting it to the floor of Congress.

Right now we are not able to do that. The Republican majority has not allowed that bill to come to the floor, but we know and we feel confident that there are the votes to pass that in this House if we can only get it on the floor. We can join the 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies that provide for equal treatment for their employees. And the fact that 82 percent of the U.S. public supports this, it is far past due to make sure that we protect each and every person with these protections.

Another thing that Representative Lowenthal said that deserves extra recognition is that the Obama administration, President Obama and Vice President Biden, have been outspoken advocates for equal treatment under the law for each and every single person.

In fact, when I think about 1 year ago tomorrow when that Supreme Court decision came out, I was outside the Supreme Court when the decision was declared. I remember going back to my office, and that day we were on the phone with the President and his administration telling us how they were going to make sure that the Supreme Court decision would be implemented in law as quickly as humanly possible. I can tell you, that has certainly happened. In fact, just last week, the Obama administration released a report on the implementation of the Windsor decision detailing exactly how Federal agencies have moved to implement the law, and we have had tremendous progress in virtually every area.

While we still have some areas to move forward, specifically in Social Security and in veterans benefits, we are moving forward with that law, making sure that the Supreme Court's decision is implemented in the laws of the land in this country so that everyone is treated equally. I tell you, that President Obama and Vice President Biden have made it such a priority that everyone is treated with dignity and respect in this country has been amazing, and it is part of why we have the progress that we have. If only this Congress could get an employee nondiscrimination bill on the floor, I know this Congress would pass in a bipartisan way the very protections that we need. In fact, the President just within the last 2 weeks made sure that some of those protections are in place.

The LGBT Equality Caucus has long asked the President could we possibly do an executive order to make sure that anyone who does business as a Federal contractor provides these protections to their gay and lesbian employees, just as should happen under the law. If this Congress can't act, it doesn't mean nothing should happen. If this Congress can't act, something has to happen to fill that vacuum. The White House says they will be drafting an executive order to make sure that any Federal contractor does not discriminate based on their sexual orientation. That is a tremendous step forward, but we still have to make sure that each and every one of those States that doesn't provide these protections does provide those protections under the law.

Another area within the Federal Government where we need to do more is specifically on a number of bills that have been introduced by a number of Members from across this country to make sure that everyone is respected under that court decision--no matter what you do for a living, that you have that respect and dignity.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has introduced the Respect For Marriage Act to ensure that those who live in States that aren't recognized can be recognized.

For example, in the State of Wisconsin, my husband and I were married in 2006 in Toronto. My State still has hate in its constitution. By Federal law, we are recognized for the thousand rights and responsibilities that are afforded to marriage, but the 213 under State law are still in limbo. Despite the fact that a Federal judge recently ruled our marriage ban as unconstitutional, it is still back in legal limbo. Until that decision gets made, people who have been married, which is in the hundreds in Wisconsin who just got married, and before that hundreds and hundreds more, can still have recognition of their benefits so we have consistency in the law.

There are other bills that I am going to talk about as we go through this hour, but I would like to yield to another one of my colleagues, someone who has been an outstanding Representative from the State of Rhode Island. First he served as the mayor of Providence, and he is an outstanding advocate for equality for each and every single person of this country, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I thank Representative Cicilline. You are seen on so many issues as the point person in this Congress; specifically, making sure that we respect those who may be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender in other countries. I think I heard a statistic this year that one out of six people who previously had rights lost them this year because of countries like Russia, India, and other countries across our globe. It is a real concern. While we are having progress here, it is leaving a lot of other people behind around the world. Thank you for all of your advocacy around that.

In fact, one of those countries that is a country that has not gone forward in the area of equal treatment of their citizens is the country of Brunei. Brunei is a country that is currently part of the negotiations that we are having with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that is generally offered to countries that we have something in common with, that we want to be able to not only have increased trade with, but you actually want to make sure that they somehow reflect your values.

And unfortunately Brunei just recently implemented shari'a law, which includes the stoning of gays and lesbians, the stoning to death for gays and lesbians in their country. This is something that we have great concern about.

There was a bipartisan letter recently signed by 119 Members of this body that went to both Secretary Kerry and the U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman specifically saying why are we rewarding something that is considered such a prize, to have status in trading with us as one of the countries that we are going to put into a trade agreement, when they have such terrible human rights conditions? 119 people, in a bipartisan way in this body, sent that letter.

So we are hoping that--as Representative Cicilline said, we are seeing us go backwards in Russia, and it looks like we may be going backwards in India and some other countries. Certainly, they have advocated the stoning of gays and lesbians. That is truly a backward idea and something that this country needs to do everything we can to change. I am glad that so many of our colleagues, in a bipartisan way, did that.

Some of the other bills that Members of Congress have introduced to try to address some of the issues that we need to move forward on, Representative Titus from Nevada has introduced the Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act, specifically getting at some of the complexities that we haven't gotten to yet within the Veterans Administration to make sure that everyone has their family relationship recognized and that that treatment is extended to their spouses.

