Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the IDEA Act that Representative John Ratcliffe and I introduced.

The idea behind this act is very simple. I represent Silicon Valley. Companies in the private sector in Silicon Valley have very sophisticated websites that make it really easy for consumers to use those websites. There is no reason that the United States Government shouldn't have websites that are as user friendly and easy to use. This bill will require our agencies to be as user friendly to citizens as the private sector is for consumers.

This bill would never have taken place if it wasn't for bipartisan leadership. I want to particularly recognize Chairman Will Hurd, who not only helped with this, but gave me advice on how to draft the bill, and, of course, Ranking Member Robin Kelly. I also want to recognize John Ratcliffe for his extraordinary work; Senator Rob Portman, who has moved this in the Senate; and Matt Lira at the White House Office of American Innovation, who has been instrumental in this. It shows that the Congress can work to bring modern technology into government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman McGovern for his moral leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule that will deny Members of Congress an up-or-down vote about whether the United States should be complicit in the war in Yemen.

Let's be very clear. This is unprecedented in American history. Never has the Speaker of the House and the majority denied a Member of Congress a vote on matters of war and peace. This is basically rendering ineffectual the War Powers Act.

The War Powers Act was passed in a bipartisan fashion after Vietnam because our Nation said never again are we going to make the mistake of Vietnam. We are going to make sure that, if a Member of Congress calls for a vote, Members of Congress have the Article I, Section 8 responsibility to vote on matters of war and peace. What the majority is saying is that if the President of the United States and the Speaker believe we should be in war, then we should be in war, and it doesn't matter what Members of Congress think.

That is what they are doing with this rule.

Now, they are arguing that we are not complicit in the hostilities of Yemen to invoke the War Powers Act. But you can read every article written on this in the international press or the national press, and it starts with a simple line: the U.S.-backed Saudi coalition efforts in bombing.

Of course we are complicit. Do you think people in Yemen don't think we are complicit? Do you think people in the Middle East or our allies don't think we are complicit?

With due respect, Congressman Newhouse says: Well, why not wait? Why not wait a few weeks until we are in the majority?

Mr. Speaker, special envoy Griffith in every report has said that 500,000 children will die in a matter of months. They don't have aid. They don't have nutrition.

Let's be very clear on what we are doing. While we are bombing the ports of Hodaida, we are not allowing food and aid to get to those kids.

When history is written, they are not going to say that Jim McGovern did this or Ro Khanna did this or Newhouse did this. They are going to say: How did the Congress not allow a vote while hundreds of thousands of kids were not allowed food and medicine?

That is not the America that I believe in. It is not the America that so many Republican colleagues believe in. There is a reason that our Founders gave Congress the power over war and peace, because we have to go and answer to our constituents.

I will tell you something. There is not a single American who wouldn't want the violence to end and allow food and medicine to get to those kids who are going to face death if we do nothing.

I plead with my Republican colleagues: Please vote ``no'' on this resolution. Let's have a debate. Let's have a debate about the starvation and the killing going on there and do the right thing for our Constitution and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support for the Food and Agribusiness Merger Moratorium and Antitrust Review Act of 2018. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill introduced by Representative Pocan and an original founder of the Congressional Antitrust Caucus.

This bill is good for our farmers. It would place a short-term moratorium on the large agribusiness mergers that we are seeing across our Nation. Fewer farmers mean fewer choices for consumers and higher prices.

Agricultural consolidation is a huge problem. Today, the top four beef packers control 82 percent of the market. Missouri had 23,000 hog farms in 1985, but only 2,200 in 2012. Four companies control 85 percent of soybean processing. I could go on and on.

We need to temporarily stop these big mergers, and we need to start looking out for our farmers again. When the farm bill expires this week, small family farmers should be first.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Arrington for his friendship. One of the things I get asked all the time as a freshman is: What is it like in Congress? Do you actually know people on the other side?

I always say that, actually, one of my closest friends in Congress is Jodey Arrington. I really value the friendship we have formed, that our families have formed, much at his initiative. I mean, he struck up a conversation with my wife, and he has been so gracious as we have had our own family.

