Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the American people and for American democracy.

For weeks, I've told my constituents that I know things look bad, but the Republicans won't shut down the government. There's too many adults on that side of the room to let this happen.

And now, after watching what happened yesterday, I can barely explain this to myself. The best I can say is I feel like I'm serving in the Nation's largest kindergarten, only we're in charge of the Federal checkbook and the nuclear arsenal.

The fact that so many Republicans are holding their breath because they don't like the Affordable Care Act--Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. The President signed the bill into law. The Supreme Court has upheld the law.

And yet this body keeps voting to try and repeal the Affordable Care Act, not just once or twice, getting the message, but 46 times. And it's still operational today.

What happened last night, in the final half hour before closing down our government?

The Republicans came up with a last-ditch effort: let's go to conference committee.

I serve on the Budget Committee. We have been asking, for 6 months, to have the Republicans appoint conferees so we could have a budget in this country. The only obstacle between this country having a budget and not is the fact that the Speaker would refuse to appoint conferees to a budget.

Last night, with 15 minutes to spare, the best idea the Republicans have, after 46 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, is to have us go to a conference committee.

What are the results of what happened?

Well, one, government is shut down. Thank you, Republican Party.

Two, the Affordable Care Act is implementing today and is the law of the land.

And, three, I'm guessing the Tea Party had a pretty good fundraising week or two.

But here's what happens to the people in my district. People who are trying to get small business loans from the Small Business Administration are going to be halted; $1 billion a month that happens is halted right now, so we can't grow the economy.

People trying to get housing loans for rural families and low- and middle-income families are going to be put on hold.

The Women, Infant and Children program for low-income, pregnant women will be put on hold, after this Congress has already tried to cut $39 billion from food stamps.

We're going to block the Centers for Disease Control from tracking influenza, something that could potentially have devastating impact across the country.

And more than 800,000 Federal employees are going to be furloughed because some Republicans couldn't get their way on the 46th try.

I served in the Wisconsin legislature for 14 years before coming here, and we had our differences, but we always moved on. We did our jobs.

Now it's time for Congress to do our job. It doesn't matter what party you belong to. America deserves better.

The adults in the Republican Party need to take the keys back from the Tea Party before they have to call a tow truck to take the country out of the ditch. It's time for the country to act, and we need the Republicans to get behind something that gets a budget done.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have been bombarded on their TV screens by this creepy image of Uncle Sam appearing between a young woman's legs. This ad is funded by the idealistic-sounding Generation Opportunity, but guess who's really behind this ad? The not- so-idealistic Koch brothers, who are spending a share of their wealth to tell people not to get health insurance. Their sole purpose is to keep young people from getting quality, affordable care; and, in doing so, they hope to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

But what would KochCare look like? Insurance companies could deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. You could be thrown into bankruptcy because of lifetime caps. Insurance companies would be able to charge women more than men. And tens of millions of Americans would be without health insurance. Oh, and Uncle Sam would be standing between a woman and her doctor when it comes to reproductive health, just like you see the GOP trying to do across the country.

That's what the GOP and the Koch brothers want: fewer options, less health care, and higher costs. That certainly doesn't seem like an opportunity for a generation to me.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, I am here to present a conversation that we would like to share with the American public, which is the plight of low-wage workers.

The Progressive Caucus here in Congress has worked on this issue for many years. This last month, when Members went home and worked in the district for the month, we joined many of these low-wage workers in a day of strike as a way to present their case to the American people.

Too many people are paid too little for the work they do. That harms families in this country; that depresses the economy in this country; and that makes more people have to go to government assistance because they're simply not paid enough for the work that they're doing.

We all know that economy has had a lot of tough times in the last several years, but things are getting better. The problem is they are only getting better for some.

We know that corporate profits have continued to break records, while Americans are working harder and getting paid less. We know that the stock markets are close to all time highs and corporate profits are booming. The $200 billion-a-year fast food industry is doing extremely well in this country, and our workers are more than pulling their weight to help in these successes.

Over the past 30 years, the productivity of the American worker has increased 85 percent, however, the salaries that they get paid simply haven't kept up in pace.

Mr. Speaker, why is the economy stuck? Why aren't these people making more money? Why is it that while so many who are in the top 1 percent, the top 10 percent, are doing extremely well, somehow those financial returns haven't trickled down to the rest of the economy?

We know the incomes of the top 1 percent have grown by more than 31

percent since 2009, just in the last several years--a 31 percent increase--yet incomes for the bottom 99 percent have moved less than 1 percent. That inequality is what is causing the real problem that we have.

In order to have the economy truly prosper and truly recover, we have to make sure that all people are benefiting and that all people see an additional wage. Wages have been stagnant for a generation, as the minimum wage right now in real terms is $1 less than it was in 1980. But yet the fastest-growing jobs in the economy are also those same jobs--they're the lowest paid. Fast food, retail, home health, child care, and security jobs are growing, but they don't pay enough to cover the basic necessities like food, clothing, and rent.

So how much is enough? Many of these people are working across the country at $7.25 an hour. Now, if you take that times 2,080, which is the number of full-time equivalent hours in a year, that's about $15,080 a year for a full-time worker on minimum wage. For a couple both earning that, that's a little over $30,000. If you have a family, a couple of children, you're not even close to the median income of $51,144 in this country.

But what makes this number even tougher is when you look at the actual cost of living. The Economic Policy Institute has said that the cost per year of maintaining a modest standard of living for a typical family of four--they figured that out across the country, including in my home city of Madison, Wisconsin, home of Bucky Badger--and these numbers are written in stone--this is what the costs are on average:

If you live in Madison, Wisconsin, your average costs are likely over $75,000 a year for a family of four. That's a breakdown of housing is about $10,668; food another $9,048; child care for that family $18,312; transportation $7,284; other necessities a little over $5,000; and their taxes are about $6,900.

Now, that's for Madison, Wisconsin, the middle of America. But what about other places? Well, Milwaukee, a bigger city, but still in my State, $74,000 is that expense. In New York City, it's over $94,000 for that same low-wage worker, that same minimum-wage worker. And one of the best deals for a major city across the country, Atlanta, it's still almost $62,000 a year, almost double what an average couple could make on minimum wage.

Now, I know some of the myths that are out there. People say a minimum-wage worker is someone who's living at home, probably going to school, under 18, just for pocket change, right? That's the myth. We've heard that more than enough.

Well, here's the reality. According to the Economic Policy Institute, what is that minimum-age worker actually? What's their demographic? What's the profile? Well, first of all, 88 percent are over 20 years of age--88 percent. So really it's a small token percent that is that average high school student making minimum wage. A third of them are over 40 years old. So a full third of the lowest-paid workers are over 40 years old. The average age, 35 years old. Twenty-eight percent of those lowest-paid workers have children. So when we talk about that family of four, we are talking about it because the statistics are there. Twenty-eight percent have children. Fifty-five percent of them are full-time workers. So this isn't something on the side for some extra pocket change. This is the full-time job that they have at that minimum wage. On average, over half of them earn half of their family income based on that minimum wage job. Over 43 percent of them have some kind of college education.

So that's the reality. When you look at that worker, that's the real demographic. This isn't that high school kid staying with their parents making some extra money so they can go buy another CD or some new toy. This in reality is the living sustenance for many of these workers across the country.

Yet, if you look at just one of the fast food companies, their CEO makes 580 times what that low-income worker is making at that very same company. Now, if you just raise that wage to $10.10, you would literally lift 6 million of these people out of poverty--6 million people, you could literally have a significant change in their lives.

Now, let's look at the economy and what this means. We know that while wages have been stagnant, the price of housing in the United States has doubled since the early '80s. Safe, adequate housing has become less and less affordable to someone who makes minimum wage.

But let's look at some of the consequences of that person making $7.25 an hour. First of all, it's bad for families. If you can't support your family and your children on that wage, like we just talked about--rent, food, medicine, housing--the most basic costs that you have are more than they could possibly make on that.

