Floor Statements

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to offer an amendment that ensures the Trump administration cannot block critical groundbreaking research solely because it utilizes human fetal tissue.

I believe this new policy announced by HHS just last week is shortsighted and that Congress should make its voice heard on the issue. This amendment prohibits any funds in the bill being used to establish a sham ethics advisory board with regard to research products that use human fetal tissue.

The June 5, HHS announcement bars NIH scientists from conducting any research using fetal tissue unless an additional ethics advisory board review of NIH grant applications for fetal tissue research occurs. This decision by President Trump is unnecessary since these grant applications are already subject to rigorous ethical review requirements.

Currently, any federally funded research that uses fetal tissue must comply with oversight pursuant to the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, which was enacted on a bipartisan basis. This framework requires informed consent and declarations pertaining to fetal tissue from all donors, physicians, and researchers involved.

Let's be clear. The Trump administration's decision is not about science or ethics. It is about politics.

Fetal tissue research is not new. It has been supported by the NIH since the 1950s, and fetal tissue has been used to develop vaccines that have saved and improved the lives of billions of people around the world.

Vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, whooping cough, tetanus, hepatitis A, and rabies were all created using fetal cell cultures. Researchers today are using fetal cells to develop vaccines against diseases that include Ebola, HIV, and dengue fever. Studies at UW-Madison in my district involving fetal tissue are trying to develop treatments for conditions that include blindness, Zika, developmental disorders, and diabetes.

This is exactly the type of research that the Federal Government should be supporting, not defunding.

I encourage my colleagues to ensure that we all continue to fund critical research on behalf of the American people and that we block last week's decision that threatens Federal funding of fetal tissue research.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is an amazing colleague.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Apparently, Madam Chair, the other side of the aisle would like to debate political science rather than medical science today. I understand that. It is always great to make your base happy rather than healthy. But there is a big difference when it comes to the issue of fetal tissue.

We have had this debate before in committee. This isn't new. What is new are the cures that are coming out of the use of fetal tissue not just at UW-Madison but across the country.

The President's action shows how far removed not just the debate is that we just heard, which is more about politics than science, but over half the people who are on this new board don't even have to be scientists, when we already have the proper oversight in place to make sure that this is ethical research.

I get it. You have to make your base happy, especially in the era of Donald Trump. But the bottom line is, you are hurting your constituents by trying to place politics over medical science. That is just a really bad idea.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Which I was doing, Madam Chair, and I appreciate that.

So, again, if you want to be a scientist who doesn't believe in science, that is fine. That means you are a politician. I would like to think that those of us who are going to deal with those

areas that involve science, even if we are politicians, focus on the science aspects, and I am going to do just that. That is why this amendment is important to make sure we have lifesaving research.

Madam Chair, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from the floor on Monday, June 3rd. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 232, YEA on Roll Call No. 233, and YEA on Roll Call No. 234.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this is not about a red herring about men wanting to play in women's sports. Please.

This is about people like my husband, Phil, and I. We have been married for almost 13 years. We are a pretty boring married couple, probably not all that different than most people in Congress.

We try to sleep in a little on the weekends, we sometimes argue over what to watch on TV, and we cherish the limited time we have with our friends and family.

And we are really lucky, because we live in Wisconsin, the first State in the Nation to pass a gay and lesbian civil rights bill back in 1982, and it was signed by a Republican Governor, but that is not true for a majority of America.

If we pass the Equality Act, people like Phil and I can be free to love who we love, and we can live where we want to live, and we can work where we want to work without being fired or evicted simply because of who we are or who we love.

That is pretty simple, pretty normal, pretty American.

Today, we here in Congress can protect our LGBTQ constituents who want to live a life like Phil and mine, like yours, free of unfair prejudice and discrimination.

Madam Speaker, I hope that Members will do the right thing today and join me in supporting the Equality Act.

Madam Speaker,

Whereas, the Sauk County Government is celebrating its 175th anniversary and has made a distinct impact in the state of Wisconsin; and

Whereas, Sauk County was first established in 1844 when Wisconsin's Territorial Legislature passed an act organizing Sauk County; and

Whereas, Sauk County, from its humble beginnings of only a few hundred residents, has grown along with the state of Wisconsin; and

Whereas, Sauk County is now one of the top ten fastest growing counties in Wisconsin with a population greater than 60,000; and

Whereas, Sauk County continues to generate some of the most significant numbers of tourism in the Second Congressional District of Wisconsin; and

Whereas, both the pioneers that helped build Sauk County and the residents still living there today deserve recognition; now, therefore, I, U.S. Representative Mark Pocan, do hereby proclaim the Sauk County Government on this special 175th anniversary, a keystone to the ongoing growth and development of Wisconsin.