It is one of the things I have enjoyed most about our class, to have relationships that transcend the rancor and the partisanship. You get to know people and know that everyone, in their own way, cares about the country, and there are things that we can do in common.

I so admire Mr. Arrington's leadership from day one on term limits and trying to find common ground on making sure that this is an issue that isn't partisan, that you can be a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Republican, and still have a belief in what Thomas Jefferson said, that we should live under the laws that we make.

I still have a belief that these jobs weren't supposed to be a career. They were supposed to be ones that were inspired out of answering the Nation's call to service and then returning home to your community.

I also want to recognize my friend Mike Gallagher, recognize, of course, his extraordinary service to our Nation as a marine, but also his desire to cross the aisle. I was honored to host him in Stanford, where he had great ideas on cybersecurity. I know Mr. Gallagher has been championing political reform, term limits, and is sincere about wanting to see progress.

Brian Fitzpatrick left, but I have a soft spot for Brian because we are both Bucks County kids. We grew up in Bucks County, and Brian is relentless, as Jodey Arrington has pointed out. We had that meeting with the President, and Brian would chime in and challenge the President whenever he wanted to push further for term limits, in a respectful way, but wanting to really advocate for this issue as the most important issue.

So I am really honored to work with Representative Arrington, Representative Fitzpatrick, and Representative Gallagher on this. They have made most of the points. I will just add a few more.

Representative Gallagher referenced the Economist article, which I was shocked to see, where they had the turnover rate of European monarchies. They showed that the turnover rate of the United States Congress was less than European monarchies. I thought that is why we fought a revolution, that we didn't believe in dynastic rule. We didn't believe that people should just be in power for decade after decade.

Yet, the incumbent reelection rate remains at 95 or 98 percent. And you wonder, you say, how is it possible that our approval ratings are at 10 percent as a body, and yet 95 or 98 percent are getting reelected?

Sometimes, when I talk to friends, I say, it is as if there is a company that is going bankrupt and all the presidents and vice presidents are fighting over who gets to be CEO.

Sometimes I think that is what the American people think. We are here fighting about who gets control, who gets to chair a committee, and the institution isn't working.

They are saying: Why don't the men and women fix the institution first? That is what term limits will do. I have seen it in my own class. I have seen how people of both sides of the aisle--and let's not be Pollyannaish about it. We probably vote differently on 95 percent of the issues. But I have seen that people in this class have come here with a sense of wanting to restore our democracy, of trying to fix something and make it functional, because we all heard that out on the campaign trail.

I get the loudest applause in one of the most liberal districts when I talk about working on legislation with a Republican like we did on the VALOR Act or writing an op-ed together and reaching across the aisle. That is what people are hungry for.

I believe that, if you have term limits and if you take the careerism out of it and if people know they are going to have about a decade to have an impact, you are going to encourage more efforts to find that common ground, more efforts to be willing to compromise when it makes sense for the Nation to look for some overlap in issues.

So I am committed to this. I really respect Jodey, again, in his leadership in pursuing this. It is not easy to make change, and a lot of times, after we do one of these things, it is easy to say: Okay. It is out in the press. We have had a meeting. We made the point.

But Mr. Arrington has been so persistent about getting us back together, continuing to fight for this, and I echo the call that we should have a vote on the House floor, whoever the Speaker is, to make sure that the American people have their voices heard, and we can get a vote on term limits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify my vote earlier this afternoon on H.R. 6157, the fiscal year 2019 (FY19) Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I inadvertently voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 313 in the House today (Thursday, June 28th). I had every intention of voting ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to introduce my friend and constituent, Dr. Jack Trieber, pastor of North Valley Baptist Church in Santa Clara, California in my district. I thank him for his words of wisdom and comfort, and for joining us to deliver the opening prayer in the House today.

Pastor Trieber has been a source of strength and guidance for my constituents for more than four decades. He is a personal friend and counselor and source of strength to me. He and his wife, Cindie, have been friends since I entered public service, and I appreciate that Pastor Trieber accompanied me to last year's annual National Prayer Breakfast to join leaders from across the country in discussing the importance of faith to the strength of our Nation.

