Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 200, which, unfortunately, I believe, joining my colleagues, would undermine our ability to responsibly manage our fisheries and would ultimately harm our fishing industry in the United States.

Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and diligent science-based fisheries management, the United States is viewed as an international leader in the industry.

In my district, since 2000, more than 40 overfished stocks have bounced back not by luck, Mr. Chairman, but because of commonsense regulations that were put in place by the MSA.

The industry has put an emphasis on setting catch limits and rehabilitating these stocks to ensure that the industry can continue to thrive for generations to come. Since 2010, when just 28 of those 40 stocks had been rebuilt, we saw a 54 percent increase in commercial gross revenues, which is income that goes directly back into our communities.

In 2015, commercial fishing in my home State of Washington brought in $1.7 billion, which was lower than some previous years because of those very ongoing overfishing challenges in our oceans, especially in the Pacific Northwest. These rollbacks that are proposed in this bill would make things worse.

Locally, we are focused on increasing revenues by maintaining healthy stocks and healthy oceans. We can grow opportunities for future generations while also protecting our environment and strengthening our economy.

I am so proud to be from the State of Washington, the State that elected Warren Magnuson to this body, and of the fact that the Magnuson-Stevens Act has demonstrated broad bipartisan support as well as support, as my colleagues said, from the fishing industry, environmentalists, scientists, chefs, and business owners. It is our responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to continue to build on those successes, and we can do that today by voting ``no'' on H.R. 200.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2069.

Mr. Speaker, the Keep Families Together Act is the only bill that is a real solution to the human tragedy of abuses of children, of family separation at our border. This bill prohibits the separation of children from their parents; limits criminal prosecutions for asylum seekers; and requires DHS to reunite children and parents, something that the Trump administration has no plan for.

Mr. Speaker, the Keep Families Together Act is the bill we should be sending to the President's desk for signature, not H.R. 6136. H.R. 6136 does absolutely nothing to address the abuses of children, and I want to make it clear that it actually makes things worse.

Does anybody really believe that incarcerating children with their parents is the solution to family separation? or making children more vulnerable to trafficking? or eliminating basic requirements for confinement, like clean water and toilets?

Mr. Speaker, 11 days ago, I met with mothers detained in a Federal prison after cruelly being separated from their children, and one of the mothers told me how she made the devastating decision to leave her blind child behind and take her other child to safety because she knew that the blind child would not be able to make this journey.

These mothers and fathers are making impossible choices to come here to this country seeking safety, and H.R. 6136 does nothing to reunite these children, screaming ``Mama'' and ``Papi,'' with their parents. The best case scenario is that they would be incarcerated in a family prison camp.

The President is responsible for this tragedy, and he has not reversed this policy. DHS has said that they don't even know where this child is.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6136 does not even address the crisis of Dreamers. I believe my colleague from the great State of Washington when he says he wants to fix that.

But, in fact, this locks 82 percent of Dreamers out of citizenship, while dismantling the family immigration system and revoking approved petitions for 3 million family members who have paid fees and waited for years.

This is not a moderate bill. It is wrong.

Let's stand up for these children. Let's bring the Keep Families Together Act to the floor for a vote. Let us stand up for America.

Madam Speaker, 10 days ago, I visited a Federal prison south of Seattle that holds 174 women. I met with all of those women. They are seeking asylum. One woman had three children. The first child was shot and murdered by gangs. The second child was shot and paralyzed by gangs, and the third child was the child she tried to bring here to safety.

These are the stories of the people who are coming across the border. All of the mothers and the 174 people who were at the Federal prison had not even been able to say good-bye to their children. They did not know where their children were. They had been subjected to the worst conditions at the border.

Madam Speaker, what is this country coming to? This is a country that should value our children, that should value the rights of our children; and these children are sitting in cages on the border in tent cities.

This President created this crisis, and this President can stop this crisis right now with a phone call. Do not tell us it is about Congress. It is about the President of the United States who has chosen to take this democracy to its very bottom.

This is the bottom. This is abuse. It is a human rights violation, and we must end it. He must end it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in the Progressive Caucus and thank all my colleagues for the deep devotion that they have shown over the years to addressing racism, poverty, and inequality.

It is my honor to help bring a light, shine a light, on the stories of men and women around the country who are fighting to make ends meet. These are our neighbors, our brothers, our children, our parents, our friends, and they are struggling.

Here is an incredible statistic: Across the United States today, 67 percent of all Americans do not even have $1,000 in their savings accounts. That means they can't take care of a leak in the roof; they can't take care of a sick child; and if they don't get paid sick days, they don't get to take care of an aging parent. They are focused merely on surviving and not on thriving. That is outrageous for a country of our wealth.

It is time for us to lift up the American people who are the bedrock, the national bedrock, of our country: the teacher who spends more time with our children than any other but hasn't yet been compensated for that; the domestic workers and the caregivers who take care of our elderly, our homes, and our lives with their grace, strength, compassion, and efficiency; the laborers who build the foundations of the homes and the workplaces that we stand on, live and work in; the women in every single industry who have faced disrespect, unequal pay, but are the glue that hold our society and our families together; the farmworkers who pick the food we eat; the nurses who listen to our hearts and bring us back to wellness; the sanitation workers; the parks people; the oceanographers; the scientists; the servers; the artists; the advocates who shine a light on the most vulnerable, the poorest, among us.

These are the people who have come together as the Poor People's Campaign under the incredible leadership, the visionary leadership, of Reverend William Barber, and with a huge coalition of organizations to fight against racism, poverty, inequality, militarism, and ecological devastation that continue to plague our country still today.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join Representative Raskin and others as we tell their stories today. I am proud to stand with these courageous soldiers for peace and for justice as we fight for equity, and I thank them for leading with love, with generosity, and with abundance.

One of those people is Reverend Sarah Monroe from my home State of Washington. I wanted to start by reading her testimony:

I wanted to start by speaking to the context I am in. I am

speaking as a Christian theologian. I am speaking as a person

working in one of the least religious parts of the country.

And I am also speaking, more specifically, as a pastor and an

Episcopal priest in Grays Harbor County. This is a rural

community on the Pacific coastline of Washington State.

I also grew up in this county. We face a postindustrial

economy. Timber was our main industry, and today it is gone.

We live in a context where 46 percent of our people are on

public assistance and one out of 25 people are homeless. We

are a majority White community just south of the Quinault

Indian Nation, who were and continue to be victims of

genocide.

