Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, my grandfather spent 4 years in jail during Gandhi's independence movement standing for human rights. One of his crimes was expressing unpopular views in a political newspaper.

Similar human rights abuses are occurring today in Vietnam. I speak out, today, for those who have been silenced. In many cases, the victims are the brother, the sister, the friend, or acquaintance of someone living in my district.

Over 100 activists and religious leaders are currently imprisoned in Vietnam for expressing their opinions and beliefs. For example, social activist and blogger Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh was recently sentenced to 10 years in prison for highlighting social injustices on her blog.

In California's 17th District, I am proud of organizations like The Good Will Brother-Sister Group that stand in solidarity for their oppressed friends and family in Vietnam.

The Vietnamese Government must release every political prisoner, stop harassing religious groups, and have the confidence in allowing a free press. Until they do that, we must do no business deals with Vietnam and make it clear that we expect them to honor human rights.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4391, the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act, I am concerned with the United Nations (UN) reports highlighting the detention and mistreatment of Palestinian children. We should stand up for human rights in all cases, even when abuses are committed by our most trusted allies.

Israel faces unique security threats and, unfortunately, some underage Palestinians do resort to violence as a means of change. This is unacceptable, and the Palestinian leadership needs to take more steps to prevent children from being manipulated into becoming terrorists.

The threat of child terrorism should not be an excuse, however, to torture those accused of such actions or deprive them of rights. Every minor should have a right to a lawyer, to due process, and to having their parents notified.

I am encouraged by a 2015 UNICEF report indicating that Israeli authorities are taking steps to address alleged abuses. Although evidence of the ill-treatment of Palestinian children detained still exists, I am hopeful that Israeli forces will ultimately fully comply with international human rights laws.

Through continued discussions with the Israeli government, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful changes will continue to occur. Doing so is in the best interest of Israel's security and consistent with their values.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for his work on this resolution, Ranking Member Engel, and leadership on both sides: Majority Leader McCarthy and the Speaker, and Minority Whip Hoyer and Leader Pelosi.

I think one thing we can all agree on, as Chairman Royce mentioned, is the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. It is, arguably, the largest humanitarian crisis currently in the world. There are almost a million people suffering from cholera. This is a manmade crisis because of the bombing of civilian targets that has made the treatment of water impossible. Almost 7 million people face famine.

One hope out of this debate, the first one on the House floor on Yemen, is that we will collectively demand humanitarian access to people in Yemen. There is no justification for the ports to be closed. There is no justification for the Sanaa Airport to be closed.

In The New York Times just this morning, there was an article stating that chlorine medicine tablets are not being allowed in for people suffering from cholera. That is not a Republican or Democratic issue. That is an American issue. This Nation stands for human rights. We stand for compassion and decency.

We should demand, collectively, that there is humanitarian access to people who are suffering and that the ports and airports be opened. This resolution calls for that, as has our U.N. Ambassador, Nikki Haley, who made that clear.

The second part of this resolution, which I think goes a long way, is the acknowledgment of our own role in the refueling of Saudi planes and in the assistance of Saudi targeting.

The resolution explicitly acknowledges that the United States has been engaged in the assistance of Saudi refueling and assisting the Saudis in targeting. It explicitly also recognizes that the 2001 authorization of force that the United States Congress passed does not apply to the Yemeni civil war.

Chairman Royce was absolutely correct that there is an al-Qaida threat in Yemen to the United States. Our military, under the 2001 authorization of force, has the full authority to take counterterrorism measures to deal with al-Qaida; but what our military is not authorized to do is assist the Saudi Arabian regime in fighting the Houthis. In many cases, the Saudis have aligned with al-Qaida to fight the Houthis, undermining our very counterterrorism operations.

This resolution makes abundantly clear that we cannot be assisting the Saudi regime in any of its fight with the Houthi regime. We have to limit our involvement in Yemen to take on al-Qaida and to take on the terrorists that threaten the United States.

The chairman and I have a disagreement about the War Powers Resolution, but I will say that the negotiations were in good faith. As I told some of the groups that were upset about the resolution, this is a body of 435 Members. Every Member has their perspective. Ultimately, we have to come to a consensus that moves the debate forward. In our view, the War Powers Resolution does apply.

If I can quote from a plain reading of section 8(c), it says that, for purposes of the War Powers Act: ``the term `introduction of the United States Armed Forces' includes the assignment of members of such Armed Forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government. . . .''