Under the pastor's leadership, North Valley Baptist Church has grown from an assembly of 22 people in 1976, the year I was born, to a current average of 3,000 in attendance each Sunday. He is a true patriot.

He believes in this country, and it is a real honor to have had him open our House with his prayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a sad story of what happens when we do not value our workers' safety.

Cynthia Palomata was a nurse from the bay area who worked in the county jail. She complained to her supervisors that her work area had insufficient lighting for reviewing paperwork. Rather than updating the lighting system or providing her with a secured light fixture, she was given a common desk lamp. One day, she was treating a patient, and when her back was turned, the patient grabbed the lamp and hit her over the head, knocking her into a coma. She never woke up.

Every year, thousands of Americans are killed while at work, more than 4,000 in 2015 alone. That is why we have introduced, on a bipartisan basis, the Healthcare Workplace Violence Prevention Act, to stop tragedies like Cynthia's from ever taking place again. It is bipartisan and it is common sense.

The bill requires facilities to create violence prevention plans that address all levels of safety. Healthcare and social service workers face high risk.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Raskin for his leadership in putting focus on the Poor People's Campaign and his advocacy for so many issues of economic justice and racial justice.

I want to join my colleagues in recognizing the extraordinary moment in this country that the Poor People's Campaign has had under Reverend Barber's leadership. There was a panel that Senator Warren had a few days ago where Reverend Barber was there and ordinary individuals were testifying about their experiences, the people we should be hearing in Congress.

I want to share two quotes, and then share some testimony.

One is what Reverend Barber said, which, in my view, makes him one of the great civil rights leaders in this country. He said:

I would rather join with you and die trying to change the

moral direction of this Nation than to live and die and it be

written on my epitaph: ``Lived in the time when moral dissent

was necessary. And he, and they, said nothing.''

That requires such courage, and it is so believable.

When Dr. Barber was with a number of others at the hearing, they had this chant that before the Poor People's Campaign will fail, they will go to jail. And that sense of civil disobedience for a moral cause is part of the great tradition of our Nation and what has brought change.

I want to thank Reverend Barber for being such a moral leader and everyone who is risking arrest, risking their life for justice.

Now, I am honored to read the testimony of Paul Boden, who is the Western Regional Advocacy Project lead in my home State of California. He writes:

My name is Paul Boden, and I am with the Western Regional

Advocacy Project lead. We are based out of California,

Colorado, and Oregon with core member groups doing local

organizing around poverty and homelessness issues in 10

communities. I am testifying today about the advent of

contemporary homelessness in the early 1980s and the

connection to neoliberal economics and how that has played

out over the past 35 years.

In doing this research, we found that with 2 less attack

submarines, 29 less fighter jets, and 2 less combat ships, we

would more than triple all of the funding that is currently

dedicated to public housing capital investments, public

housing maintenance, and all of the Federal homeless

programs. Clearly, these spending priorities have nothing to

do with security or the need for an investment in our

military complex.

As part of the consequence of the advent of homelessness

that this kind of approach to governance created, we've

spoken to 1,600 homeless communities, and 82 percent of them

have reported that they are getting arrested, harassed, and

ticketed. And we know the fines-and-fee-games that local

governments play. 77 percent of these people are getting that

same kind of policing activity for sitting or laying down on

a sidewalk. 75 percent for loitering. Sleeping, standing, and

sitting are criminal offenses when you are the population

that is being targeted by local government for removal from

those communities. And this is happening, unfortunately, in

communities across the United States.

My research also brought out very clearly and undeniably

that these are the same policing programs, these are the same

laws, the same racist and classist policing programs that

were used with the Anti-Okie laws, with the Sundown towns,

with the Japanese-American Exclusion Act, with the ugly laws,

and with the Jim Crow laws. The darker your skin color, the

greater your disability, the poorer you are, you are way more

likely to be a target of these policing programs, and that is

the way it has been playing out for years.