We have very little legal industry to employ our people,

which means that our people turn to a black-market economy

that most often sells and trades drugs, sex, just about

everything else, and also brings our young people into

extensive gang involvement.

So many of our most struggling people, both White and

Native, are very young. They are millennials. They are

teenagers who have never had a steady income, many of whom

have been incarcerated as young as 8.

So, in this context, morally, we face a lot of issues, and

three of those I want to talk about right now.

First, we as an organization are committed to lifting up

the leadership and the agency of poor and struggling people.

e:

We believe that God takes the side of the poor. And we

believe that Jesus built the poor people's movement. We

believe in raising up young leaders from the streets, from

the jails, from the homeless encampments, from the trailer

parks in Grays Harbor County. And we believe that they are

the only

moral voices that can save us and that can lead us to

liberation.

We believe that the outcasts and the sex workers and the

drug addicted will find their own healing and will bring that

healing to us all. We believe that no poor people's movement

or campaign can be built without this fundamental commitment.

As one example of that, we had a group over this past

Easter of young men in jail, and they organized their own

Bible study. They fasted and prayed. And they came to us and

said, from Isaiah 58, which they were reading and studying,

that they were called to be the Restorers of the Streets with

Dwellings.

Second, in this county, as in so many other places across

this country, we face the moral issue of State violence. What

I mean by this is that poor people in this country are

systematically disenfranchised at every turn. That means that

the county has money for militarized police equipment, but

not for housing. The county and the cities in this county

have resources for consultants to build the tourist industry,

but not for providing a path out of poverty for young people.

But what I also mean is that our people across lines of

race face extensive police brutality. Death, beatings,

shakedowns, and the use--and really the extensive use--of a

bench warrant system that ensures that if you are young and

you are poor, you are likely to have a warrant that allows

you to be stopped or chased at any time.

Most of our young people go from the juvenile system to an

early felony for drug possession or property crime and spend

most of their lives in and out of jail and prison where they

also experience extensive and institutionalized violence.

State power now, as in the time of Jesus, is used to

violently repress people and to deprive them of their rights.

But last, we are theologically committed to hope. And for

us, hope is not a feeling, because we face powers that are

larger than us at every turn, and we know that we face

impossible odds. We face a staggering amount of personal and

communal trauma. We openly stand against the narrative of

White supremacy that has often been fed to our people, and we

believe in the power of the Gospel.

We believe in the power of the moral voice of the people

waking up and claiming their own dignity, even when they are

taught to deny it at every turn. Claiming their own power

when they are taught that they are powerless. We believe that

we are a resurrection people. Even when Jesus was murdered by

empire, and I said this in a sermon a couple of years ago for

Easter, that he rose again, and, in rising, God gave the

finger to every power in this world that seeks to oppress the

poor and keep us down.

I thank the reverend from our community for that testimony and that story. We have other stories, but I want to make sure other Members have a chance to tell theirs as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin for yielding.

You know, that story about payday lending just reminded me of how in the State senate right before I came here, we had to fight back to make sure we stopped the rollback, because we actually were able, with activists from around our community, to pass some of the strongest laws that prevented payday lenders from taking advantage of people, with great off-ramps.

Unfortunately, there were over and over again attempts to try to roll those back, and we at the Federal level need to make sure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is strong, so that we can make sure that these folks are not getting trapped in payday lending.

So I know we are running short on time. I want to make sure we get some of these read. So let me read another one from my home State. This is testimony from Mashyla Buckmaster.

I am 28 years old. I am a proud single mom of a beautiful

1-year-old named Ella. As of today, I am celebrating almost 2

years clean and sober. I live in Westport in Grays Harbor

County, Washington. I have spent 5 years of my life homeless.

Once during my homelessness, a neighbor tried to assault me

by throwing a log through the window of the empty building

where I was squatting because he was so enraged that homeless

people were living on his block.

I got Section 8 housing after my daughter was born just

before my organization began providing cold weather shelter

to our homeless members. For 110 days last winter, Chaplains

on the Harbor hosted about 20 people in our church, most of

them millennials who caught a record trying to survive in a

county with no good jobs; no decent, affordable housing;

horrible healthcare; and plenty of heroin.

Business and property owners were outraged by our cold

weather shelter. Our homeless members were stalked by police.

Our pastor was threatened with vigilante violence. The same

man who had tried to attack me during my own time squatting

also assaulted a 19-year-old homeless member of our community

on church property and later attempted to run him over with a

truck.

I volunteered to stay overnight at our church and keep

people safe while they slept. I stayed there through the

nights while the threats continued to pour in. I stayed

because my community stepped up to save my life, when the

rest of society didn't care whether I lived or died, and now

it was my turn to protect my community.

I am joining the Poor People's Campaign because I need a

movement that is as tough as I am.

Poor and homeless people get stereotyped like we are too

stupid or lazy to solve our own problems. I wasn't homeless

because I was stupid and lazy. I was homeless because our

country has no problem with pregnant mothers being homeless

in the dead of the winter, while just 2 hours away in

Seattle, the founders of Microsoft and Amazon have made

themselves the richest individuals on the planet. You tell me

who is messed up in this situation.

Some of you might be suspicious about a Grays Harbor County

person getting up in front of this crowd, thinking, ``Aren't

they just a bunch of rednecks out there?'' Hell, yes, we are

rednecks. We are radical rednecks. We are hillbillies for the

liberation of all people. ``We are the living reminder that

when they threw out their white trash, they didn't burn it.''

We are here to stand shoulder to shoulder with anybody

taking up this campaign, and trust me, we are the kind of

Scrappy you want on your side in a fight.

Mr. Raskin, that testimony resonates for me, because I represent Seattle where we do have some of the biggest corporations. But I will tell you what, we also have 11,500 homeless people in Seattle. And it has been breaking my heart that my community, so tolerant, so wonderful, so inclusive, has been, unfortunately, turning anger of inequality in our system against people who are experiencing homelessness just like the testimony I just read.

I want to read another one that also strikes home for me, because it is a testimony from the Fight for $15 in Massachusetts. As you know, I was proud to be on the committee that passed a $15 minimum wage in Seattle, proud to be one of the first cities in the Fight for $15.

This is testimony from Deanna Butler, and this is from August of 2016. She is in Massachusetts. I think I said that.