Second, it's bad for the deficit. Low-wage workers often qualify for food stamps and other public assistance while big profitable corporations are forcing taxpayers to subsidize their low wages and burden our economy.

In Wisconsin alone, there is one employer that has a majority of folks who are on our low-income assistance health program. A majority of folks who should be getting that support from their job instead are on our public assistance program for health insurance.

Now, thankfully, the Affordable Care Act is going to make sure that more and more people in this country have access to health care. But the reality is we are subsidizing those people right now, each and every one of us, because those big corporations that are having record profits and CEOs making hundreds of times what that low-wage worker makes are doing well and yet we are paying for it.

Also, it's bad for the economy. That means in the local economy if you don't have people spending money in this current economy, that's what's holding us back. I truly believe a rising tide lifts all boats. If we increase that wage, whether it be $9 that the President proposed, $10.10, $15, whatever wage we ultimately have a debate about, you raise that, that money that that low-wage worker has is not going to be invested, it's not going to be held in savings. It's very likely going to be spent in the economy just to get by on the day-to-day expenses. But that builds the entire economy. If they are able to occasionally go to a movie or maybe go to a restaurant, not the fast food one they work at, and have a dinner, that's going to help stimulate the economy for everyone. So, again, we hold back our economy by those low-wage workers not making more.

Finally, I think what this country really is about is opportunity. This takes away that opportunity to grow the middle class from the middle out and from the bottom up. How do we help those people get that chance, that opportunity for their family that many of us have, but they're not able to because they're stuck at that job at $7.25 an hour, yet they have the expenses we all have?

Now, at the same time, during this, CEO pay has skyrocketed. We know that the average CEO between 1978 and 2012, their compensation grew, according to an article in The Huffington Post, 876 percent. Now, during the same period, worker compensation grew 5.4 percent.

Income inequality is a huge problem in this country. If we don't address it at some point, these stagnant wages that haven't kept up with the cost of living, haven't kept up with the cost of housing, we are going to have real and serious problems for our economy for each and every person.

In fact, the average CEO right now makes 354 times what that low-wage worker makes--354 times. That fast food worker, their CEO made 580 times. But we have to make sure that everyone prospers in this country, and everyone prospers in this economy.

We have to make sure that families can cover their basic needs, that we can lessen the need for public assistance and help reduce our deficit. We can put more money in the pockets of workers instead of corporate CEOs and, thus, more money in the pockets of our small businesses, which are going to benefit when they're spending that additional money. We can lift up our local economies and, by doing that, lift up our local communities--having safer, better, healthier communities by people having more money.

That's why the members of the Progressive Caucus stood with those low-

wage workers in this last month, in August, when they took a day of strike. They didn't go to work for part of the day or for the whole day in order to illustrate the problems that they're facing, and we across the country stood with them to support a fair wage for a full day's work. In more than 50 cities across the country, members of the Progressive Caucus and other Democrats joined with these low-paid workers to make sure we talked about their stories. I'd just like to read a couple of quotes from people who participated in this.

One was a gentleman from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who was 45 years old, a low-paid worker, and this is what he said:

I'm a maintenance man at McDonald's. When my grandbabies

come over on the weekend, I spend on them, making sure that

they eat and are comfortable. I eat McDonald's the last 2

weeks of the month because I have no food left.

Is that the America that, I think, we value; the land of opportunity so that every family can prosper?

Let me read another one. This is from a worker in New York City, and she said:

On some days, I've been up for 48 hours straight, and

McDonald's makes billions of dollars every year.

Now, think about that. That person, who very likely may have children--28 percent of those people who are making minimum wage do-- was up for 48 hours straight. How do you do that? How do you make that work?

So we have tried to stand up on behalf of the low-paid workers and say it's time we address this issue. The President said we need to raise the minimum wage. Democrats have said we need to raise the minimum wage. People across the country--business owners and others-- have said that it's time to increase the minimum wage. I served 14 years in the Wisconsin legislature before I was here. Every single time that we increased the minimum wage in Wisconsin we had more people enter the workforce.

As the statistics from the Economic Policy Institute said, this isn't about high school kids earning a little extra pocket change while living at home, which is 12 percent of that population. This is about getting real people into the workforce, earning money, putting it back into the economy, supporting their families, and doing exactly what we need to do with the economy.

When we did this across the country, we were very, very fortunate to have someone who has been a real role model for many of us who are progressives across the country in elected office, someone from the city of Chicago or outside the city of Chicago, but a real leader in the progressive movement in Congress and, again, someone who has been a real leader for many of us for the many years that we've been in government.

I would like to yield, Mr. Speaker, to Representative Jan Schakowsky from the Chicago area.

Thank you, Representative Schakowsky.

In fact, when you talked about that, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the average family expense for a typical family in Chicago is $73,055.

That $600 allotment for rent is hardly enough. That $20 for health care will get you a bottle of orange juice and maybe some Band-Aids, but I don't know if I'd call that health care.

You're not going to get much.

I really appreciate what you said about the fact that a business owner can benefit. I've been a small business owner for 25 years. When I opened my small business, I had hair--it's been a long time--and I can tell you that, when you treat your employees well, everyone benefits. When they make more money, that helps as they're invested in the company, and they're able to support their families. If they have health insurance, they're able to make sure that everyone is healthy in their families. If their families are good, they're good. There are many benefits. Yet when you get to the factor of almost what we'd call greed--when you get to 580 times the salary of that low-paid worker, like the CEO of McDonald's makes--that's a problem across the country.

So I really appreciate what you've brought up and specifically your example from Chicago because, in Madison, we've actually got it slightly higher, about $75,000 a year. When they broke out those expenses, they were talking housing of about $10,668, transportation $7,200, food $9,000, taxes $6,900. When you go through that, it's absolutely impossible to live on that minimum wage. Yet, as you said, you were with a bunch of people who were adults who were working at these places. Again, according to the Economic Policy Institute, 88 percent of the people are over 20 years old. The average age of a minimum-wage worker is 35 years old. So the myth that's out there about that low-income worker is simply not true.

Representative Schakowsky, I wonder if you might be able to just share a little bit more, based on the years you've been here, about exactly what some of the costs are to the local government and to the State government and to the Federal Government that come out of these workers having to come for subsidies, because, as you know, there are various programs that so often get attacked, sometimes by the people on the other side of the aisle. Like you said, there is the SNAP program that they're trying to provide an almost $40 billion cut to in the next budget if they have their way. There would be even less available for those people who need the subsidy thanks to those companies. I wonder if you could just share a little more about that.

Thank you, Representative Schakowsky, for your many years of advocacy on behalf of the low-wage worker.

When you talked about businessowners, one of the things I think about as someone who's been in business my entire adult life is just the fact that you always call us ``job creators.'' I like to think of the consumer as the job creator. When I have someone buying from my business, that allows me to be able to hire someone. If we help people have more money in their pocket, they're the job creators. Each and every one of those people are the job creators we're talking about.

Again, thank you so much.

We've been joined by another strong progressive, Representative Rick Nolan from Minnesota. I know that he also has been an outspoken advocate when it comes to the plight of the low-wage workers, and I would like to yield to Representative Rick Nolan from northern Minnesota.

Thank you, Congressman Nolan. Again, thank you for your many years of devotion to helping raise the economy for every single person so they can really have access to that opportunity you talk about. We have a lot to do in Congress. I think we will have a chance to talk about trade and other policies later this year. But you're right, the first and most fair thing that we could possibly do, that we have control in this room to do, is to raise the minimum wage. The President has asked for it. The Democrats have asked for it. It's time we have a vote so we ensure that you don't live in poverty working that job or working two jobs or three jobs trying to get by, because that's exactly what happens.

I would like to yield to another colleague who has spoken out in his district and across his home State of California not only on behalf of low-wage workers but also someone who is a strong environmentalist.

I yield to Representative Alan Lowenthal.