I believe a plain reading of that statute suggests that refueling Saudi planes constitutes coordination with a foreign government in a foreign conflict. Frankly, it is precisely what the drafters of the statute wanted to prevent after Vietnam. They wanted to prevent us from getting entangled in foreign conflicts where our national security was not at stake without a debate on the floor of Congress.

We currently have troops in harm's way in 13 countries around the world. In many of those countries, we have not debated in the United States what the mission is or whether we should be there or whether it is making us any safer. That is certainly the case in Yemen.

We know that, to the extent Iran is involved with the Houthis, that has been exacerbated because of the Saudi actions. It is debatable how much Iran was involved in the first place, but what we do know is that their minimal involvement--or, perhaps, now, greater involvement--was triggered because of the Saudi escalation in bombing Yemen.

What is the United States' stake in a proxy war in Yemen? How is that making us any safer?

If anything, it is creating another generation of Yemeni who will view the United States with suspicion.

Nicholas Kristof wrote, in The New York Times: ``We Americans have sometimes wondered how Russia can possibly be so Machiavellian as to support its Syrian Government allies as they bomb and starve civilians. Yet we're doing the same thing with Saudi Arabia, and it's just as unconscionable when we're the ones complicit. . . .''

Our military has the highest standards. We take such great care in minimizing civilian casualties. Why would we want to aid Saudi Arabia, which doesn't share American values, which doesn't have the regard for human life that we in the United States do? We are bearing the brunt of their horrible actions.

So it is time, I believe, not just to stand up for humanitarian access in Yemen, but to question whether the aid that we are providing Saudi Arabia is making our country any safer and whether it is consistent with American values.

Finally, I will say to those who argue that we need to support the Saudis as a counter to Iran, there is no question that Iran has taken actions that are not in the United States' interest, but I suggest that we learn from our own history.

I remember, from history, the time when so many in our country said: Let us arm Saddam Hussein to be a counter to Iran.

That didn't work out so well for the United States. It was our arms that fueled Saddam Hussein's rise that led to two costly wars for the United States.

My belief is the balance-of-power framework that has dictated our foreign policy and the interventionism has not made us any safer. I wish we would exercise more restraint in our foreign policy and return to the traditions of John Quincy Adams who said:

We should not go overseas for monsters to destroy. These

are not conflicts where we can judge who is on the right

side; rather, we should be restrained, offer our hopes and

prayers to those fighting for freedom, offer our humanitarian

good will but not engage in interventionism abroad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who has been a real advocate and champion for the War Powers Act in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), who has often been a voice for diplomacy on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), who is a constitutional law professor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I thank Mr. Engel for his leadership on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again Chairman Royce for working with us to get to this resolution.

I want to acknowledge people on my own staff: Geo Saba, who really led the efforts with Keane Bhatt from the Progressive Caucus; Chris Schloesser and Pete Spiro. I also want to recognize Mira Resnick and Mark Iozzi, who really helped with the language; of course, most of all, the peace groups who brought this important cause to the Congress.

I know there is some disappointment in wanting to go further, and people are very sincere in wanting to help civilians who literally face famine and cholera, but I believe democracy is a messy and a long process.

There are, as I mentioned earlier, 435 Members from different parts of the country. I think today we have shown good faith in taking this step forward, in highlighting the issue, in calling for humanitarian assistance, in making sure that we curtail our support for Saudi bombing.

I am confident that with the continued involvement of everyone in this body, we will ultimately uphold our values and human rights, which every person in this Chamber cares about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan bill,

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 311 from the bill. This section would create a forced arbitration program for forestry management. This section of the bill, in my view, usurps judicial oversight. While many agencies conduct quasi-judicial proceedings, there are still agency actions that are appealable to the courts.

Judicial oversight and separation of powers is a core principle of our democracy. The arbitration would be binding, effectively making the Secretary of Agriculture the final judge and depriving the courts of their oversight role.

While the bill terms this as discretionary arbitration, the discretion ultimately lies only with the Secretary of Agriculture. The public has no discretion over whether to submit to binding arbitration or not.

The public's right to challenge an action or inaction in court is an important check on the executive branch. Shielding an agency from review by independent Federal courts could harm access to justice.

The Secretary of Agriculture can designate any objection for binding arbitration up to ten times per year in each of the nine Forest Service regions and each of the 14 State regions.