On behalf of the Second Congressional District of Wisconsin, I wish the Sauk County Government continued growth and success in the years ahead.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, first off, let me thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for this bill and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for all her work on this bill.

This is an important promise that we made to the American people that we would clean up Washington, and I think H.R. 1 is going to go very far in doing that.

This amendment specifically addresses an important aspect of continuing to make the process for democracy stronger in this country. This amendment would end the practice of prison gerrymandering.

Starting this decennial Census, this amendment would require persons who are incarcerated in correctional facilities to be counted as a resident of their last place of residence before incarceration.

There is only one constitutional mandate as it pertains to the Census: The Federal Government must count all persons present in the country at the time of the Census.

We know we will get an accurate count of incarcerated individuals. The only question, then, is: Where do we count them?

If we count incarcerated persons as being present at their last known residence, we know that the right community will receive the appropriate amount of population-based funding it needs to take care of all of their citizens, because the odds are that an incarcerated person will return home after release to the community in which they most recently lived.

If we count incarcerated persons as residents of correctional facilities, more often than not we are simply swelling the population count of communities in which incarcerated individuals do not actually live, participate in civil society, or utilize government services outside prison walls.

Let's stop this charade. Let's stop the dramatic distortion of representation at State and local levels, and let's end the inaccurate creation of community populations that mislead research and planning efforts.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which is also supported by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Chair, I would just like to add, in 2016 when the census in the Federal Register asked for comment on this, 77,000 people did comment. Only four wanted to keep this provision. Everyone else wanted to change this, out of 77,000. That is probably about the percent of people who think Nickelback is their favorite band in this country. It is pretty low.

I think if you look at--if Nickelback is your favorite band, I apologize to the gentleman.

Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Wow. One more reason why there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans, clearly found on the floor of Congress today.

I would argue, when I look at the small communities in Wisconsin and I would probably argue in Illinois, where there are correctional facilities, those populations really do bloom because of the people who are incarcerated there, but almost no one goes back to that community. So this is a much better and more accurate way to have a census. I hope that it will be supported, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I will just wrap up by saying I appreciate that very brave admission of your fandom for Nickelback. That is very brave and I do recognize that. I didn't think we were going to talk about Nickelback on the floor today. Somehow it came up.

Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to offer an amendment that I think everyone in this Chamber can support. Whenever possible, voting machines used in America should be made in America.

Aside from the obvious that it just makes sense to have the infrastructure of American democracy made in America, this amendment seeks to help safeguard our elections. Manufacturing voting machines in America will ensure that production lines are secure, and that we know without a doubt whether or not our voting machines have been compromised.

Today's amendment simply requires States to seek to ensure that any voting machine used in any election for Federal office is a machine that is made in this country. The deadline for this requirement would be the 2022 election.

Madam Chair, I believe that the intent of this amendment is clear. I anticipate strong support from my colleagues, and for that reason I will stop here, urge the Chamber to vote in favor of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Chairwoman, I can assure my colleague, I do not plan on going into the voting machine business so he doesn't have to worry about me anyway. I don't think anyone in this body will.

I do urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for shepherding this important resolution to the floor.

Today, Yemen is the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet. Eighty- five thousand children under the age of 5 have died of starvation since 2015, and 150 children die every single day.

The U.S., alongside Saudi Arabia, which has used starvation as a weapon of war, has supported targeting for deadly airstrikes, provided logistical support and refueling, and sent Special Operations Forces to the Yemeni border.

It is time for these activities to end, absent congressional consent. The American people deserve a transparent debate and a vote by Congress, per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, before the U.S. engages in war-making.

While the President is tweeting about wars and nuclear bombs, we must reassert our authority and end the unconstitutional U.S. participation in Yemen's civil war.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in Congress to do the right thing and support the Democrats' efforts to reopen our Federal Government.

We are seeing devastating impacts on 800,000 Federal employees who serve us, the contractors that work for us, and the economy that impacts every person in this country. Yet the President's petulant, adolescent approach to the shutdown has been supported by my colleagues through their inability to support reopening government.

Responsible governments around the world do not shut down, and leaders do not take hostages and demand ransom.

Look, today the President is shutting down the government over an inefficient and unnecessary wall. If we capitulate, the next shutdown will be over his desire to lift sanctions on the Russians. The next shutdown could be over his desire to stop the Mueller investigation, and so on and so on.

This isn't how the United States can or should operate, yet the Republicans' complicity in this petulant behavior hurts our constituents and threatens our economy.

Mr. President, reopen the government before you further damage the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern and Representative Khanna for all they have done to help lead the efforts to end the United States' unauthorized war in Yemen.