I thank Representative Lowenthal. On behalf of the Progressive Caucus, thank you for showing some of the other issues we're working on. We're fighting for equality for every single person across the country. We want everyone to have access to democracy. We need to have meaningful campaign finance reform, from the Citizens United decision to every single candidate for Congress and how we fund our campaigns.

We need to make sure every single person has the right to vote in this country, something that because of the recent Supreme Court decision isn't guaranteed.

But one thing the Progressive Caucus today really wanted to highlight, and we have made the case, why we joined so many workers across the country in the month of August who are getting paid minimum wage, who are barely getting by, who aren't being treated fairly in their workplace: we literally have too many people who are paid too little for the work they do. As Representative Nolan said, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It's not a talking point, it's a fact. It's the actual statistics that are out there.

If we're going to help people support their families, if we're going to help support the economy, if we're really going to take people off of government assistance, the very ones who are working and yet having to be on government assistance because of the low wage they make, there's a simple answer, and that's increase the minimum wage. That's what we came here to talk about today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. We appreciate having the time to talk about the plight of the low-wage worker and why we need to raise the minimum wage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 12, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Tonight, the Congressional Progressive Caucus would like to talk about voting rights and how important that is to this country and to every single person in our country.

Last week, both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees held hearings on the Voting Rights Act and what steps we need to take forward to protect the right to vote in this country. There's potentially no right that is more important, no issue that is more important to this country that we should consider than our right to vote. It should be our most fundamental right. It's the right that preserves all other liberties that Americans hold dear.

When aspiring Americans take the citizenship test, they're asked, What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens? And the correct answer: the right to vote. Protecting this right should be the primary concern of our democracy. So you would think that when that question is asked, What are our most important rights, and the answer is, The right to vote, it would be something that's enshrined in our U.S. Constitution and you would think there is explicitly a right to vote. I certainly thought that. But you would be wrong. It's startling to think, at first. It seems against everything you think you've been taught and against the principles that our country has been built on. But within our Constitution there is no explicit right to vote.

We have to remember that when our Constitution was originally ratified, the right to vote was specifically not guaranteed. In fact, it was an incredibly restrictive law. Only white male property owners above the age of 21 could vote. That was less than 20 percent of the country's population at the time. Many of our Founders specifically did not want to expand the franchise of voting, believing most in society were unqualified for the privilege. In fact, John Adams famously wrote:

It is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy

and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the

qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it.

Mr. Speaker, since that time, our Nation's attitudes towards voting have changed slowly but very progressively. But the fact that we have needed constitutional amendments prohibiting discrimination based on race, gender, and age demonstrates that we possess no guaranteed right to vote in our Constitution.

Meanwhile, these accomplishments have oftentimes been accompanied by a myriad of tactics, laws, and strategies meant to suppress the vote: literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, voter intimidation.

These targets of discriminatory efforts have changed as well. Our first literacy tests were adopted to keep Irish-Catholic immigrants from voting. Then we saw a wide array of efforts to stop African Americans from going to the polls.

Now, today, the bills introduced to restrict the right to vote may be a little less obvious and voters lawmakers wish to suppress are a little harder to define, but these efforts are nonetheless discriminatory.

We have seen burdensome registration requirements and reduced early voting opportunities, which are often critical for low-income Americans who cannot take off work on Election Day. African Americans and Latinos, in particular, have utilized early voting days in very high numbers.

College students have been the targets of a number of efforts to decrease their participation, from disallowing student IDs as an acceptable form of voter identification, to stricter residency requirements, to limited polling locations on campuses.

Voter ID and burdensome registration requirements often make it harder for senior citizens also to be able to vote. In Wisconsin, we've had this issue before us. Many senior citizens no longer carry their driver's license because they no longer drive, and yet that's one of the very things that they may need to go vote with a photo ID.

I myself didn't realize the full extent of the attack on our right to vote until voter ID laws were actually introduced in my home State of Wisconsin. As is often the case with voter ID laws, Republicans justified the photo ID requirement as a way to counter voter fraud in our State.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this crisis of voter fraud is a fraud in and of itself. As the Brennan Center for Justice points out, you are more likely to be killed by lightning than you are to commit voter fraud in your lifetime. To be killed by lightning is more common than voter fraud in this country.

Now, in Wisconsin, we're very proud that we're one of the top three States for voter participation--Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin--and we're known for our clean and effective elections. Our chief elections officer found that since the year 2000 in statewide elections the State has seen about 20 instances of voter fraud out of more than 6 million votes cast. Most of those instances of voter fraud involved felons who were ineligible to vote but voted--a problem that doesn't get fixed with a photo ID.

So why did the Wisconsin Legislature believe we needed to combat against voter fraud? What does it mean when you have a cure in search of a disease? Well, in my experience, there's usually an ulterior motive. And in the case of restrictive voting laws, the design is to suppress the vote, to encourage lower voter turnout in the hopes of influencing elections. In other words, it's about elected officials trying to pick their voters rather than the voters picking their elected officials.

Now, in Wisconsin, we're very fortunate because our State constitution specifically guarantees the right to vote. Because of this provision, the suppressive voting laws that have been introduced in our State have largely been blocked by the courts.

But what I did realize is that, while Wisconsin had a strong amendment that protected our right to vote, our U.S. Constitution does not. Unfortunately, without a guaranteed Federal right to vote, we will continue to see the types of disenfranchising efforts that have become a plague on our modern society.

Mr. Speaker, that takes us to today and last month's Supreme Court decision that struck down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 4 was the act's preclearance formula, the formula that determined which States and counties needed to get Federal approval before they make voting law changes. The Court ruled that the formula was outdated and, thus, unconstitutional.

Now, I think the Court may have forgotten that when we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, overwhelmingly, just from 2006, we had 390 supporters in the House of Representatives and a unanimous 98-0 vote in the Senate. Clearly, there was strong support in the legislative body for the Voting Rights Act that was now turned aside by the Supreme Court.

Either way, what we know for certain is that before the ink was even dry on the Supreme Court decision, State legislatures began to act. Of the nine States that were fully covered by the Voting Rights Act, six have already started to move on legislation that would restrict the right to vote. Let me just read you a couple quotes from a couple of these States.

Texas--this was really quick. This is the headline: ``That was quick: Texas moves forward with voter ID law after Supreme Court ruling.'' That's from the National Journal on June 25:

The Texas law requires voters to show photo identification

to vote--a measure that was blocked by the Justice

Department, arguing the law would discriminate against

racial minorities. At the time, Attorney General Eric

Holder called the law a ``poll tax.''

And that's where Texas went as soon as that Supreme Court decision happened.

In Mississippi, the headline: ``Mississippi's Secretary of State Moves to Enforce Voter ID Law.'' Their new voter ID law may seem innocuous, but more than one out of 10 of every eligible voters do not have a government-issued ID, clearly making it harder for people to vote in the State of Mississippi.

Finally, just another example is in the State of North Carolina. The headline: ``Senate Republicans Unveil Stricter North Carolina Voter ID Bill.'' Again, according to the article from the Charlotte Observer, Republican lawmakers are emboldened in their effort to push a photo identification requirement for in-person voting after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The ruling means the bill would no longer need Justice Department approval before it becomes law.

So we're seeing in State after State after State that was protected by the Voting Rights Act that States now are trying to change those laws and make it harder for people to have that ability to go out and vote.

Now, I happen to agree with the Court that the formula was outdated. As I previously detailed, it doesn't reflect the current attempts to restrict the right to vote. In fact, it underestimates them.

Let's look at it this way: under the Voting Rights Act, nine entire States and certain counties in six others were covered, but just this year already, more than 80 restrictive voting laws in 31 States have been introduced.

Given my experience in Wisconsin and what I'm seeing in States across the country, I knew that we had to take action at the national level. So I got together with Congressman Keith Ellison from Minnesota and we worked with FairVote to work on a right to vote amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would guarantee an affirmative right to vote for every single American.