I am a 31-year-old resident of the Dorchester area. I am a

fast-food worker and a member of the Fight for $15. I have

been working in the fast-food industry for over 15 years. I

work at the Shake Shack, and I make $11 an hour as an end

cashier. I am married with three children ages 8, 14, and 15.

My check is the only income for my family, because my husband

is disabled and battling with several health conditions.

$11 an hour isn't much. I have worked other jobs, too. I

have worked in the retail industry and at the YMCA. But the

one thing I have found in all of those jobs is that anything

less than $15 an hour just isn't enough. It prevents families

like mine from thriving to our full potential.

My family receives food stamps and MassHealth, which takes

off a heavy load,

but I am still left to figure out how I am going to make my

$350 paycheck stretch for five people. School is about to

start again, and I have three kids getting ready to go back

to school. I have student loans that I have to pay back, but

I am also behind in bills, so I am left to prioritize which

bill I can afford to pay this month.

Me and my family have been living in the shelter for 6

years--yes, 6 years--because I don't make enough to afford

market rate rent anywhere in the greater Boston area. I don't

understand how these multibillion-dollar corporations are

able to build an empire on the backs of low-wage workers and

get away with making millions in profits while we have

nowhere to live and have to depend on brothers and sisters to

help us make it through. My kids deserve so much more, and I

deserve so much more.

That is why I am fighting for $15 an hour, so that one day

soon, I will be able to provide for my kids the way I have

always hoped to. I will be able to go back to school and

finish my medical billing program that I had to put on hold,

because making poverty wages and taking care of my family

made it challenging for me.

We work hard. We deserve more. And people have started to

realize that $15 an hour is the new minimum wage standard. We

have been winning in cities across the country, and I hope

through this moral revival, we can build a tomorrow where not

only the rich matter, but we all matter.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which simply adds an important aspect to a GAO study that is already in the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their leadership in crafting this bill, and also my friend on the other side of the aisle, Representative Woodall, for his support as well.

The underlying bill directs GAO to report to Congress on the preparedness of the Army Corps of Engineers to truly make it a 21st century agency. The study will investigate how the Corps of Engineers is supporting efforts to invest in recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce. It will examine how the Corps of Engineers is coping with the steady trickle of the baby boomer generation retiring, and it will also look at the Corps of Engineers and how it can better utilize available and existing technologies in fulfilling its mission.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to understand how the Corps of Engineers' primary partner in the delivery of its services, the navigation industry workforce, is also managing the impending retirements of the baby boomer generation. We need to get a grasp on what the Corps of Engineers needs to do to prepare for the graying not only of its workforce, but also the workforce of the maritime and shipping sectors. What is more, it is critical to understand how all of this has a bearing on safety and operations within the navigation industry.

Mr. Chairman, in my home State of Washington, the average age of a maritime worker is 54 years old. And while the maritime sector is growing at a rate of 6.4 percent a year, there is a so-called silver tsunami looming in the next 5 to 10 years. The industries that the Corps of Engineers intimately works with are expected to be fighting to fill open positions even more than they are now. That is why, Mr. Chairman, my amendment directs GAO to make these additional considerations as it conducts its study.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Shuster very much for accepting the amendment, and I urge support.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which simply asks the Corps of Engineers to explore what opportunities exist to incorporate noise abatement and noise mitigation technologies and practices in the Corps of Engineers.

Noise has a bearing both on the land and in water, and as maritime transportation and travel increase and as vessels increase in size, communities along our Nation's waterways stand to be affected the most.

Seattle's residential population and our maritime sector are both growing. And importantly, the liveability of our communities and the strength of our maritime sector will depend on how we address the challenges that come with that growth. At the same time, as sound travels more efficiently in the water, we need to be certain that we understand how we minimize the disruption to maritime environments.

Underwater wildlife--like the endangered southern residents, orcas-- are especially vulnerable to noise destruction, because they are so dependent on underwater sounds for basic life functions. The Port of Vancouver, BC, recently investigated whether limiting the speed of ships would reduce noise and help our overall community. Over the period of the study, ambient noise dropped 44 percent. So research into this area is emerging, but it is clear that more needs to be done.

In providing guidance to mitigate noise in 2014, the International Maritime Organization identified more than just speed, but also ship design, on-board machinery, and navigation as factors to take into consideration.

In the Puget Sound region, the Corps of Engineers is uniquely placed to lead this effort and unite stakeholders behind solutions that protect the maritime environment, ensure the liveability of our communities, and support our growing maritime sector.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much and I urge support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a great honor to be able to come into Congress with Mr. Khanna and to see the years of work that he has done before coming to Congress now turning into critical legislation around Yemen, around workers' rights, around progressive issues, around healthcare for all.

How proud I am that I get to serve with the gentleman in this Congress, and how proud I am of our Progressive Caucus, which is the largest values-based caucus in the House. We are 78 members strong, and I believe we are going to hopefully have more members added on.

Mr. Speaker, I think the reality of what we are talking about is that the ideas that we are putting forward are not really progressive ideas; they are ideas that serve the interests of working families. Labor unions are at the core of that.

I am proud to come from Washington State. We are one of the most labor-dense States in the country. We have one of the highest minimum wages in the country. Thanks to the labor movement, we have minimum wage that is tied to inflation. We have had that for many years. It is part of the reason our minimum wage has been able to rise in Washington State. Yes, we are the place of the $15 minimum wage, and I was proud to be on that committee to pass the $15 minimum wage in Seattle.

We are able to show that these policies, like higher minimum wages, like paid safe and sick days--we have some of the best paid family leave policies in the country. All of that has been brought forward by labor unions representing workers.

When we talk about collective bargaining, what is that? For the average person, who may not be as familiar with terminology, really all that means is that you get to take the power that comes from having more than one individual together to bargain for the things that are really going to help your life. That is what collective bargaining is about: bringing the power of many to the policies and putting policies forward that really help us.

Mr. Khanna spoke so eloquently about--I think he said--the Danish Ambassador visiting. There is a great TEDx talk out there, TEDxOslo. The title of it is something like, ``Where in the World Is It Easiest to Get Rich?'' It is a fantastic talk that really puts bullets in the theory that, in social democracies where you provide healthcare, where you have strong labor movements, where you provide free education, somehow you don't have the opportunity to do well in those countries.

In fact, statistics show that, specifically because of a strong labor movement in Scandinavian countries and because of the investment in education, those two factors combined, everybody does well. It is a really simple theory that we are all better off when we are all better off, and that is what labor unions have provided to us.