We have written legislation and gotten it introduced in

California, Oregon, and Colorado. We had introduced it 8

times. We got crushed 8 times. But we are going to keep

bringing it back until the final answer is yes. Our law, our

legislation would make it illegal for local government to

criminalize life-sustaining activities and activities that we

all commit: eating, sleeping, sitting, standing still. We all

do that. To criminalize doing it is to purposely and

maliciously create legislation specifically aimed at

enforcement only applying to some people. That is us, all of

us.

Paul Boden's words are ones I hope this entire country will hear. And as we are listening to the voices of so many people marching in our streets in Washington, I hope we will take some inspiration from their courage, their courage far exceeding any of ours in this body, and be inspired to do the

right thing and fight for economic justice and the policies that they recommend that would help alleviate poverty and help the working poor and poor people across this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 Supreme Court case and economic inequality.

The issue of our time is economic inequality and the challenge of the middle class being left behind. We know that 81 percent of American households between 2005 and 2015 have not had a raise. They have actually either had their wages stagnate or decline. This is an issue that goes to the core principles of our Nation.

As every American knows, in 1968, Dr. King marched with sanitation workers in Memphis, with AFSCME local 1733. The march was not just about racial justice. The march was about economic justice. The march was about the freedom of sanitation workers to earn what Dr. King called a decent living. It was about the dignity of work. It was about the right to join a union.

They fought against so-called right-to-work legislation. They fought for collective bargaining so that people who work hard, who rode on trucks and picked up the trash and did hard labor, earn a decent wage.

Dr. King talked about the importance of economic justice, much as he talked about the importance of racial justice.

Here are the facts that we know. Unionized African American women earn about $21.90 an hour. That is not a bad wage. Nonunion African American women earned almost $4 less, on average. That means $4 per hour is the difference between unionized and nonunionized work for African American women.

Seventy-two percent of African American women in unions have health insurance.

Guess what? Less than 50 percent of nonunion African American women have health insurance.

Some of us have read the horrific studies about how pregnant African American women still face huge issues with infant mortality and problems with child labor. Part of it is because they lack health insurance. If they have health insurance through a union, that is not as much of an issue.

Latinos who join a union see their median weekly income increase by almost 38 percent. They are 41 percent more likely to have employer- provided health insurance. Caucasian working-class families have seen a raise of nearly 20 percent when they are in union jobs compared to nonunion jobs.

Unions are more important now than ever, because the question is: When 81 percent of this country hasn't had a raise for the past 15 years, do we need to have more policies favoring corporations and executives or do we need to figure out how we give Americans a raise? The one institution that gives Americans a raise is unions.

We didn't invent this. We know collective bargaining works in other nations. We know that cooks in Germany make almost $25 an hour.

The Danish Ambassador was visiting me today, and I said: How much would someone make if they worked at Starbucks in Denmark?

He said: Almost $20 to $22 an hour. My jaw dropped.

I said: How is that possible? Is it government prescribed?

He said: No, it is strong union movements across other countries.

It is not that they discourage entrepreneurship or innovation. It is that they believe that working families should have the dignity to earn an honest living; that they can afford rent, that they can afford food, that they can afford healthcare, that they can afford a job.

This is what FDR talked about with the right of a job and healthcare and housing; that the positive rights were necessary to truly have freedom in democracy.

Collective action raises the standard of living for everyone. Guess what? Henry Ford knew it. It led to economic growth. That is why he paid workers more. He said: Someone has got to earn a living to buy the cars.

If we don't have a middle class that can earn, then who is going to buy the iPhones, who is going to buy the new cars and the Teslas? Who is going to buy and have the money to set up new bank accounts?

Our economic growth is dependent on the middle class. That is what America has gotten and China has never understood. China doesn't care about their middle class. They care about the elites.

We have believed in the middle class from FDR to Dwight Eisenhower. We believed that every person in this country is extraordinary; that our success is based on ordinary Americans earning enough to buy things; that every American matters, not just in our democracy but to our economy. It is what makes us different from the Chinese model, and it is why unions matter so much. Unions are what allow ordinary Americans to get the wages they deserve.

Union workers are more likely to have healthcare and retirement benefits. We know that the decline of the middle class is directly correlated to a decline in union membership.