Our amendment is as simple as it is necessary. It says that every American citizen possesses the fundamental right to vote in any public election where they reside, and Congress has the power to protect this right.

This amendment would create an important change from current policy. No more would Americans have to prove that their right to vote has been infringed. If you live in a State right now, you have to prove that that State, in changing voting laws, has somehow infringed your ability to vote in order to have success. Instead, under our constitutional amendment, the burden of proof would go to the States, and the States would have to demonstrate that any new law they put in place would not burden any of their citizens' ability to have a right to vote.

Now, our vote is the great equalizer in this country. My brother and I have one thing in common with the Koch brothers: we each come with one single vote. The average person in the world, you may not have billions of dollars like Sheldon Adelson, but the one thing that you have in common with Sheldon Adelson is that you each have one single vote.

Now, I understand that ratifying the Constitution is not an easy task, but on this measure, it's a deeply important one. We can, and we must, build a grassroots movement needed to ensure our most fundamental right is not subject to the partisan whims of State legislatures.

I am holding in my hand pages and pages of people across the country who support a national right to vote constitutional amendment. Over 28,000 people have signed petitions. They're circulated by U.S. Action and PCCC, Bold Progressives that have got signatures saying we need to make our Constitution work for every single American, that every single person has that right to vote. This has 28,000 names right here of people who support this most fundamental right.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the right to vote is not a Republican right or a Democratic right, it's an American right. And if the recent Voting Rights Act decision demonstrates anything, it's that we need to do everything we can to help protect that right.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce that the Congressional Progressive Caucus is going to do everything that we can to make sure that every American has the right to vote, and that a right to vote amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the most sure, most effective way to get that done.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill, and I want to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Visclosky for their efforts on this important legislation.

My amendment would help improve the safety of advanced batteries, which are critical to both our new energy economy as well as to our current and future Department of Defense missions.

Advanced energy technologies not only produce good-paying, high- quality American jobs, but they also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect the environment, and lead to the advancements of new energy-efficient sources that are more effective. Thus, it is no surprise that our military requires this type of innovative technology to meet its expanding needs. Longer lasting energy sources mean our military's transportation and weapons systems are more effective in the field and limit safety risks that arise from refueling or recharging. More efficient energy capabilities mean a more efficient, more effective, and safer military.

On that front, lithium-ion batteries represent some of the most significant clean energy advancements of our recent history: they contain no toxic chemicals; they have up to three times the performance capabilities of other battery products; and they are required for many of the military's next generation weapons systems. Their need will only increase, but as often is the case with new technologies, improvements need to be made in order to ensure their safe and effective use.

Current lithium-ion batteries can cause violent fires with extreme smoke and high temperatures that are potentially catastrophic, especially on ships. As a result of these safety concerns, the acceptance and adoption of many lithium-ion-powered Navy systems under development are greatly delayed,

thus greatly limiting our ability to respond to emerging threats.

None of us here want to have any members of our military in danger, but we don't have to choose between improving our operational capabilities and keeping our courageous servicemembers safe. We are not far away from these types of advancements. New research has produced high-temperature material compounds that can significantly extend the maximum temperatures at which the batteries can safely operate.

We need to continue to develop and test these innovative compounds that require further research and development support. That is why I introduced this budget-neutral amendment, which I am proud to have introduced with Congressman Cardenas--to provide for the necessary funding for research, development, and testing to improve the safety of advanced batteries.

I now yield 2 minutes to my friend from California, Congressman Cardenas.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

If I understand correctly, the chairman and the ranking member have said we can continue to have this conversation. In recognition of that, I would be glad at this time to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 305 had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1213.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to two very special community leaders in Madison, Wisconsin.

Alfonso ``Al'' Studesville, Jr., and his wife, Janet Studesville, were killed in a tragic automobile accident on June 4th. The space they left behind will be incredibly difficult to fill.

Al devoted himself to community service and activism. He was larger than life--with a deep voice, rich laugh, and kind personality, Al touched the lives of many.

Born on January 9, 1946, in St. Louis, Missouri, Al made his life- long home in Madison, Wisconsin. A graduate of UW Madison, Al worked at Madison Light and Power (now known as Alliant Energy) for 18 years. He and Jan owned and operated a studio, Just Nails, and a training school, Just Nails Training Center, in Fitchburg, WI. After leaving Madison Light and Power, Al became a Student Services Career Counselor for Madison College, specializing as the Black Student Union Advisor and Minority Recruiter. Al also taught at Madison East High School for nine years.

Changing lives was a priority for Al. A member of the Jr. NAACP at the age of 12, Al participated in civil rights demonstrations through Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He continued his devotion to the African American community throughout his life. From leading what would become known as the Boys and Girls Club of Dane County to his involvement in local agencies such as the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute and the Urban League of Greater Madison, Al leaves behind a legacy of minority outreach and community involvement that cannot be overstated.

One of his crowning achievements was his critical role in founding the Madison chapter of 100 Black Men of America in 1984. Through 100 Black Men of Madison, Al helped establish an organization that area youth--especially young black men--could look to for leadership and guidance. By providing opportunities for health and wellness education, access to economic development programs, and involved mentorship, Al and the other members of 100 Black Men of Madison touched the lives of countless young men in our communities. Madison owes Al a debt of gratitude for starting this organization. His involvement proves that activism, dedication and compassion can have deep impacts in our community.

It was the combination of his inexhaustible drive to help others and his kindness, approachability and modesty that made him such an effective leader. It is one thing to lead by example alone, and quite another to take one's own life lessons and apply them directly to those in need.

Leader, mentor, confidant, father, husband; Al was all these things and more. He gave to our community, and though he never asked for anything in return, I suspect seeing the impact of his work on the lives of others served as just fulfillment.

Jan was no less involved in the community than Al. She ran their nail salon and training school that they owned jointly. She also worked as vice president for Women in Focus, a group that mentors minority students to increase literacy. The program provides $2,000 scholarships to 13 students annually.

One of Al's favorite phrases was, ``I will match energy with energy.'' And while the tragic loss of these two community activists is still fresh in the minds of those who knew them best, it is important to remember that Al's and Jan's energy is still here. Every person whose life they touched was enriched by that energy. And those recipients will in turn pay it forward to others. The duty falls to us now to pick up their mantle of advocacy, outreach, and kindness, and give our collective energy to those who need it most.

As a community, we will match your energy, Al and Jan. We have your memories and life's work to guide us along the way.

This June, as we celebrate LGBT Pride Month, LGBT Americans have much to celebrate. Every day this country moves closer and closer towards embracing full equality for all of its citizens. And yet the path to equality and justice saw a setback last week when one of our Nation's largest companies chose to deny fundamental workplace protections for its employees.

For the 14th year in a row, ExxonMobil's shareholders voted to strike down a proposal that would specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This is a company that has received more than $1 billion in government contracts over the last decade. Simply put, the government should not be in business with companies that discriminate.

Exxon's decision makes it part of a shrinking minority: 88 percent of Fortune 500 companies specifically ban employee discrimination based on sexual orientation. BP doesn't discriminate, Chevron doesn't discriminate, Shell Oil doesn't discriminate. But ExxonMobil does. Their anti-equality policies should start to hurt their bottom line.

Unfortunately, it is still legal to fire someone in 29 States based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. ExxonMobil's backwards decision highlights why we need to pass a comprehensive employee nondiscrimination act.

I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been fighting for economic fairness for the middle class and those striving to be in the middle class for this entire country. Today, we would like to talk specifically about the growing, skyrocketing student debt that we have in this country.

Just this past weekend, 6,200 students graduated from the flagship university in my State, my alma mater, UW-Madison. These young people leave Madison with new friends, new skills, new knowledge, and, most importantly, access to increased economic opportunity through their college diploma.