I am proud to be from a strong labor family. My husband actually started off his career as an apprentice, as a bricklayer, and he worked his way up working for a number of different unions. He ended up being the head of the King County Labor Council, elected by 140,000 workers across our county, and was instrumental in helping us to win on many of these important issues. That is, I think, what we are talking about today.

So, when we look at the Janus decision, this is a critical issue, an issue of critical importance for all Americans. The Supreme Court's decision on this case is going to help determine whether or not we really have opportunity for all workers, whether or not labor unions are able to do the work that they need to do to collectively bargain and bring the voices of many workers to bear. Because what happens in, particularly, these workplaces, giant corporations: You know that, if there is a wrong done to one, it is difficult to bring it forward just as one. If you have collective bargaining, you have a structure within where those issues can come forward.

So what Janus is looking at is whether or not American workers have the freedom and the right to collectively bargain, which means to fight back against the corporations that are expanding income inequality and decimating the middle class that, frankly, built this country.

Let me be clear that I stand strong with labor unions like AFSCME in opposing corporate efforts to drag working people to the bottom. Unions made our country strong. Unions made our country strong. And Janus has the potential to make it harder for working people to join a union.

Union members are us. They are our teachers, ironworkers, nurses, government workers, bricklayers, firefighters, machinists. They are the backbone of our communities. Our communities only thrive when we help workers to thrive. Janus would do the opposite.

I want to share a statistic with you. My friend Ro Khanna just gave you some incredible statistics. Let me repeat one, which is that workers, on average, in 1973 earned $16.74 per hour, adjusted for inflation. Since then, our economy has doubled, so we can assume that worker salaries have kept up with the pace, right?

Not so fast. Wrong. Workers today make $17.86 per hour, which is nowhere near enough to keep pace with growing income inequality and the rising cost of living.

Here is another statistic that has captured my attention and that I now use in every speech: Across this country, 67 percent of Americans do not even have $1,000 in their bank account to deal with an emergency. Mr. Speaker, 67 percent. It is a remarkable statistic.

That means that, if you have a leak in your roof, your car breaks down, your kid has an emergency or an illness and you have to take off from work for a couple of weeks and you don't have paid family leave like we do in Washington State thanks to the labor movement, all of those things mean that families are no longer thinking about thriving; they are thinking about surviving. That decline is directly tied, if you look at the research, to the decline in the labor movement and the decline in collective bargaining.

So now we are facing an administration that, despite lofty campaign promises, is putting corporations and greed first and workers second.

Just look at the tax bill that the Republicans just passed. The largest transfer of wealth in the history of the United States going straight to corporations and the 1 percent. That is the reality of all of the research is that the majority of those tax breaks went to the largest corporations, the top 1 percent. It was used for stock buybacks and not for any kinds of increases, permanent increases, for workers.

So unions have been fighting back, and that is why we have to ensure that unions remain in fighting shape because they are fighting for us. Janus is nothing more than a political attack underwritten by corporations, and it will not make our economy stronger. It further rigs the economy against workers, and it is, frankly, a disgrace and a slap in the face to the union legacy that has helped our country grow.

We need to be working to make it easier and not harder for workers to join unions, to collectively bargain for fair wages, safe working conditions, and healthcare. And before I yield back, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends in labor, the brothers and sisters who have been fighting for working Americans, winning worker safety protections, sick leave, the 40-hour workweek. Don't forget about the 40-hour workweek brought to you by your labor unions throughout our country's history.

It is not hyperbole to say that we simply would not be where we are without unions. And instead of trying to tear them apart by pushing so- called right-to-work laws--I don't even like to say the phrase, because it isn't right to work. The reality is that we should have the right to have workers collectively bargain and organize.

But by filing these harmful lawsuits like Janus, we are hurting workers across the country. We should be working to educate and to engage a new generation of union workers and leaders, and if history is any indication, our country will be better off when we are all better off. We are all better off when we have unions that represent the voices of working people and can actually build that power, organize together to take on that corporate power, which, frankly, has a lot of money behind it but isn't looking out for the best interest of our workers. With that, I thank Mr. Khanna for his tremendous leadership.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing everybody agrees on, and that is that it is past time that we face the institutionalized racial inequity that is built into every single step of our mass incarceration system.

We know that mass incarceration disproportionately affects people of color and that, today, women in prison are, sadly, the fastest growing demographic, frequently caught up with the arrests of their partners and struggling with mental health and addiction.

This bill does take important steps forward, and I want to say that it is a very good faith effort on the part of the bill's two sponsors: my friend Hakeem Jeffries and Representative Doug Collins.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I still am not going to be able to support the bill because I have serious concerns about how the bill creates, develops, and implements a new risk assessment system on a very quick timeline by someone who, frankly, has spent his career opposing criminal justice reforms and, in fact, has fought attempts to advance racial justice, and that is Attorney General Sessions.

This is especially concerning given that research shows us that risk assessments produce racial disparities. And this bill does not address sentencing reform, which is an issue that has bipartisan support and is the crux of the problem today.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about language in the bill that excludes immigrants from being eligible for time credits. The bill excludes longtime, legal permanent residents, green card holders, who may have committed the exact same crimes as others and may be eligible for relief under U.S. law. If we are making redemption available, shouldn't it be available for everyone, regardless of immigration status, for the same set of crimes?

Moreover, continued incarceration of these people simply based upon citizenship status is a waste of taxpayer dollars and unnecessarily keeps families separated.

The reality is that these are deeply important issues, and this bill shows that we have the capacity to work in a bipartisan way. Even with all of the good work and even for a first step, unfortunately, I believe we have more work to do to get to the place where our morals are being consistently applied.

I look forward to doing everything I can to work on this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2155.

This bill will roll back many consumer protections, including protections that are critical for civil rights.

This bill will permit 85 percent of depository institutions to avoid public reporting on their mortgage lending activities. This reporting is absolutely critical to identifying discrimination against Black Americans, Latinos, and other minority groups.

Thanks to the public reporting requirement, we know that redlining still exists in 61 metropolitan areas across our country and that Black folks and Latinos are more than twice as likely as Whites to be denied mortgage credit.

It is an unacceptable reality, but it is a reality that we have to see and acknowledge. The idea that we would roll back these policies that help us identify these problems, when we have the facts right in front of us, is simply unthinkable.

I do want to make it clear that I have great sympathy for smaller banking institutions, including credit unions--I am a proud credit union member--and our community banks that have called for regulatory relief.