Congress' sole responsibility over offensive use of force is outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: ``Congress shall have power to . . . declare war.'' James Madison argued that this power ``is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.'' Yet, today, House Republicans are attempting to avoid their responsibilities by sneaking unrelated language into this rule which will prohibit consideration of a War Powers Resolution pertaining to the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen.

To be clear, they took a bill about removing gray wolves from the endangered species list in North America and included a provision prohibiting even just the discussion of war in Yemen.

Now, there are rare Arabian wolves native to Yemen--about 1,000 to 2,000--roaming in the Middle East. Canis lupus arabs is a subspecies of gray wolf. But this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is the deprivileging of H. Con. Res. 138, which is just another abdication of our responsibilities as Members of Congress.

We are literally elected to make decisions about war and peace, and we are failing to do the most basic function of our job: to uphold the Constitution. We should at least have the courage to make the decisions about war and about conflicts in which we are entangling our constituents who serve in the military.

Today, as Mr. McGovern said, Yemen is the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet, with the U.N. saying that 14 million people--half the population of Yemen--are either experiencing full-blown famine at the risk of death by starvation as soon as the end of the year.

Since 2015, U.S. forces have been backing the Saudi war by assisting in targeting, logistical support, and refueling deadly Saudi airstrikes in a war that has nothing to do with fighting al-Qaida.

Mr. Speaker, by reasserting Congress' authority over war, we can end active U.S. participation in a Saudi-led conflict in which the Saudis are imposing a blockade to literally starve millions of Yemenis to death. If the U.S. ends its involvement, Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman will be forced to the negotiating table to end his brutal bombing campaign and blockade on food.

Even the Senate isn't afraid to take this up. In March, under Leader Mitch McConnell, the Senate debated and voted on the unconstitutional war in Yemen: 44 Senators voted for the measure. A bipartisan group led that.

Unfortunately, rather than upholding our founding values, the leadership in this House has chosen to quietly insert a measure to block the House from debating the war.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this cynical tactic. Whether you agree or not about ending the illegal U.S.-Saudi war, vote against this rule so you can allow us to do our jobs and vote to do what we swore to uphold: our sole authority to debate and vote on war.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following Proclamation:

Whereas, African American women and their families continue to have a positive impact on the growth and development of our county, our state, and our nation's identity and future; and

Whereas, Investments today that improve the quality of life for African American women and their families will ensure that Dane County becomes the healthiest county in the state, and that Wisconsin becomes the healthiest state in the United States, as well as the health care leader of the world; and

Whereas, the Foundation for Black Women's Wellness was established for the purpose of empowering women and girls of African descent to live healthy, balanced, and thriving lives by promoting mind-body- spirit wellness as a core quality for being productive members and leaders of their families, communities, and society; and

Whereas, the Foundation for Black Women's Wellness works to eliminate health disparities impacting black women and their communities by partnering with the community to provide educational outreach programs, conferences, and seminars including the Annual Black Women's Wellness Day to inform, inspire, and empower Black women and girls to build and sustain healthy, wellness-centered lives; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that I, U.S. Representative Mark Pocan of the 2nd District of Wisconsin, hereby proclaim September 22, 2018 as the 10th Annual Black Women's Wellness Day, and urge all citizens to support this worthy and life sustaining endeavor by celebrating this day with pride and distinction, and by recognizing its organizers as advocates and ambassadors of health and healing in our community.

Mr. Speaker, on July 23, 2018 I was not able to participate in the 6:30 pm vote series. I would like to reflect how I would have voted if I were present: YEA on Roll Call No. 366; and YEA on Roll Call No. 367.

Mr. Speaker, when a magician performs, they often utilize misdirection as a way to deceive an audience. Wikipedia defines ``misdirection'' as a form of deception in which the attention of the audience is focused on the one thing in order to distract its attention from another.

Today, the Republicans are performing a cruel trick on the American people. The Nation is repulsed by President Trump's directives that have forced the separation of over 3,000 children from their parents at the Nation's border, placed children in cages, and terrorized children. As one 9-year-old victim said, he was treated like a prisoner and a dog. This is cruel, inhumane, and un-American.

Rather than have Congress take up a directive to reunite children with their parents, the GOP is performing some misdirection to another issue, hoping that you won't notice that they will not stand up against the GOP's policy of family separation and putting kids in cages at our Nation's borders. Why? Because many of the GOP Members support the President's shameful actions.

Now they want to play politics and misdirect your attention.

I won't be complicit in their attempts. I will vote ``present'' today to be present for the children and parents separated at the border.

Shame on you for terrorizing children and ignoring pleas to help them.

Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 2018 I was not able to participate in the 6:30 pm vote series. If I were present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 289, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 290

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about a trip I did on Sunday to the United States southern border in Texas to visit the processing centers and detention facilities that we are using to enforce the zero-tolerance policy that the President has put forth, the zero-tolerance policy that apparently means zero humanity.

It is a policy that is cruel, inhumane, and un-American, and I want to share my firsthand observations with the American people about this.

First of all, it is a cruel policy. We are separating mothers and fathers, parents from their children, brothers from their sisters, across the border as people come into the United States.

I can tell you that when children are taken away from their parents, sometimes they are told a lie of why. Sometimes they are just taken away. There are no questions asked of the parents about the children: Do they have an allergy? Have they ever been abused? Do they have any diseases? The basic questions that you would ask, if you didn't have a cruel policy, aren't asked. So you are essentially separating the parents from their children without any information whatsoever.

I talked to mothers at the ICE detention facility, and we asked about the situations, if they knew where their children were. One woman pulled out a little slip of paper that said where her children were, as if she knows New York, as if the other mothers knew Florida. It is not like the children are held in the next room, in the next building, in the next city, but they are being held several States away.

One woman told us that she was told that her children would be put up for adoption. Another woman told us that she would be released and eventually her 9-year-old daughter held by herself in New York would be released.

The policy is inhumane. People are being held in cages. And anyone who wants to contest that, come to my backyard and I will show you the dog run in my backyard that is made of the same material and the same construction, only with shorter walls than the cages that we are holding people in, in the processing center.

There are no pillows. You have a mat. There are no toys for children. Then I visited the Walmart Supercenter where we have 1,500 10- to 17- year-old boys held in a Walmart Supercenter where the sleeping space is 6 by 10. Even though it is a little larger room with six or eight beds, it is a 6 by 10 allocation.

I have done work with supermax prisons when I was in the State legislature. A supermax prison cell is 8 by 12. That is 40 percent less than a supermax prison cell. You get outside 2 hours a day. In a supermax prison, you get out about an hour a day. This is wrong.

Parents don't often know the status of how their children are doing. When we were set up to interview one woman, she hadn't even seen her 13-year-old daughter in 2 days. This is un-American.

We are taking the points of entry that are legal points of entry, and we are making it impossible to get into the United States. So what happens is you either go back into Mexico where you can get kidnapped by a cartel and extorted for money from relatives in the U.S., or if you don't want to get kidnapped, you cross illegally across the river, and then you get detained under the zero-tolerance policy. And that is why we have this situation.

But the bottom line is, Donald Trump did not do anything, nor did this Congress, to actually fix the situation. Donald Trump finally caved to enormous public pressure, saying he will no longer separate children and parents, but he won't fix the 2,300 children who are currently separated at all. That is not in the executive order.

We don't have the facilities to deal with this. Again, because of this policy change, in 6 weeks, the population of the detention center at Walmart, which I refer to as the supermax prison, went from 500 to 1,500 in 6 weeks. You can't make that process work.

Everything I saw shows the President did this without any thought, and because no thought was put into it, people are treated thoughtlessly through the process.

Ultimately, the President did this for one reason: he wants to force Congress to put up an unneeded and unnecessary wall at the border, and he will do anything and use anyone to get what he wants.

This Congress today has a couple of bills up that will not deal with this issue. We need to act. This is a cruel, inhumane, un-American policy.

This is a Trump policy, and if we don't act, we are also complicit in the horrors that are happening.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the cuts to programs for working families that House Republicans seek to pass today.

Earlier this year, Congress did something responsible when it rejected President Trump's budget request to make devastating cuts to programs on which many Americans rely. Congress came together to make an investment in American communities and solve some pressing issues with an agreement by Democrats and Republicans.

However, these cuts today suddenly go back on that agreement, with a rescissions package that will hurt working families--all because they are saying that government is spending too much money.

Republicans caused that problem last year when they were grossly irresponsible and passed the GOP tax scam, a multitrillion-dollar giveaway to their donors, billionaires, and big corporations that they falsely sold as middle-class tax relief.

The majority's decision to blow a hole in the deficit and balloon our Nation's debt did very little to benefit working families, with 83 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent.

The Republican rescissions package will hurt the American people and make $7 billion in cuts to children's health insurance, $800 million in cuts to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and $40 million to rural housing programs, just to name a few.

While GOP donors, millionaires, billionaires, big corporations, and members of Mar-a-Lago still get their gift of tax cuts in the GOP tax scam, Republicans are committed to taking away what little they gave hardworking American families. That is apparently the priority of the majority Republican Party today. With actions like this, they will likely be the minority party of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, on April 16, 2018 I was not able to participate in the 6:30 p.m.

vote series. I would like to reflect how I would have voted if I were present: ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 140 and ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 141.