Let me give you this staggering statistic: It used to be, in our GDP, that 90 percent of GDP went to income, of our GDP. That statistic has fallen to the high 50s or low 60s. Most of the loss now goes to capital, to automation, to machinery.

Here is the irony: Corporations, you would think they would invest in human capital. You would think they would invest more in the workforce. But their incentives are not to do that. The Tax Code incentivizes research and development, if they want to open up plants or have automation; but they don't incentivize the investment in actual human capital so that workers and human beings get more of the GDP and not less.

This decline from 90 percent to 60 percent of income is correlated partly with automation but also with the decline of union membership. Guess what: The unions are one of the only institutions in this country that are investing in worker training, that are investing in improving people's human capital.

I know so many apprenticeship programs in my own district you can go in with just a high school degree, no test, no fees required, and become an apprentice to become an electrician, to become a drywaller, a glazer, a painter. These are tough jobs. They are not easy jobs. Once you do the apprenticeship, it doesn't cost you anything. It comes out of the fees of journeymen and other union members. You go and develop the skills, and the unions invest in you.

When you talk to these apprentices, they are so proud of the work they are doing, proud of the investment that the unions are making in them, and they are extraordinary people with an extraordinary work ethic. That is the investment that the unions are making in our workforce.

Don't think that it is just about them making sure people get the wages they deserve. They are making sure that we have the workers that we need in this country to be productive. They are the ones who are investing in the human capital in our society and the ones who are looking at the investments needed for the future.

Union apprenticeships are what closed the skills gap. They are the ones who are teaching folks about 3D printing. They are the ones who are teaching folks the tech skills that are needed as auto repair mechanics. They are the ones who are teaching folks the basic ways that you now need to operate machines and robots.

High-quality training in our unions is why American workers are the most productive in the world: 6 times more productive than China, 6 times more productive than India, 1\1/2\ times more productive than Germany, 1\1/2\ times more productive than Japan. That is partly because of our union efforts and training and because of the grit of the American people.

Now, here is what this Janus case is about. The Janus case is about corporate special interests saying unions should no longer have a role in collective bargaining, that the work unions do to represent workers is no longer important, that every person can go fend for themselves.

Really? We tried that before the New Deal, during the Lochner era, where every person had to go fend for themselves. It was the time that F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote about in ``The Great Gatsby,'' the Gilded Age, the largest economic disparities known in American society. It led to the greatest stock market crash. It led to the Great Depression. It led to huge economic instability in the United States and around the world.

And then we said: This system doesn't work. FDR and Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower said: Let's build an American middle class with unions, to which ordinary Americans can go to get a higher education, to get a wage where they can afford a house and they can afford food and they can afford to have a decent quality of life.

Unions are what provided that. Collective bargaining is what allowed for that. It balanced the corporate interests. It said: people who do work should be rewarded. That is what unions have done.

I know there are all these complex phrases: fee sharing, right-to- work, and all of that. But cut through all the noise, and here is the basic question: Do you think collective bargaining has a role in American society? If you think it does, if you think people should have the right to organize and bargain and that there should be some counterweight to corporate power, then you should be for AFSCME and the union in this Supreme Court case.

If you think workers are doing fine, working families are doing fine--the painters, the firefighters, the mechanics, the teachers, and the nurses--that they are all doing great and the real people we need to be worried about are

the corporate executives and the investors and the corporate bankers-- well, if you have that theory, then I suppose you would be for Janus. You would say: Let's not have collective bargaining.

The question is: What is your theory of the case? Are you for workers having a greater say and greater wages in this country, or are you for corporations having even greater power? That is what this case is about.

I know that our Progressive Caucus stands so firmly in the belief that we need to be on the side of the workers. If the Supreme Court decides against collective bargaining, it will be one of the worst decisions in recent American history, a catastrophe for this court to strike a blow to working families across America, to strike a blow to the heart and soul of the union movement. We need to strengthen working families and unions, not weaken them.

Before I turn it over to one of the strongest champions for working families, I want to thank the leadership of AFSCME--President Saunders, Scott Frey--who have done so much to help not just AFSCME members, not just honor the tradition of Dr. King, but to help the fight for unions.