But let's be clear that, when we do that relief, Congress should be using a scalpel to create a fix for smaller banks, not taking a sledgehammer to the entire system that we set up to protect consumers and Main Street small businesses from the greed of big banks.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, later on this afternoon, in recognition of Infrastructure Week, I will be releasing the second annual overview of transportation and infrastructure priorities in my district, Washington's Seventh Congressional District.

The report features a number of high-priority transportation and infrastructure projects. The report was developed through conversations and roundtables, tours, workshops, and planning sessions across my district that my staff and I convened.

We have many cities in the district. People know the district for Seattle, which is very, very important, our Port of Seattle, an important institution, but we also have cities like Burien, which is right next to the Sea-Tac Airport, one of the fastest growing airports in the country, and is dealing with the many challenges that comes with that growth.

Each of the priority projects that are covered in this report serves our district by enhancing sustainability, improving the community, and contributing to economic growth and job creation.

My hope is that this report provides an overview of the types of improvements we desperately need to see in King County, the city of Seattle, Snohomish County, Shoreline, Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Normandy Park, Burien, and the Port of Seattle.

Our challenge, Mr. Speaker, is to keep our district the most livable, sustainable, and welcoming community in the country. It is a challenge.

Just consider the facts:

In 2016, we spent 54.8 hours in traffic, giving Seattle the dubious honor of being one of the top 10 cities for congestion.

In 2015, the lowest earning 20 percent of households in our State spent three times as much, as a percentage of their income, on commuting costs compared to the highest income families.

Especially significant are transit options for my constituents. Transit makes the ultimate difference in being able to reach a place of employment easily, which, in turn, affects how constituents are able to provide for themselves and their families.

While Sound Transit has seen a 23-percent increase in ridership over the last year, we need to ensure that all communities are connected to transit networks and not forgotten.

As King County Metro found in a report from 2015, while 71 percent of minority communities live within a quarter-mile of a Metro bus stop, only 41 percent live within a half a mile of a stop that has frequent service.

Mr. Speaker, transit is also essential to addressing climate change. In our region, nearly 50 percent of our greenhouse gas pollution comes from transportation. In 2015, Washington State's transportation sector contributed 43 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, making it Washington's highest level since 2007.

Not only do we need to consider impacts to air quality but to water quality as well. In our region, clean water is essential to supporting our economy and national treasures like our salmon and our orcas. According to the Washington Stormwater Center, over 10,000 unique chemicals are found in urban road runoff, contributing to the continuing pollution of Puget Sound.

Yet not a day goes by where I do not draw from the innovations and examples set by our businesses, our individuals, and institutions in our Seventh Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that we are a model for the Nation, whether it is through ideas brought to reality, partnerships formed across diverse interests, or new mechanisms developed to maximize the leverage of any financial instruments.

But there is a lot to do. Later this year, Congress will consider its annual budget and appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019, including, I hope, a potential infrastructure bill.

Democratic Ranking Member DeFazio spoke earlier about the critical need for the Federal Government to fund a bold infrastructure plan so that our businesses and our communities across the country can succeed.

That will put people back to work. It will put money into our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure needs, our water systems, our schools across our country, and our transit.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am committed to fighting for here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his continued leadership on these Special Order hours, and also for his leadership in the Progressive Caucus, and on the Judiciary Committee.

I am here to talk about SNAP because I am sort of dumbfounded that we are where we are. I serve as the vice ranking member on the Budget Committee, and I saw firsthand how a Republican tax scam, the tax cut, was pushed through in favor of the top 1 percent and the largest corporations, creating a transfer of wealth from the middle class and working people to the wealthiest; creating what will be a $1 trillion deficit according to the Congressional Budget Office next year; and then coming back and saying somehow we don't have enough money to feed our kids.

That, to me, is really not just ludicrous, but it is outrageous, and I am deeply saddened by it because the program that we are talking about is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--that is what SNAP stands for--and it feeds 42 million American families across the country. This is a target of our colleagues on the Republican side, using the farm bill to take this crucial program away from Americans who need it the most. The bill would strip critical food assistance from unemployed and employed workers by shortening the time limits to be eligible for SNAP for millions of people.

My home State of Washington in 2016 received $1.1 billion in SNAP funding, and there and across the country, as I said, 42 million families benefit from this critical program. These are workers and families who face low wages, unreliable schedules, underemployment, and unstable incomes. They all rely on SNAP to buy groceries and put food on the table.

So we are talking about stripping food assistance from families and individuals with children under 6 if they can't consistently work 20 hours a week. And it would strip food assistance for a whole year if that requirement isn't met.

Cutting SNAP is not magically going to reduce the deficit, a deficit that was dramatically increased by our Republican colleagues when they passed the tax scam, and so this is just an attempt to take resources from the most vulnerable and to leave these 40 million families stranded on the side of the road.

The American Dream isn't just about individuals lifting themselves up by their own bootstraps. It is the idea that we are all better off when we are all

better off; that we need to lift up every person, and make sure every person has bootstraps to be lifted up by.

Today, my office received a call from Dave in my district who works at our University District Food Bank, and he called just imploring Congress not to allow this to happen. Our community food banks in red and blue districts across the country will not be able to keep up with the need if we gut SNAP. Yesterday, I met with Aaron from Food Lifeline, who knows from experience that for every one meal provided by a food bank in our community, SNAP provides 12.

Yesterday, I spoke at a rally and we had a constituent of mine--a woman named Tina--who came out from Washington State. She is a single mom. She has got a 9-year-old kid, and she was just begging and pleading for us to please keep this program.

The reality is that SNAP is one of the most cost-effective public assistance programs. It quickly and directly gets food assistance to those who need it. So why would we wage a war on that program or a war on poor people by cutting these essential benefits?

Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Raskin shares my deep commitment to make sure that we provide these essential benefits for families across the country, and I believe that there are colleagues on the other side who will share this commitment once they understand what this is doing to poor folks in their districts who just need a hand up; kids who need food on the table--fruits, vegetables, healthy foods--so that they can grow and nourish their bodies and their souls, and help contribute to our economy. And that is what SNAP does.

So I urge all of my colleagues on the Republican side to join us Democrats in fighting for our kids and fighting for nutrition, and fighting for this critical program.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for including two of my amendments in the en bloc package. The gentlemen have set a high bar for leadership and collegiality through this process, and I look forward to working with them as the FAA implements this bill.