Students with a bachelor's degree have half the unemployment rate of those with a high school degree. In 2012, students with a bachelor's degree earned almost 80 percent more than someone with a high school diploma in a similar position. Unfortunately, these students are also leaving college with something else: unprecedented levels of student loan debt.

The drastically increasing student loan debt held by Americans across the country can be considered nothing less than a crisis. Not a looming crisis, but an urgent, already-here crisis. Total student debt in this country now tops $1 trillion. That exceeds all the credit card debt in this country. And that's up from just $200 billion in 2000, just 12\1/ 2\ years ago. Every second in America, total student debt increases by $2,854. According to the New York Federal Reserve, total student debt has tripled over the last 8 years, representing a 70 percent increase in both the number of people with debt and the average debt held per person.

About two-thirds of the class of 2011 graduated with student debt. Their average debt was more than $26,000. In my home State of Wisconsin, the weight of student loan debt is severely affecting college graduates' ability to support themselves and their families.

There's an organization in Wisconsin that I want to give a little thanks and credit to. One Wisconsin Now is a progressive think tank run by Scot Ross. This organization has made it one of their leading efforts to talk about rising students debt and the trillion-dollar debt that we have and what it's doing to our economy. Thanks to them, I have some stories and figures to share specific to Wisconsin, and nationwide.

According to one study from One Wisconsin, the average monthly payment made by Wisconsinites with a bachelor's or advanced degree is nearly $400 a month. It's $388, to be exact. Let's put it in this perspective. Before someone can pay their rent or their mortgage, their utilities, their groceries, child care, they already owe $400 in student loans. If they're lucky, they'll have some funds left over to save for retirement.

Because of these exorbitant rates, it will take the average citizen in my State almost 19 years to pay off their student loan debt from a 4-year university.

There are some long-term economic effects to this. The effects of the skyrocketing costs are twofold:

Number one, at a time when a college degree is more important than ever to obtain reliable employment, we are in grave danger of pricing too many of our young students out of a college education. These drastic increases in tuition have occurred at the same time that we have seen the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

We know that to compete for the jobs of the 21st century and to thrive in a global economy, we need a growing, skilled, and educated workforce, particularly in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math.

It is estimated that the U.S. will need 22 million more college- educated workers by the year 2018. Currently, driven partly by rising college costs, we are expected to fall short by 3 million workers. Our colleges and universities such as UW-Madison and Beloit College and others in my district have the talented faculty to produce our 21st- century workforce, but they need the students to teach and train. And an unaffordable college education is an unaffordable future for our country.

In the short term, we also see these effects on our economy. As students become more and more bogged down with high student loan debt, they're understandably reducing their expenditures in our current economy. According to one study by One Wisconsin, due to the high burdens put on students from their loans, new car purchases in our State are reduced by more than $200 million annually, and that's just in the State of Wisconsin. Meanwhile, households with student loan debt are overwhelmingly more likely to rent a home than to own a home, affecting home sales throughout America.

Owning a home, buying a car--these aren't just typical byproducts of the American Dream. These are important components of our country's overall economic health. If our economy is to recover--not just in Wisconsin, but across the country--we need to see strength in these two markets.

So we find ourselves at a crossroads. Instead of providing an enriched and educational background and advanced economic opportunity for our young people, a college education is increasingly trapping students in endless debt, preventing them from advancing economically and contributing to our economy.

If we continue to believe that an accessible, affordable, and quality education should be a national priority, that it is critical to our future economic prosperity, then we need to come up with a long-term plan to manage the skyrocketing costs of education.

Now, Democrats have already done a number of efforts in these area. We've tried to increase the maximum Pell Grant from $4,050 in 2014 to $5,645 in 2016. We have increased income-based repayment programs to ensure that graduates can manage loan repayments during stressed economic times. We have tried to create the American Opportunity Tax Credit, providing a maximum of $2,500 tuition tax credits to eligible families and students. We have provided loan forgiveness for graduates in public interest careers after 10 years of payments, and for everybody else after 25 years of payments. And we have required schools to give an online calculator so that students and families can estimate their costs based on their family's financial condition.

But we need to and we must do more over the long run. We can restore consumer protections for our students. We can increase our funding for higher education. And we can reauthorize the Higher Education Act and protect programs like Pell Grants that support low-income students attending college.

But as we all know, we have a pressing issue facing our body right now that will affect students who live in every single one of our districts. Unless we take action, on July 1 interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans will double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. If we do nothing at a time when our country is still facing a steep economic recovery, 7 million low- and middle-income students nationwide will see their student loan rates increase. That's 7 million people in this country will have their rates increase on student loans. That will wind up costing student borrowers $1,000 more a year. If we do nothing, that will add $4.3 billion to students' debt burden in just 1 year alone. Quite simply, we cannot afford to do nothing. Allowing these interest rates to double would represent a dereliction of our duties.

Right now, banks can receive loans from the Federal Reserve at historically low levels, less than 1 percent. If banks can receive such loans, shouldn't we protect lower loans for our students who are struggling in today's economy more than anyone else?

Last year, before I arrived in Washington, Congress extended the 3.4 percent rate for 1 full year. There are a number of bills right now-- including those introduced by my Democratic colleagues--that would extend the 3.4 percent rate by at least 1 year, if not more. But we must take action now before we risk drowning our future workforce in even more student loan debt.

Now, this body, this House tomorrow will be taking up a measure, H.R. 1911, the ``Make College More Expensive Act.'' Unfortunately, the legislation this body will consider, instead of providing needed relief for our students, will instead only make college more expensive for millions of young people and their families across the country.

As I mentioned, if we don't act by July 1, interest rates on subsidized student loans will double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The Republican legislation that we have before us tomorrow would be even worse for students than if we did nothing at all.

By tying Federal student loan rates to the 10-year Treasury note, the interest rate for a student entering college next year will be reset every year he or she is in college. Why is that a problem? Well, because by the time next year's freshmen graduate and start repaying their loans in the year 2017, the interest rate that freshman had on his or her first loan that first year of college is projected to more than double today's current rate for subsidized Stafford loans.

In practical terms, what that means over the long run is a student who is about to enroll in their first year of college will pay higher interest rates under the Republican plan than if Congress lets the current rates double. Again, this bill is even more damaging than if we do nothing--which we should do as a body.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, students who borrow the maximum amount of Stafford loans over 5 years will pay $1,300 more in interest rates under the Republican plan before this body tomorrow than if we allow those rates to double and nearly $6,000 more than if we kept the rates at 3.4 percent. The overall cost to students and families would be $4 billion in additional interest payments over the next decade compared to our current law.

Let me repeat that: if we pass H.R. 1911, it will cost our students and families $4 billion more over the next 10 years than if we keep the law the way it is.

These facts don't lie. The bill does not make college more affordable; it does just the opposite. It worsens the student debt crisis that we should be working to solve. And this is just another case of mistaken priorities and misguided plans.

While the Democrats are working hard to even the playing field, Republicans would make it even harder for the average American to be able to afford college.

H.R. 1911 imposes a long-term financial burden on young people looking to pursue higher education. It will put $4 billion additional in student debt over the next decade that would have been used otherwise to help pay down our deficit. This is not a sustainable, balanced way to deal with our deficit; and it's certainly no way to ensure a thriving future for the next generation of America.

We've seen time and time again how student debt stifles our economy. We cannot afford to make college more expensive for the very Americans trying to get that education.

I am very pleased to be joined by another freshman Member of this body, a Representative from the State of New York who is the author of one of these bills that will make sure that we keep that interest rate at 3.4 percent and not allow it to double on July 1. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Thank you, Representative Jeffries, for your leadership on this issue and for your bill, which I am very proud to be a cosponsor of. I think that it's fair to say that college students and aspiring college students, not just in New York but across the country, owe you a good kind of debt for the work that you're doing. Thank you so much for continuing to expose what we need to expose, which is that the bill before this body tomorrow will cost $10,000 in interest more than it has to. It is worse than if we simply did nothing and let the loans double on July 1. We need to act. We have bills, like Representative Jeffries' bill, with which to do that.