This allows the Secretary of Agriculture to effectively dismiss about 230 cases every year. According to the Department of Justice, in 2016, the total amount of civil matters and cases brought against the United States with an environmental or land cause of action was only 350. This overly broad power would allow the agency to dismiss some of the most problematic cases every year.

The process also likely violates the nondelegation doctrine. That doctrine prohibits the exercise of constitutional authority given to any branch of government by another branch or nongovernmental private party.

Under the arbitration program set up by this bill, a private party objecting to a management proposal and forced into arbitration would be required to write their own proposal. The appointed arbitrator could then select that private party proposal as the final plan to be carried out by the agency. The arbitrator is not permitted to modify the proposal, and the decision would be binding.

I understand the need to streamline the process, but I think the forced arbitration really deprives people of their access to the courts, and that is why, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the point is not that we need to streamline decisions, or if we have to streamline courts to get rid of frivolous lawsuits, that would be fine, but the problem is the power that is being vested in the Secretary of Agriculture where, if the Secretary of Agriculture shares a view that is not sympathetic to environmental concerns, they can basically dismiss the lawsuits of numerous environmental plaintiffs.

I think this is really about the separation of powers. If there is reform needed in the judiciary, those reforms should be in our courts, but they shouldn't appropriate the power to the Secretary of Agriculture who may have his own or her own views and not give a fair hearing to the environmental groups.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, before my colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and I begin our discussion about the response to the Republican tax plan, I wish to take a moment to express our sympathy for the people of northern California who are facing devastating and destructive wildfires.

I represent a Silicon Valley district where hundreds of our neighbors to our north and south remain missing. Tens of thousands are suffering at this very moment from the destruction of more than 150,000 acres and counting, as well as an increasing number of family homes and businesses. It seems that our Nation has been struck by one national tragedy after another. Our prayers are with the California residents, and I know that everyone in this body is committed to their relief.

I also, on a personal note, want to recognize Liz Bartolomeo, who has been my communications director and worked very hard with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She is going on to work for Democracy Alliance. I wish her very well in her next steps, and I thank her for her service to our office and to the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The purpose of this hour is to discuss the Republican economic plan, and I have distinguished colleagues of mine who will be joining us. I just want to, at the outset, articulate the basic difference in philosophy.

The President and the Republicans believe that to grow our economy, to create jobs, the way to achieve that is by giving tax cuts to corporations, giving tax cuts to the investors in stock, giving tax cuts to the executives who already get large compensation packages; and that if we do that, if we cut corporate tax rates at a time where corporations are making record profits, if we give more tax breaks to those who are investing in our stock market, if we give more tax breaks to those who get dividend checks, then somehow, magically, people making 30 grand or 40 grand will see their wages go up, that somehow we are going to get many more jobs in places across this country.

And the question is why would we believe that? Why would we think the trickle-down economics, which has failed time and again, is going to help? Does someone really believe, in my district, who is a construction worker or a nurse or a teacher, that lowering the corporate tax rate is going to do anything to put more money in their pocket, that it is going to do anything for a nurse who is struggling to get an apartment and pay rent to be able to afford that rent, or that it is going to do anything for people in Youngstown, Ohio, to be able to send their kids to school or get vocational training or get a college education?

The difference is very simple. Our belief is, if you want to raise wages--if you want to give more pay to average Americans, just go raise wages. Provide the tax credit to those making under $75,000. For one- third of the cost of the Republican tax plan, which is geared towards corporations and the investor class, we could give every single American, who is making under $75,000, a 20 percent pay raise. I believe that is bottom-up economics, and that is actually what is going to grow the economy.

It is not a matter of just the economics. It is a matter of common sense. Think about it. Who do you think is going to create more jobs in the United States? Someone worth 5 million bucks who gets tax money back and is going to invest in stocks? Or is that money going to create jobs in the United States? Or could that money be spent anywhere in the world, sheltered anywhere in the world? As opposed to if you give that money to someone making $50,000, $60,000, they are going to spend that money in their local community; they are going to buy more groceries; they are going to buy more things for their house; they are going to get more education; that money is

going to go into the local economy, and it is going to actually create jobs. That is what is going to grow the economy. That is our only shot of getting 3 percent economic growth if we invest in actual workers, the people doing the work.