My amendments focus on two issues important not only to the residents of Washington's Seventh District, but across the country; namely, the issue of airplane noise and infrastructure needs of fast-growing airports like Sea-Tac.

Many of our communities with large and medium airports are growing by leaps and bounds. According to Airports Council International, over the last 10 years, Sea-Tac's passenger traffic has grown by 52.6 percent, second only to San Francisco. We need to be certain that our communities are able to prepare for that growth, while still ensuring that they remain livable.

These amendments will help to build that evidence base, and I deeply appreciate the consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I make this motion today in order to ensure that the millions of Americans who rely on public power can continue receiving affordable power. President Trump, in his latest budget, has proposed charging millions of Americans more for their electricity.

The President wants to charge Americans what he calls market-based rates, which means that millions of Americans who rely on public power will pay more than what they pay now. This proposal has rightly provoked bipartisan opposition, and I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in rejecting this ill-advised proposal which will result in higher bills for millions of our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I should also add that the underlying bill is based on a false premise that rates can be lowered by shirking our responsibilities to protect our environment, restore our salmon populations, and follow the law. After all, restoring our region's salmon populations will reduce our costs in the long run.

This underlying bill takes us in the wrong direction, and it is important to include some context on this complicated issue.

Starting in the 1930s, the Federal Government began the construction of 31 hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River. These dams which make up the Federal Columbia River Power System, or the FCRPS, provide public power throughout the Pacific Northwest.

However, it has become clear that they have operated in ways that pose serious threats to our region's salmon runs and violate our environmental laws. Several courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Oregon U.S. District Court, have ruled as such. The courts ordered a new biological opinion, as well as a NEPA review, in order to bring the plans in alignment with Federal law.

Rather than letting this critical process continue, H.R. 3144 aims to circumvent our court system and the law by blocking legally ordered salmon protection measures. Congress should not be in the business of closing the door on legal and regulatory review processes simply because some Members don't like them.

Some claim that the court process will make it more expensive for ratepayers due to decisions like the one to increase spill over the dams, which this bill would illegally block. This process, which is meant to release additional water over the tops of the dams to ensure that juvenile salmon can migrate out, is a critical step in increasing salmon recovery rates. It is currently up for debate whether or not ratepayers will see an increase of any sort in the costs in the short term, but the long-term benefits of changes like this one are indisputable.

The 13 species of steelhead and salmon that are threatened by these dams are crucial to our region, and our fishing industry relies on them for its survival.

In 2011, Mr. Speaker, 34,500 jobs were provided by a healthy sport fishing industry which contributed more than $3.8 billion to the economy in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. And according to a recent poll in Washington State, a strong majority of voters are actually willing to pay up to $7 a month in additional costs in order to save our wild salmon and improve water quality because they know how incredibly important it is to all of our economies and our communities.

Whether or not the increase spill will raise costs, that is not clear, but what is clear is that conserving these critical populations is a priority for the people in the Pacific Northwest.

The irony, Mr. Speaker, is that H.R. 3144 will ultimately cost our ratepayers

even more money in the long term. Protecting our salmon populations is 100 percent necessary. It is our obligation under the Endangered Species Act. So simply closing our eyes and hoping this all goes away is not an option.

Additionally, the Native peoples of the Pacific Northwest have the undeniable treaty rights to catch these salmon and steelhead at accustomed places, meaning that these populations have to be maintained. We can't continue to fail to uphold our end of this deal, and this bill will move us further away from where we need to be.

This issue has been addressed, and the review process mandated by the courts is doing just that. By denying the opportunity to implement the necessary science-based changes required to bring the FCRPS in line with Federal law, H.R. 3144 will cost ratepayers more down the line. Restoring the salmon population will be incredibly expensive, and gutting fisheries protections and kicking the can down the road does not serve our ratepayers well.

We must move forward with the ongoing biological opinion review and the NEPA process, but we also have to ensure that we are continuing to be mindful of our ratepayers in the region. This bill will ultimately cost ratepayers more, not less.

Mr. Speaker, it is possible to find a solution that works.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, had I been presnt for rollcall vote 140 and rollcall vote 141 on Monday, April 16, 2018, I would have voted ``aye'' on both.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of over 270 organizations opposed to the balanced budget amendment.

National Organization Opposing the Balanced Budget Amendment

9to5, National Association of Working Women; AASA, The

School Superintendents Association; Academy of Nutrition and

Dietetics; ADAP Advocacy Association (aaa+);

Advance CTE; Advocates for Youth; African American Health

Alliance; AIDS Alliance for Women, Infants, Children, Youth &

Families; AIDS Community Research Initiative of America; AIDS

United; Alaska Wilderness League; Alliance for a Just Society

D535; Alliance for Excellent Education; Alliance for Justice;

Alliance for Retired Americans; Alliance for Strong Families

and Communities; American Association for Dental Research;

American Association for Justice; American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education; American Association of

University Women (AAUW).

American Council on Education; American Counseling

Association; American Dance Therapy Association; American

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; American

Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO); American Federation of School

Administrators (AFSA); American Federation of State, County

and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of

Teachers, AFL-CIO; American Indian Higher Education

Consortium; American Jewish Committee (AJC); American Music

Therapy Association; American Network of Community Options

and Resources (ANCOR); American Postal Workers Union, AFL-

CIO; American Public Health Association; American School

Counselor Association; American Speech-Language-Hearing

Association; Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); Asian &

Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF); Asian

Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC; Asian Pacific American

Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA); Association for Career and

Technical Education.

Association for Psychological Science; Association of

Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP); Association of

Educational Service Agencies; Association of Farmworker

Opportunity Programs; Association of Flight Attendants--CWA;

Association of School Business Officials International

(ASBO); Association of University Centers on Disabilities

(AUCD); Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America; Autism

National Committee; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bazelon

Center for Mental Health Law; Bienestar Human Services; B'nai

B'rith International; Bread for the World; Campaign for

America's Future; Campaign for Youth Justice; Catholics in

Alliance for the Common Good; Center for Community Change

Action; Center for Family Policy and Practice Center for Law

and Social Policy (CLASP).

Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.; Center for Public

Representation; Center for Science in the Public Interest;

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Child Care Aware of

America; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Action

Alliance; Children's Defense Fund; Children's Dental Health

Project; Children's Health Watch; Children's Leadership

Council; Citizens for Tax Justice; Clinical Social Work

Association; Coalition for Health Funding; Coalition on Human

Needs; Commission on Adult Basic Education (COABE); Committee

for Education Funding; Common Cause; Communications Workers

of America (CWA).