I would like to share one story from One Wisconsin Now, and then I'd like to introduce another colleague of mine. Onewisconsinnow.org has collected these stories, and this is a story from a woman named Alexandra who is in my district. Let me read what she says:

I am 27, and my student loans forbid me from living in a

safe neighborhood. I have to live where there is cheap

housing, and must live with a roommate. I can't afford a car

payment, and don't have one. I live paycheck to paycheck, and

virtually save no money. I have a great job, one that I

worked very hard to get, and three-quarters of my entire

paycheck go towards my student loan payments. I live every

day worrying that, someday, my student loans are going to get

the best of me financially. I am very close to defaulting on

my loans. I fear never having the opportunity to buy a house

or a car, invest or have a savings account, have a family or

pay for my children's education. I fear the thought of merely

surviving. I have to live with the fact that this will likely

be my life for the next 20 years.

Alexandra, thank you so much for sharing your story with One Wisconsin Now so we can share it here today. You're not alone. I have a lot of stories from people in Wisconsin who have shared the exact same story. With the current pace we're on, if we don't fix student loans and the cost of education, we are going to put so much extra burden on your generation and the next generation that, again, you will not have the opportunities that many of us have had towards buying a car, buying a home, getting your family jump-started. So this is a crisis. It's a real crisis right now, and we need to address that.

I have another colleague to whom I would like to yield. Representative Matt Cartwright is another one of our freshmen from Pennsylvania. He is also the freshman class president for the Democrats, taking on a leadership role among our body, and he has been an outspoken advocate for the middle class in this country and especially for those voices in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Cartwright.

Thank you, Representative Cartwright. And thank you for your leadership on the Truth in Tuition bill. How apropos to be H.R. 2020, to give a good direct vision on the reality of costs in higher education.

I can say one thing from being a State legislator for 14 years before I came here. I served during the period when the Federal economy collapsed and States had less and less money to invest in public universities. So often you hear about the rising costs in private universities, but even in a system like UW, Wisconsin, which is one of the premium, world-class university systems, the costs have gone up enough that it's harder and harder for that average person to be able to afford the education. So if they rely on the loans and the interest rates double or, worse yet, we pass H.R. 1911 and make them increase even more, you're taking that affordability out of even more people's hands.

I just want to share a very short story, another story from someone who posted it on my Facebook page, and then I'd like to introduce another person on this issue.

I asked for comments on a Facebook page, and I got a comment from a woman named Amber. It is short, but it is poignant.

I haven't yet started paying back my loans. I graduate in

July. And as a single parent, I am terrified I will have to

choose between feeding my children and paying my loans. My

children will come first, but it still worries me that I'll

be strapped beyond what I can make at work.

This is unfortunately what we are doing to the people who are currently graduating from higher institutes of education across the country.

Next I would like to yield some time to a very experienced colleague of mine, a well-respected colleague, a leader among progressives in this body, currently the cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and an outstanding legislator from the neighboring State of Minnesota. I would like to yield some time to Mr. Keith Ellison from Minnesota.

Thank you very much, Representative Ellison. Your leadership for many years in this body has been well appreciated. I want to thank you for bringing back really the central theme of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. When we had a budget, it was the back-to-work budget. It's about fighting on behalf of the middle class. We saw the Republican budget in this House balance the budget on the backs of the middle class. But our budget had the back of the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class. And one of those fundamental equalizers is that opportunity to get a higher education, to advance in society, to change your economic outlook.

I grew up in a lower middle class family. I not only had student loans, I also had Pell Grants. I was fortunate. But back when I went to college, you were still able to pay back your loans often in about a 5- year period. But more and more, it's a 10-year, 20-year payment back in order to be able to afford those rising student costs, and that is taking a bite not only out of the current economy, but out of the opportunities for those people getting those degrees so they can improve their lives and their family's lives and rise either into the middle class or to better their lives overall.

So the Congressional Progressive Caucus has had this as a central focus: How can we help lift those in poverty to the middle class and help those in the middle class to have every chance at opportunity that they should have? Those student loans are a crucial part of that. If we let this bill pass, H.R. 1911, tomorrow, in this body, we will put a financial burden on the backs of those who need it the most, those who are taking out loans to afford college. And if we do nothing as a body, the interest rate will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent come July 1. Congress has to act.

Now this body has been able to vote 37 times to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the benefits to America's families from the Affordable Care Act--37 times--yet we have not found a way yet to fix the student loan crisis, and we simply need to do that. And that's why the Progressive Caucus is fighting so hard to do that.

I would like to close with one final story. Again, One Wisconsin Now had collected some stories, and this is from a woman from Wisconsin named Diana. Let me read her story:

I graduated from a 4-year college in 2006. Today, 7 years

later, my loan payments are over $600 per month. To put that

in perspective, our combined household income is roughly

$48,000 per year. That's 15 percent of our income before

taxes. That's money that's not going into our retirement

funds, not going towards a new home, not going towards a

child's college fund, and certainly not going back into the

economy in a productive way. My husband and I have been

forced to make major life decisions based on my student loan

debt alone. Unfortunately, there's no end in sight with

regard to my student loans. My interest rates vary from 4.5

percent to 11.25 percent. Some of the payments I make cover

interest alone. My principal balance hasn't changed in months

on some of my private loans. This is not what I envisioned

when I was applying for colleges my senior year of high

school.

These are the real stories from people in Wisconsin, but they're no different from stories of people across the country.

We have heard tonight, and I want to thank Representative Jeffries from New York, Representative Cartwright from Pennsylvania, and Representative Ellison from Minnesota for coming and sharing those strong words about why we need to address this issue and why it is such a crucial issue--not a Democratic issue, not a Republican issue, not an Independent issue, but an American issue, especially for those in the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class.

We need, Mr. Speaker, to act on this. Mr. Speaker, we need to act on this soon, before July 1. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, but H.R. 1911, the bill before this body tomorrow, will only make the situation worse. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the most fundamental right we as Americans have as citizens of this great country, the right to vote. The right to vote is not just fundamental; it is the right that preserves all of our other liberties that we as Americans hold dear. In fact, this right is so fundamental that most Americans, understandably, assume it is already enshrined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, most Americans would be wrong.

While the right to vote is inherent throughout our founding document, and there are amendments prohibiting discrimination, nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote. We, as Americans, possess no affirmative right to vote.

Why is this important? Because without a constitutional provision, courts have upheld burdensome registration requirements, voter- identification laws, and reduced early voting opportunities in States across the country.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, just this year alone, more than 80 restrictive laws have been introduced in more than 30 States. From New York to Washington, legislation

has been introduced that require voters to show a photo ID. States from Virginia to New Mexico have considered bills that would make voter registration more difficult. And from Arizona to Tennessee, States have taken steps to limit early voting.

Unfortunately, this plague of restrictive voting efforts has hit my State of Wisconsin as well. In 2011, our legislature passed a law that would limit the fundamental rights Wisconsinites have to vote. Not only would this law require a photo ID; it also took steps to disenfranchise senior citizens and college students, reduce registration opportunities, and restrict the ability of citizens to receive absentee ballots.

But Wisconsin has something that other States do not possess--a guaranteed right to vote. Article III, section 1, of the Wisconsin Constitution specifically states:

Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a

resident of an election district in this State is a qualified

elector of that district.

This one sentence makes a huge difference for Wisconsinites. In two separate cases challenging the Wisconsin voter ID law, the Wisconsin circuit courts have ruled that these restrictive, burdensome voting laws are unconstitutional because, from the decision in NAACP of Milwaukee v. Walker:

The Wisconsin Constitution expressly guarantees the right

to vote.

But this isn't enough. Not all States have this right. Our friends in Indiana, as we have seen, have little recourse if a restrictive voting law is signed into law.

Now more than ever, we need to be protecting our right to vote, not restricting it. We need to reaffirm our founding principle that our country is at its strongest when everyone participates. We need to guarantee a right to vote for everyone.