I want to thank Dr. David Madland and Kevin Fox, on my team, for their research about the role of unions and the leaders of the NEA: Mary Kusler and Marc Egan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), my good friend.

Pramila Jayapal, before she was even elected to the State Senate, has been a tireless advocate for unions, for working families. She understands that working families and unions have helped not just minority communities, not just women, but all Americans.

She is our vice chair of the Progressive Caucus. She is one of the strongest progressive voices in our Nation. She is on the front lines, the picket lines, and has traveled across the country standing in solidarity with union members.

It is a real honor now to yield to my friend and colleague, Representative Jayapal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Jayapal for infusing the Progressive Caucus with a new vision, new energy, and, really, making it the strongest caucus in Congress and sharing some of those facts. I didn't know that 67 percent of Americans live on just $1,000-- can't afford $1,000 emergency expenditure. So I think talking about these facts and what this case means to real Americans is important. I thank her for being here.

It is now my real honor to give the floor to someone who really built the Progressive Caucus. You know, the Progressive Caucus used to be a social club where people chatted, before Keith Ellison took over and said: You know, we have got to do more than just talk. We have got to actually act on our values.

If you talk to anyone in this Congress, they will tell you that he took a group of 15, 20 Members that used to get together and has turned that caucus, through his leadership, into the largest caucus on the Democratic side, the most effective caucus, and one that has a bold agenda.

Keith has been an organizer his whole life. He understands the importance of working families and believes in these issues from his heart, and he has been a truly effective leader for the caucus in the House.

It is my honor now to yield to Representative Keith Ellison.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Ellison for those words and for explaining so simply and powerfully what is at stake with the Janus case and why the constitutional right is actually with the unions, as he put it, to assemble and not to freeload when someone is getting a benefit. I thank him for his leadership and fight on this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one other point before yielding to my friend. One of the contemporary examples of the need for collective bargaining is seen with CWA in their struggle with American Airlines when passenger service agents aren't making a living wage. I don't understand it. I pay so much for these American Airline tickets that I wonder who the money is going to.

Would any American think that the passenger service agents aren't getting a fair wage, given what we are paying in airline tickets?

Yet the truth is many of those workers aren't getting a fair wage, particularly those who are working for Envoy Air and those who are working with Piedmont Airlines.

There are many Members of this House--81 of us--who believe that American Airlines needs to do the right thing and pay a living wage and CWA's ability to bargain, to ask for a fair wage for what all of us pay when we pay for tickets, to ask that the workers benefit from that as well. That is what is at stake in this Janus case: Can CWA organize and get a fair wage so that workers benefit?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto), a good friend, who is in my freshman class and who is a great leader on so many issues--on issues of technology and the future of work--so that he can speak out on this important Janus decision. He has come out to Silicon Valley. But what I respect about him is he has his values in fighting for working families, for the middle class, for people who have been left out. Those are the issues he is most passionate about.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Soto for his analogy that the rules for our corporate shareholders shouldn't be different than the rules for workers. We need fairness. We certainly shouldn't be privileging shareholders. I appreciate the gentleman's advocacy for working families and speaking out today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close with some simple points. People often say that workers have a negative view of unions or don't want unions to be representing them, but here are the facts: Gallup Poll research shows that 60 percent of Americans have a favorable view of labor unions, and that number has been going up as more and more Americans see that their wages have been going down. More and more Americans are saying they need the unions to level the playing field.

When we look at AFSCME and what AFSCME stands for, what Janus is saying that he doesn't want representing him, I think about the trip I took with Representative John Lewis down to Memphis a few months ago. We went to Mason Temple. In Mason Temple, we heard over the loud speaker Dr. King's voice as he spoke about seeing the promised land.

As that booming voice came over the loud speakers in that temple, there on stage was a man in his 80s who was a sanitation worker at the time that Dr. King marched in Memphis, and he talked about how he still was owed money for his fair work. At the age of 80, Memphis still hadn't paid him.

That person, that man, he didn't shirk from work. He was working still in his 80s. He believed in the dignity of work. He talked about young people needing to believe in the dignity of work. He just wanted to have a fair shot at being paid for that work.