Community Access National Network (CANN); Community Action

Partnership; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America

(CADCA); Concerned Black Men National; Conservation Legacy;

Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED); Corporation

for Supportive Housing; CoSN--the Consortium for School

Networking; Council for Exceptional Children; Council for

Opportunity in Education; Council of Administrators of

Special Education, Inc.; Council of the Great City

Schools; CREDOCriminalization of Poverty Project at the

Institute for Policy Studies; Defenders of Wildlife;

Democracy 21; Demos; Department for Professional

Employees, AFL-CIO; Disability Rights Education and

Defense Fund; Disciples Justice Action Network; Easter

Seals.

Ecumenical Poverty Initiative; Every Child Matters;

FamiliesUSA; Farmworker Justice; Feeding America; First Focus

Campaign for Children; Food & Water Watch; Food Research &

Action Center (FRAC); Foster Family-based Treatment

Association; Franciscan Action Network; Franciscans for

Justice; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Friends

of the Earth; Futures Without Violence; Gamaliel; Gay Men's

Health Crisis (GMHC); Generations United; Global Justice

Institute; Health Care for America Now (HCAN); Health GAP

(Global Access Project).

Higher Education Consortium for Special Education; Housing

Works; Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy; Interfaith

Worker Justice; International Association of Fire Fighters;

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers;

International Brotherhood of Teamsters; International

Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE),

AFL-CIO; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace

and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW;

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE);

Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jobs With Justice; Justice

in Aging; LeadingAge; League of Conservation Voters; League

of United Latin American Citizens; League of Women Voters of

the United States; Learning Disabilities Association of

America; Main Street Alliance.

Medical Mission Sisters, North America; Medicare Rights

Center; Mental Health America; Metropolitan Community

Churches; Mom2Mom Global; MomsRising; NAACP; NASTAD (National

Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors); National

Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; National Active and Retired

Federal Employees Association (NARFE); National Advocacy

Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Alliance

for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE); National Alliance of HUD

Tenants; National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; National

Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; National Association

for Children's Behavioral Health; National Association for

College Admission Counseling; National Association for

Hispanic Elderly; National Association for Music Education;

National Association for the Education of Young Children.

National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a);

National Association of Councils on Developmental

Disabilities; National Association of County and City Health

Officials; National Association of County Behavioral Health

and Developmental Disability Directors; National Association

of Elementary School Principals; National Association of

Federally Impacted Schools; National Association of Letter

Carriers; National Association of Private Special Education

Centers; National Association of School Psychologists;

National Association of Secondary School Principals; National

Association of Social Workers (NASW); National Association of

State Directors of Special Education; National Association of

State Head Injury Administrators; National Birth Defects

Prevention Network; National Black Justice Coalition;

National Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Center

on Domestic and Sexual Violence; National Coalition Against

Domestic Violence.

National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community

Development (National CAPACD); National Committee to Preserve

Social Security and Medicare; National Community Development

Association; National Congress of American Indians; National

Council for Behavioral Health; National Council for Community

and Education Partnerships; National Council of Asian Pacific

Americans; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council

of La Raza (NCLR); National Council on Independent Living;

National Disability Institute; National Disability Rights

Network; National Domestic Violence Hotline; National Down

Syndrome Congress; National Education Association (NEA);

National Employment Law Project; National Fair Housing

Alliance; National Federation of Federal Employees; National

Health Care for the Homeless Council; National Hispanic

Medical Association.

National Housing Law Project; National Housing Trust;

National Immigration Law Center; National Latina Institute

for Reproductive Health; National LGBTQ Task Force Action

Fund; National Low Income Housing Coalition; National

Multiple Sclerosis Society; National Network to End Domestic

Violence; National Organization for Women; National

Partnership for Women & Families; National People's Action;

National Priorities Project; National PTA; National

Recreation and Park Association; National Respite Coalition;

National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition; National Rural

Education Association; National School Boards Association;

National Skills Coalition; National Superintendents

Roundtable.

National Treasury Employees Union; NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE;

National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable; National WIC

Association; National Women's Health Network; National

Women's Law Center; National Working Positive Coalition;

Natural Resources Defense Council; NDD United; Network for

Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of

Christ; NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby;

Not Dead Yet; OWL-The Voice of Women 40+; PAI; Paralyzed

Veterans of America; Partnership for America's Children;

People for the American Way; PICO National Network; Planned

Parenthood Federation of America; Prevention Institute.

Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS);

Progressive Congress; Project Inform; ProLiteracy; Protect

All Children's Environment; Public Advocacy for Kids; Public

Citizen; Public Health Institute; Racial and Ethnic Health

Disparities Coalition; RESULTS; Sargent Shriver National

Center on Poverty Law; School Social Work Association of

America; School-Based Health Alliance; Senior Executives

Association (SEA); Service Employees International Union

(SEIU); Share Our Strength; Sinsinawa Dominican Peace and

Justice Office; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational

Leadership; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Western Province

Leadership; Sisters of Mercy South Central Community.

Social Security Works; Southeast Asia Resource Action

Center (SEARAC); Special Needs Alliance; State Innovation

Exchange (SiX); Stewards of Affordable Housing for the

Future; Susan G. Komen; TESOL International Association; The

AIDS Institute; The Arc; The Leadership Conference on Civil

and Human Rights; The National Coalition for Literacy; The

National Crittenton Foundation; The Sisters of Mercy of the

Americas, Institute Justice Team; The United Methodist

Church--General Board of Church and Society; Transportation

Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Treatment Action Group (TAG);

Tremor Action Network; Trust for America's Health (TFAH);

UNCF; Union for Reform Judaism.

United Auto Workers (UAW); United Cerebral Palsy; United

Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries; United

Spinal Association; United States Student Association (USSA);

United Steelworkers (USW); USAction; Voices for Progress;

Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER);

Young Invincibles; YouthBuild USA; ZERO TO THREE.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters: one from AFSCME and one from AARP.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, April 10, 2018.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members

of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to urge you to vote no on

H.J. Res. 2 and to reject this and any other effort to amend

the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget.

The proposed constitutional amendment is a draconian and

unwise proposal that would damage the economy, result in huge

job losses and weaken vital public services that all

Americans depend upon. It unwisely requires outlays to match

receipts each year regardless of economic conditions, a

supermajority vote of three-fifths to increase the debt

ceiling with limited exceptions for outlays to exceed

receipts only in times of war, but not during recessions or

disasters.