So this week, along with my friend and colleague, Congressman Keith Ellison from Minnesota, I introduced a right-to-vote amendment to the Constitution that will explicitly guarantee, without a doubt, the right of the American people to vote. The amendment is as simple as it is necessary: every American citizen possesses the fundamental right to vote in every public election where they reside, and Congress has the right and power to protect it.

No more will Americans have to prove their right to vote has been infringed. Instead, the burden of proof will be left to States to demonstrate that any efforts they take will not deny or abridge the fundamental right to vote.

Now, I know there are some out there who will say that an amendment to the Constitution is unrealistic; it's too hard to achieve. Those critics are shortsighted. This is about engaging my colleagues in Congress on both sides of the aisle and the American public in a movement to ensure our right to vote is not at the mercy of those acting with partisan motives. The right to vote is not a Democratic right, nor is it a Republican right. It is an American right, and it is fundamental to a government for the people, by the people.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join on and protect our most fundamental right.

Mr. Speaker, I am here and rise today on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for a Special Order hour on a topic. However, before we start that Special Order hour, I would like to yield to the lady from the Ninth District of Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

The STEADY Act

Thank you. And thank you for introducing that important bill to help students and families across the country.

Today during the Special Order hour for the Progressive Caucus, we are here to specifically talk about the issue of income inequality in America and the growing gap between the wealthiest and the average person.

Just today, Mr. Speaker, while we voted on legislation, we voted on a bill,

the ironically titled Working Families Flexibility Act, which, in reality, would mean more work and less pay for hardworking Americans in my State of Wisconsin and across the country.

As many of my colleagues have spoken on the floor this week, what this bill will do is to deny workers compensation for overtime--any hours that they would work over 40 hours a week. This is, in essence, an attack on workplace flexibility and an attack on the hard-earned wages Americans rely on.

But what makes this bill even more onerous, though, is a topic of importance to our caucus, the Progressive Caucus, and to workers across America: the growing income inequality in our country.

Mr. Speaker, it's hard to imagine why some of our colleagues are interested in reducing wages for Americans when multiple reports this week show that despite the fact that stock markets and corporate profits are close to all-time highs, wages in this country are stagnant at best.

In fact, according to the St. Louis Fed, wages as a percentage of the economy have hit an all-time low. What does that mean in real dollars? Well, adjusted for inflation, an average worker who was paid $49,650 at the end of 2009 makes $545 less now, even before taxes and deductions. Meanwhile, because companies have slowed down hiring to control costs, many are operating with fewer employees, meaning there's more work for those with a job, even though their wages aren't moving upward. To summarize, Americans are working harder while getting paid less, even before the bill the Republicans put on the floor this week.

Mr. Speaker, given that our economy is still recovering from the recent recession, and close to 12 million Americans are still looking for work, it would make sense if all areas of the economy were facing tough times. But that's not the case. In fact, the stock markets and corporate profits are breaking records. Standard & Poor's 500 corporations hit a record in the first quarter of the year; and last week, including today, the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average crossed 15,000 for the first time in quite a while.

The wealthiest Americans only are getting richer. According to tax expert David Cay Johnston, in the first 2 years of our recovery, from 2009 to 2011, close to 150 percent of the increased income in this country went to the top 10 percent of earners. Why? Because incomes fell for the bottom 90 percent of Americans.

If you dive deeper into those numbers, the increasing inequity becomes even more staggering. Just in the past 2 years, the top 1 percent saw 81 percent of all this country's increased income. Almost 40 percent of the increased income since 2009 went to the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent, or those making at least $8 million a year. What does that mean? Our country, our Nation, has 158.4 million households, and only about 16,000 of those households have accounted for 40 cents of every dollar of increased income in this country in the last the 2 years.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this trend of a growing income inequality can be traced back to more than just the 2 years following the recession. You can go all the way back to 1966 to find the last time the average adjusted gross income was lower in this country than it was in 2011. In between this time, 45 years, the bottom 90 percent Americans saw their income increase by an average of $59.

What about the top 10 percent? Well, from 1966 to 2011, their income increased by an average of approximately $116,000. And what about the top 1 percent? Their income increased by an average of $629,000. And the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent, the wealthiest in this country, have seen their income rise $18.4 million on average in the last 45 years.

Let me say that again. In the past 45 years, since 1966, the vast majority of Americans, 90 percent, have seen their average incomes increase by an average of $59, and the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent have seen their incomes increase by an average of $18.4 million.

It's almost impossible to comprehend, but Mr. Johnston found a way. If you represented these increases in a line chart, and 1 inch is equivalent to $59, the top 10 percent's would go to over 163 feet. The top 1 percent's line would go to 884 feet, and the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent would go for 5 miles. One inch of increase, 5 miles of increase for the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent.

So while the majority of us have gained only an inch over the last 40 years, the uberwealthy have gained not just inches but miles. Put another way, for every extra dollar of annual income earned by the top 90 percent of Americans, an extra 311,000 went to the households in the top 1 percent of 1 percent.

This growing income disparity, what does it mean? Well, it's bad for the economy. It's bad for our deficit, and it's bad for the most vulnerable in our society, and, of course, that's bad for the American Dream.

As Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics recently said, for the economy to thrive, we need everyone participating: When a majority of Americans are left behind in the recovery, our economy will never truly thrive. In fact, there have been a number of studies that have said that the way to get the economy going is to make sure those who have the least have the money because they'll spend it. They'll put it immediately into the economy. When the wealthiest have the extra income, it often goes into savings. But for the average person, that 90 percent, when they get the money, it goes right back into the economy and stimulates the economy. But when the average 90 percent of Americans only see a $59 wage increase in 45 years, that just doesn't put money back into the economy.

Consumer spending, which constitutes 70 percent of our economy, is strained when wages decrease. This is particularly acute when low- and moderate-income workers spend nearly all of their paychecks as those studies have shown us. And when there's a lack of demand, there will be a lack of economic growth, which means a lack of jobs, which means a lack of opportunities for Americans.

When we have vast income inequality, reducing our debt and our deficits becomes nearly impossible. When people are making less, we collect less in revenue. And at that point, the only way to balance our budget would be to drastically reduce funding for programs that primarily serve those with, guess what, decreasing incomes. It is a lose-lose proposition, and we shouldn't pursue it.

What else is this bad for? Well, it's bad for college affordability. It's bad for health care costs, and it's bad for programs that help the elderly, including programs like Social Security. Multiple studies have shown us that huge income inequality makes Americans more pessimistic and less likely to believe that they have little in common with anyone else unlike themselves.

The basic tenets of the American Dream are at risk when the income gap is so wide. When 90 percent of the country is so far behind the top tiers of the country, it's hard to make the case that if you work hard, you can get ahead. In fact, studies have demonstrated that the higher the income inequality gets in this country, the harder it is for people to move up and make a better life for themselves and their parents.

Let's just look at CEO pay, just to give you an idea how CEO pay has increased. In the last three decades, CEO pay has skyrocketed at a rate of 127 times faster than worker pay. In fact, from 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent--faster than the stock market, and painfully faster than the 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation in the same period.

The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay has increased since 1950 by 1,000 percent, according to data from Bloomberg. And the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Labor, has found that CEO pay has reached a high of 354 times that of the average employee. Just decades ago, that ratio was in the 20 to 30 times average for the lowest paid employee, and now 354 times. CEO pay has absolutely taken off, while everyone else's pay has been stagnant now for decades.

I've recently started reading a book, ``Who Stole the American Dream?,'' by Hedrick Smith, a book that our whip, Mr. Hoyer, has often referred to for our caucus to read. It details exactly

how the middle class has been under attack for the last 40 years largely due to a corporate takeover of our culture. I highly recommend this book to every American.