That was AFSCME. That is what AFSCME stands for in this country. That is what is at stake in this Supreme Court fight. Do we stand for the values that Dr. King marched for, and do we stand for the labor union in this Nation?

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your graciousness in giving us this hour and moderating this debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Representative Gabbard for offering this amendment for one simple reason: it is going to stop the march to war in Iran, another blunder like Iraq.

I don't understand our foreign policy. It seems that the qualification, in John Bolton's case, is to be wrong for the last 25 years, and then that makes you an expert--wrong about Iraq and wrong about the neoconservative philosophy that got us into this mess.

This amendment, forget all the details; we are rushing again to another historic blunder, and this Congress needs to stop that. I respect Representative Gabbard for putting this forward so we don't make another blunder in our foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership on so many issues, particularly on healthcare and the fight for Medicare for all.

I rise today to share a heartbreaking story so we understand what is at stake in this fight.

Sarah Fay Broughton was a young woman in San Jose, California. Sarah was going to work with special needs kids. At the age of 20, she came down with a simple sinus infection. Such a condition is usually managed by a primary care physician and an ordinary specialist. However, Sarah did not receive treatment because she could not afford health insurance.

Six months before she fell ill, Sarah applied for Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid system, but her paperwork kept getting lost. The county was so overwhelmed that her family went through three different caseworkers trying to get medical coverage, but each time they were told to start over. Like more than 28 million Americans without any healthcare, for Sarah, getting sick meant facing crippling medical bills and harassment by debt collectors.

So she ignored the pain, only going to the emergency room when it became too much to bear. By that point, the simple sinus infection had grown powerful, spreading to her brain, swelling it, and causing irreversible damage. It was simply too late. On the day Sarah passed away, her family received a letter saying that her Medi-Cal coverage had been approved. She was doing everything right, but the system failed her. Her life was cut short because the wealthiest country in the world has not yet prioritized healthcare.

The question is: Should a young woman who is 20 years old die of a simple sinus infection in the United States of America? If we care about the lives of people like Sarah, if we believe that healthcare is a basic right, then it is long past time to have Medicare for All. Every American should be guaranteed decent, basic healthcare from the day they are born.

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue. It is an issue of human decency. It is an issue to make sure we don't have people who have simple conditions like Sarah be denied the care they deserve.

That is why I am so proud of my colleague Keith Ellison for leading the call for Medicare for All. I am proud to serve on the task force and encourage my colleagues to join him, Peter Welch, and other voices in bringing to this country Medicare for All.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman saying that. I had a conversation with her mother and with the community, and people just feel: what a tragic loss. So, if there are things we can do here under your leadership and as elected Representatives, I hope we will-- and we will--take seriously the consequence of the failure in our healthcare policy.

Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and I want to just state our opposition to the balanced budget amendment.

It is worth reviewing the history on this topic. When President Bill Clinton left office, he left this country with surpluses. He had reversed the policy of Reagan economics, which had some of

the largest structural deficits in the 1980s and during the first President Bush's term.

And then we went from record surpluses back to deficits. And what was the reason for those deficits? There were two very simple reasons. One, we made a strategic mistake in Iraq and spent trillions of dollars, which even President Trump has acknowledged was a blunder, and that ballooned the deficit. And secondly, we made a decision to provide tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans.

Now, the Democrats supported the tax cut for the middle class, for folks making $50- to $75,000, but we said you don't need to provide tax cuts for people making $1 million, $500,000; you don't need to provide tax cuts for those who are already paying capital gains tax rates at 20 percent and don't need additional tax breaks.

So those two decisions, the intervention overseas and our continued interventions overseas and these extraordinary tax breaks for the very wealthy, have led us to the deficits that we have today, have led us to the $20 trillion debt.

No one wants that kind of debt. We don't want to see interest rates continue to go up and crowd out private investment. We don't want to see people's savings lose value. But the solution to that is not a gimmick of a balanced budget amendment where the Republicans have doubled down on more tax cuts for the very wealthy, where they haven't stopped our interventionism abroad. We still actually have escalation in Afghanistan, escalation in Iraq, escalation around the world, in contradiction to what this President promised on the campaign where he said that he would focus on developing our domestic economy and stop the interventionism, and we just have symbolic votes for a balanced budget amendment.