H.J. Res. 2 is a false attempt to claim fiscal

responsibility on the heels of a reckless tax cut that is

projected to cause the deficit to skyrocket to $1.9 trillion

over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget

Office (CBO), and to exceed $2.5 trillion if its tax policies

are extended. The tax cut for the wealthy and big

corporations irresponsibly forced revenues to their lowest

levels since 1956, an unsustainable level far below what is

needed to support programs that provide basic needs for

struggling families, to promote economic growth and meet

other critical needs like investing in infrastructure and

education.

H.J. Res. 2 would irresponsibly require a supermajority

vote to lift the debt ceiling, an already difficult vote that

subjects the U.S. and worldwide economies to instability and

potential economic destruction. Further, requiring a balanced

budget annually would take away the ability to respond to

changing economic conditions and raise serious risks of

tipping weak economies into recession and making recessions

longer and deeper. Most egregious, H.J. Res. 2 is a thinly

veiled attempt to force drastic changes to Social Security,

Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' benefits that Americans earn

and depend on.

H.J. Res. 2 is a dangerous and fiscally irresponsible

political maneuver. AFSCME urges you to reject this

politically motivated and dangerous proposal.

Sincerely,

Scott Frey,

Director of Federal Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, let me read a couple of paragraphs from this letter from AFSCME.

``The proposed constitutional amendment is a draconian and unwise proposal that would damage the economy, result in huge job losses, and weaken vital public services that all Americans depend on. It unwisely requires outlays to match receipts each year regardless of economic conditions, a supermajority vote of three-fifths to increase the debt ceiling, with limited exceptions for outlays to exceed receipts only in times of war, but not during recessions or disasters.''

This is a false attempt to claim fiscal responsibility on the heels of a reckless tax cut projected to cause the deficit to skyrocket to $1.9 trillion over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, let me read from the AARP letter. This is, as we know, AARP, the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering Americans over 50 on how they choose to live as they age. And

here is what they had to say: ``A balanced budget amendment would likely harm Social Security and Medicare, subjecting both programs to potentially deep cuts without regard to the impact on the health and financial security of individuals. It would also likely diminish the resources available for programs assisting Americans who are least able to provide for themselves--services such as meals or heating for those who are too poor or physically unable to take care of their basic needs without some support.''

Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on to say:

``The lack of a dependable Social Security and Medicare benefit would be devastating for millions of Americans. Social Security is currently the principal source of income for half of older American households receiving benefits, and roughly one in five households depend on Social Security benefits for nearly all . . . of their income. Over 50 million Americans depend on Medicare, half of whom have incomes of less than $24,150. Even small fluctuations in premiums and cost sharing would have a significant impact on the personal finances of older and disabled Americans.''

Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that we are in strong opposition to the so-called balanced budget amendment today. There is a word that has been thrown around in this discussion. Because I care about words, I wanted to make sure that I was using the right word for what is happening. So I looked in the dictionary, and I looked up the word ``hypocrisy.'' Here is the definition of hypocrisy: hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. The dictionary definition goes on to say: a pretense.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what is happening, a pretense.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the word ``hypocrisy.'' I mentioned the word ``pretense.'' If this was such an important issue, why did it not get proposed before the GOP tax scam? Because if the majority is really worried about the deficit, then they would not have passed a tax scam that cost this country $1.9 trillion simply to give tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our country.

This morning in the Budget Committee where I serve as vice ranking member, the Congressional Budget Office Director, Keith Hall, reaffirmed what we always knew, that these tax cuts do not pay for themselves. He also told us that there is no such thing as sustained growth of the rates that our Republican colleagues have thrown out there and said are going to happen.

So if the majority were worried about a balanced budget, they should have voted ``no'' on the GOP tax scam. But that is not what my Republican colleagues did. If they were worried about a balanced budget, then Republican colleagues should not have insisted on a $670 billion military spending budget. But we didn't hear a peep about this then. You can't just oppose spending, Mr. Speaker, when you don't like the things that we are spending on.

By the way, I have some breaking news: Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Republicans have control. But as we are seeing, that does not mean that Republicans know how to govern.

This amendment is a new low to showcase a contempt of the American people's memory and intelligence. But I believe that the American people are watching. They didn't buy the tax scam where they are now seeing that only 5 percent of those tax cuts are actually going to workers, and they are not going to believe in this maneuver either, Mr. Speaker.

Why? Because, as I said during the tax scam debate on the floor last year, the American people are going to rise up against any concerted and naked effort to cut earned benefit programs like Medicare and Social Security. I want to emphasize the words ``earned benefit'' because people call them entitlement programs, but Social Security is a program that people have contributed to with a promise that they would be taken care of when they retire.

But let's talk about the real purpose of this balanced budget amendment. It is similar to what I said on the floor last year in the middle of this debate, a three-step dance. Step one, pass a GOP tax scam to transfer $1.3 trillion in debt from working Americans to the wealthiest 1 percent and largest corporations.

Step two, explode the deficit--exactly what we heard from the CBO Director today--$2 trillion to the budget deficit over the next 10 years.

Step three, use those exploding deficits to justify deep cuts to the very programs that matter the most to Americans, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

We have already seen this strategy in the President's fiscal year 2019 budget which slashes $500 billion from Medicare, $1.4 trillion from Medicaid, and $72 billion from Social Security disability.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the American people and Democrats in Congress who have noticed the hypocrisy of what is being proposed today. Even some Republicans in Congress have talked about it. Our colleague, Congressman Mark Meadows, said--and these are his words that I am quoting--``There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on Main Street, that will take this vote seriously.''

He is right. This isn't going to fool anyone, least of all the American people.

Americans deserve so much better. My friend from Georgia talked earlier about how we both sit on the Budget Committee, and we have actually had conversations about how we wish we could actually talk about real solutions. That doesn't happen as often as it should, and certainly if you want to have a conversation about the deficit and the debt, we should have that. But to propose a balanced budget amendment after you have already voted for a tax cut that increased the deficit by $2 trillion over the next 10 years, that, I think, is something that people will see through. Americans will see through that just as they saw through whom the benefits of the tax cut are actually going to.

So, Mr. Speaker, today I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and let's get back to the real work of serving the American people with real discussions and real questions that come up at the time when they are relevant.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.