This is a book that says Americans are willing to accept inequality in our society, to a degree. They understand that if you work harder, you should be able to get ahead. But they want it within a percent that makes sense and that we've had in this country for so long.

This massive wealth gap in our country--where the top 1 percent captured 93 percent of the Nation's gains in 2010--undermines our social fabric and our ideal of equal opportunity. This has been caused by the way corporate interests have taken over our lives, our laws and our elections in the last several decades.

According to ``Who Stole the American Dream?,'' up until the seventies, the middle class had thrived as increases in productivity were matched by increases in wages. When prosperity was shared, there was a stable relationship between business and government and labor. Everyone pitched in, and everyone benefited and gained.

Then, around the time President Nixon was in--when he put in place some very good business regulations--corporate interests decided to fight back. And we've seen over these decades how they fought back.

One, they started importing cheap foreign workers for a wide range of occupations.

They've moved jobs offshore, so many of our Nation's previously unionized blue collar jobs--even calling centers--have been sent overseas.

And they've changed our laws, from bankruptcy laws to Tax Code changes, so that just in Tax Code changes alone workers could supplement existing pension plans with individual retirement accounts. But the result is corporations got rid of the robust pension programs to help people when they retire. Now workers cover 50 percent of their retirement costs, compared to 11 percent in the 1950s.

Finally, there has been a race to the bottom. We compete now with Asian sweatshops, we import cheap foreign goods that undermine American small businesses, and there are major U.S. business operations that have moved overseas.

So the bottom line is we need to have a thriving middle class, not the inequality of a $59 increase in the last 45 years for the bottom 90 percent of the population, and the top 1 percent have an increase of $628,000. And the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent received an increase that's the equivalent of 5 miles to the 1 inch of increase that the bottom 90 percent have made.

So what do we need to do? I think the Center for American Progress has noted a strong middle class can help promote the development of human capital and a well-educated population. It can create a stable source of demands for goods and services. One of the key findings of that book is that people, when they had that income matched by their productivity, it went back into buying more goods and kept the economy stable. When those changes took place, since the Nixon administration, that's what has helped to create the strong inequality.

It incubates the next generation of entrepreneurs and supports inclusive political and economic institutions to make sure we have solid economic growth.

So what do we need to do differently? One, we need to have tax rules that are fair for everyone. We need to make sure that everyone pays their fair share. We don't incentivize companies to ship jobs overseas. And we promote the creation of jobs here at home.

We look at things like capital gains like any other way we would tax, not differently for those with the most money, who make money off of money rather than off of their hard work. But we need to make sure there is equal tax treatment for everyone under the laws. And those companies that want to outsource their headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes aren't allowed to do that. It's an important part of changing our Tax Code to get the equality back that we need to.

Next, we need to invest in American workers. That means investing in education, investing in research and development, and investing in job training. Especially at a time that we have 12 million Americans out of work, we need to get people the skills so they can get back to work and work at jobs back here in America.

We need to establish a livable--not a minimum, but a livable--wage so that people who are in that 90 percent, who are making so little gains right now, can put that money back into the economy and stimulate the economy from the bottom up, from the grassroots. That's what we need to do.

Bottom line, we need to have trade policies that reward jobs in America and not reward jobs overseas. We've lost way too many jobs through many of our trade agreements overseas.

And fundamentally, we need to change the way we finance our elections in Wisconsin and across the country. I can tell you from my practical viewpoint of spending 14 years in the Wisconsin Legislature and my time here, there is no question that we have seen a lurching of corporate influence and big-dollar influence in our elections that have influenced the bottom-line policies that have created this sort of inequality.

So to summarize, we need prosperity over austerity in this country. And those are some of the things that we need to move toward.

I could talk more about income inequality, but I just want to address for a minute if I can another part of this inequality, which is going specifically to the sequester.

The sequester we have talked about now for a number of weeks, the ill effects on the economy of the sequester. We know 700,000 jobs between now and September 30 are at risk, including almost 36,000 jobs in the State of Wisconsin. The verdict on the sequester is clear and predictable, as we said. These mindless, reckless cuts are slowing our economic growth and taking away valuable resources to get the economy up and going.

Congress continues to defy logic in this area. We're dealing with the sequester piece by piece. During the continuing resolution, we fixed meat inspectors. A few weeks ago, we fixed people who wait in line at airports. But what we haven't done is addressed those who aren't as well connected in this country and the problems that they're seeing on a daily basis with the sequester. That means for Wisconsin seniors, they're receiving fewer Meals on Wheels that help seniors--for many of which 50 percent of their daily nutrition comes from the Meals on Wheels program, those who receive that program.

Close to 1,000 Wisconsin children and families will lose access to Head Start services. Just last week, I was in Beloit, Wisconsin, which is in a county, Rock County, that Representative Paul Ryan and I share. While we were down visiting that Head Start program, they told us that they were going to have to have fewer students in the program next year. And they already have a waiting list for low-income families to participate in these programs to give them a fair start in education.

In the Bayview neighborhood of Madison, Wisconsin--one of my very first county board district and local governments--this neighborhood center, one of their very first programs was the Head Start program. That program will be closing because of the sequester and what we've done to that.

Cancer patients and HIV patients are being turned away from cancer clinics and other clinics because of cuts to Medicare payments caused by the sequester. And nearly 125,000 low-income Americans will not receive rental assistance. In Dane County, that means people are going to lose that critical assistance right back in my district.

Finally, over the Easter break I visited with people at UW-Madison, one of the world's premier research institutions. They're going to see a $35 million cut in funding--$17 million just in research alone--from NIH cuts.

So that FAA solution that we did a few weeks ago was anything but a solution--it was barely a bandaid. In fact, that bandaid will only get us through September 30, and we're going to be back to long lines in airports and not having meat inspectors for companies that need to have meat inspectors to have people go to work every day.

The bottom line is we need to fix the sequester now holistically, and we need to deal with that in this House.

This piecemeal approach is irresponsible, it's inadequate, and it's offensive

to the people of Wisconsin and the country who are caught in the political cross-fires of Washington, D.C. And it does nothing to help our economy or create jobs--in fact, just the opposite; it will be shrinking the economy between now and September 30.

The people of this country deserve a comprehensive national budget. I don't know why we can't get the Republicans to appoint conferees so we can have that budget. But until they do, we're going to continue to have the squabbles that you find all too often in Congress that don't address the sequester and don't give this country a roadmap for our finance's budget. Once again, we are likely not to have a national budget.

I would urge my Republican colleagues to appoint the budget conferees immediately so that we can not only pass a budget, but we can replace the sequester cuts for everyone, not just those who are the most well connected.

I would like to talk just briefly in closing about the income gap that we have. There's another way of talking about this chart. When you talked about the bottom 1 percent being an inch to the 5 miles represented by the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent, let me share another statistic that was shared with me.

If you talk about that 1 inch being a football field, the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent is equivalent to 86 football fields. So 1 inch of a football field to 86 football fields. That's the gap in wages that we have with this inequality.

With that, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Caucus was glad to be able to talk tonight about income inequality.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 9, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Congress is now more than 1 week past our legal deadline to produce a final budget for the American people, but this is not due to a lack of activity by either Chamber. In fact, the House has passed a budget, and the Senate has passed a budget; yet there is no movement toward creating a final national budget.

Why? Because Republicans in both the House and the Senate refuse to appoint budget conferees.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Wisconsin and the Nation deserve a Federal budget that reflects our values and that lays out our priorities just like we do in Wisconsin and other States. Without a budget, we cannot respond to emerging needs or cut wasteful programs, and we cannot replace the irresponsible sequester cuts that are hitting our families and communities.

This is unacceptable and it is unnecessary. I am a member of the Budget Committee, and I do not agree with most of what was included in the budget that our committee passed, but I do believe we need to sit down with the Senate and, in an open, transparent process, come to a budget solution.

There is no excuse for inaction. Republicans should immediately appoint budget conferees so we can produce a budget that promotes economic growth and supports our middle class families.