The question is how? How can you vote for extraordinary tax cuts? How can you vote for more overseas interventionism? How can you vote for huge spending bills and then just say you are for a balanced budget amendment? The math just doesn't work.

And so what Democrats have said is, instead of having a balanced budget amendment, instead of constraining our policy or economic policy to spend more at times of war or times of recession--which, by the way, Roosevelt did, which Woodrow Wilson did, what many of our Presidents did--that what we ought to do is have sensible government, that we ought to stop the foreign interventionism, we ought to repeal these tax breaks and giveaways to the very wealthy, and instead we ought to invest in the middle class, invest in our education, invest in our infrastructure, invest in our schools, invest in new technology that will grow the economy.

That is how you reduce the structural deficits. But, by the way, this is not a theoretical debate, because Bill Clinton showed that when you have that kind of ``people's first'' economic policy, you left this country with surpluses, and the trickle-down Reaganomics has always left this country with deficits.

It is not enough to just vote for balanced budget amendments while piling on debt. A far more responsible policy would be to end the foreign interventionism, to repeal these massive giveaways to the wealthy, and to invest in the middle class.

That is why my colleagues and I opposed the balanced budget amendment. That is why we have offered the Congressional Progressive People's Budget that will lead to greater economic growth than anything that the President has proposed, and that will also reduce our Nation's debt.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act.

I represent Silicon Valley, and I am not opposed to fintech. Let's be very clear: If there is technology that is going to make it easier for people to get access to capital, who is opposed to that?

But this has nothing to do with fintech. This has to do with basic State laws. The question is not: Are we going to go to the future? The question is: Are we going to go back to ``The Merchant of Venice'' when usury laws were allowed? That really is what the issue is.

What this bill does, just to be very clear, is it says: If you want to use fintech, if you want to use technology, now there is no law against being charged 380 percent interest.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, let me take back my comment.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Second Circuit decision. The Second Circuit decision basically said that, if you are a bank and if you are a fintech company and you are in a rural part of the country--and I totally agree with the gentleman; we need more capital to rural America; we need more tech there. I admire Steve Case's work, the ``Rise of the Rest.''

But what the Second Circuit said is you can't partner with a national bank and preempt State law. So if North Carolina has a law saying you can't charge 400 percent interest, if there is a bank in New York or a bank in California that wants to charge 400 percent interest just because they have some magical fintech, they can't charge people 400 percent interest in North Carolina or Arkansas.

I am all for giving more capital at affordable rates and using technology to help rural America.

We have done a terrible job of that. I concede that point. But this is not the way to do that.

This is going to hurt ordinary folks who can't make paycheck to paycheck, and they are going to have to pay these exorbitant interest rates.

Now, if the majority comes up with a bill that says we want to expand the SBA, we want to expand figuring out how to get venture capital into rural America, we want to expand the earned income tax credit so that people have more money in their pocket so that they can make a living and meet their daily expenses, I agree.

If they say, look, all the capital, 85 percent of the capital is in my district in Massachusetts and New York, and we have got to get the capital into other States, I agree.

But to say that just to use the word ``fintech'' and to say okay, because there is something that is going to allow the diffusion of capital, that that means that you should get rid of the State laws capping usury, that is really going back to the Victorian era. I mean, we had that debate. I was reading Shylock; that was what that was all about. They were charging four times as much, and I just don't think that that is what people want.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, thousands marched in every city across America for racial justice, gender equality, and a moral vision of America. Today, we let them down.

It was not complicated what citizens wanted. They wanted a vote, a guaranteed vote in this Chamber about whether we would keep our word to the DREAMers, and we failed to deliver.

Now, I have no doubt that most Democrats, Senators and congressmen, care about the DREAMers staying in this country, but citizens expect more. They want us not just to look at generic poll numbers or battleground districts. They want us to lead with our hearts because they are leading with their hearts.

The question today, Mr. Speaker, is: When will the elected representatives be worthy of the courage of our citizens and the grassroots?