Representative Walz also has Protecting the Freedoms and Benefits for All Veterans Act; Representative Adam Smith has Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act--all trying to make sure that if you serve this country and you are a gay or lesbian citizen, you have the same benefits and rights offered to your family as offered to the other members of the military.

There is also a bill Representative Ron Kind from Wisconsin has introduced, the Social Security and Marriage Equality Act, trying to address the other problem that we have within Social Security, to make sure that everyone has those benefits offered to their life partners, their husbands or wives in same sex-sex relationships. Right now that has not happened yet since that Windsor decision, and it needs to happen and we are moving forward on that.

There is a bill that I have introduced that specifically is looking to--the Restore Honor to Servicemembers Act. One of the, I think, uglier parts of our Nation's history when it comes to treatment of folks who may be gay or lesbian has been the fact that we had for so long a policy--and previous to that, outright discrimination--against gays and lesbians who choose to serve this country in the military. Under President Clinton we implemented Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but that still didn't fix it so that you could serve openly in the military.

And finally, when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed and anyone was able to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation, we found that 114,000 people since World War II in this country were discharged with something different than the honorable discharge they should have received for their service to this country because we so often let people go previously out of the military because they are gay or lesbian with a either dishonorable discharge, other than honorable, or some other status.

Don't forget, a dishonorable discharge in some States is the same as a felony. It can take away your ability to vote; it takes away your ability to have veterans' benefits even though you served this country well.

There is a process now that people can get that status changed to the honorable status they should have received, but it is a complicated process. While it is in place under this current President, a future President could change it because it is not actually in statute. Often people have to go and hire a lawyer because it is a complicated process.

We have introduced a bill to make sure that we really treat all those veterans with the respect and honor they deserve for treating this country in the way they did by putting their life on the line to do everything they could to make sure that we have the liberty that we all have, that they should now have the liberty that they deserve and have that record changed. That is a bill that we are also trying to get done that we think is very important in moving forward.

This is a historic month. When we have Pride Month, we try to recognize the many areas that not only have we moved forward on, but also what we still need to improve. I think by talking about some of the bills that still have to move forward to make sure that everyone has that equal treatment under the law--again, those things include equal treatment for employment, which is why we have the Employee Nondiscrimination Act. In 29 States in this country you can still be fired simply because of whom you love.

We have too many students who are still being bullied in school, and the suicide rate among LGBT youth is much higher than youth in general, and we have to help restore that.

It shouldn't matter what State you live in whether or not your family is recognized. So, if you live in Wisconsin

that unfortunately still has hate in our State constitution, the fact that I live there with my husband doesn't mean I should be treated any differently than if I lived in Illinois or Minnesota or Iowa, neighboring States that all recognize the relationships regardless of whom you love.

Those are all things we still have to get done in this country. We need to do that in this body, Mr. Speaker, in this Congress. We need to get these bills to the floor and pass them and move on from what I think at one point in this history was a certain way to get out certain voters. There is a certain constituency that was built around hate. We need to move beyond that. I think many people have. While the Democratic Party certainly, I think, has been a party of inclusion and moved in a positive way, I think I am seeing that happen among Republicans, but we need to have the leadership of this House also moving.

We had a Republican Member just yesterday who has been a strong supporter of equality for all people just win his Republican primary. That is important because he has been an outspoken voice for equality. Representative Hanna, I am glad you won your primary. You stood up for your values, and your constituents supported you.

I think it is time that more of our colleagues, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, need to also stand up for what is right, because we all have colleagues and we all have constituents who are gay and lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. We can't pick and choose who we represent. You support and you represent every single person in your district, and when you don't support full equality, you are really not standing up for each and every constituent, and that is truly unfortunate.

To end, I really want to focus again on those successes. We have had a tremendous year. We have had so much progress from the Supreme Court decision exactly 1 year ago tomorrow, where we have now had a number of States just in the last year move towards full marriage equality, where we have had a country where Michael Sam could finally be the first openly gay person drafted into the NFL.

We have been able to move forward in so many areas. This is because society has moved. A majority of people in this country support marriage equality. I believe the last I saw was 58 percent of the people. Even more important, 81 percent of people 30 and under support marriage equality. That is where this country is going. We want to treat everyone with respect and dignity and allow them the liberty to live their lives. Until we do that for every single citizen, we have not reached the goal of treating everyone with equality and equal treatment under the law.

With this time that we have had, the Progressive Caucus and the Equality Caucus, I wanted to share some time with our members so we could make sure we celebrate this Pride Month and all of our constituents who may be gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgendered and say thank you for all you do. We are going to continue to fight for your equality, not only in this body in Congress, but throughout society.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the chairman for including language supporting continued work on lithium ion battery research.

However, in reviewing the underlying bill, I am concerned about the possible interpretation by the Office of Naval Research with respect to this effort. I believe it is important that the Office of Naval Research emphasize battery safety as a part of this work.

I would also request the opportunity to continue to work with the chairman and the ranking member to allocate research and development funding to promote battery safety and to retain such funding through conference on the underlying bill.

I hope to make it clear that this Chamber encourages investment in battery safety research.