By the way, they haven't gotten a raise for the past 40 years. Since 1979, wages in this country have stagnated, and we heard the same thing: just cut the taxes on the top and the wages will go up. But the wages haven't gone up.

Guess who promised to help, finally, those forgotten Americans? Guess who promised to help them? President Donald Trump. That was his whole campaign: The stock market is doing great, but you are being left behind. The coasts are doing great, but you have been left behind. And I am going to come to the White House and I am not going to give the keys to the Wall Street bankers. I am going to actually worry about raising wages.

His biggest disappointment as President is that he went back on the promise that he made to ordinary Americans, and we know that he can do it if he wants to. All he has to do is tell his Wall Street advisers: No, no more tax breaks for Wall Street. I want the tax credits going to Main Street, and I can do that at a third of the cost of the plan that you are selling to me and the American people.

This is the debate in this country, supply-side economics that believes the greatness of America is with the investor class and the CEO class and the elite class, or bottom-up economics that our party and the Progressive Caucus is putting forward that believes the greatness in America is with the people who actually do the work, who work 40, 50 hours, who go on the assembly lines and work in factories, who work overnight as nurses taking care of folks, who are doing the education as teachers.

Who do we believe is really contributing to the economy? Who do we believe is really driving America's economic growth? The Democrats believe it is ordinary workers across this country, that that is the greatness that drives the American economy, and the Republican tax plan believes it is the investor class.

It is a very clear difference, and our commitment is not just one towards fairness but also one about investing in people who are going to create jobs and create innovation in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my distinguished colleague, who is not just a constitutional law professor and a leading thinker on issues of juris prudence but has also been a leader with the Congressional Progressive Caucus in helping us craft an economic policy that is really for ordinary Americans and not for just the very wealthy.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Raskin for his thoughtful points and comments on the President's tax policy.

I have a few other points before we conclude. The President has said that we can't afford foreign aid given our deficits, but the President thinks that the average American doesn't know math. Mr. President, the average American can do math.

The deficit is $20 trillion. Our foreign aid every year is no more than $30 billion to $40 billion. Your proposal would increase the deficit between $200 billion to $500 billion. So this red herring that somehow foreign aid is responsible for the deficit is just false.

What is responsible for the deficit is the massive tax cuts that you are proposing that would add, according to conservative economists, between $2 trillion to $5 trillion more to our deficit, and it is all to finance the corporate interests, all to finance the investor class.

We have, on the Democratic side, on the progressive side, proposed an alternative, and that alternative is based on the view that we need to encourage job creation and raise wages for mainstream America, that we need to invest in the people actually doing the work. It is based on the thinking of people who used to be Republicans and people like Jack Kemp, who said: Let us invest in areas that don't have jobs and economic growth and have heavy investment for training on the technologies of the future. That used to be the thinking on the other side of the aisle. We used to have differences, but there used to be creativity and a sense of what is actually going to invest in people to grow the economy.

And now, under this President, it is just a mantra of tax cuts for the very wealthy, tax cuts for the people who need it least, tax cuts for corporations, no sense of actually investing in new industries, investing in the training and skills of the 21st century, investing in bringing capital to places that need them. I hope and believe that as people in good faith will look at the two contrasting proposals, one that says tax cuts for corporations, the other that says let's invest in American workers, let's invest in American communities, that they will conclude that the way to actually raise wages, the way to actually create jobs, the way to actually grow our economy is by bottom-up economics by investing in the American workers and in those Americans who are part of the middle class.

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

Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, here is the Republican and the President's case. They want you to believe that if you cut corporate taxes, if you cut taxes on the investor class, that this is going to raise wages. That is the President's argument.

Here is what I don't understand. If you want to raise wages, why not just raise wages? Why not just give the tax credits to working families?

The President's Wall Street bankers have a different theory that only gets credence in the beltway. This is not about economics. This is about common sense. Think about it. You don't have to be a Ph.D. economist to know that the better way to raise wages is not to cut taxes for corporations, but to actually give the tax relief to people making under $75,000.

You don't have to be a Ph.D. economist to know that if you cut taxes for shareholders and corporate CEOs, they are probably going to invest it overseas. If you cut the taxes or give the tax relief to people making 50 grand in Michigan or Ohio, they are going to spend it and create jobs in the United States.

This is just common sense. You don't have to be a Ph.D. economist to know that if you really want to create jobs, invest in technical training for the million skills gap we have, instead of putting hopes on corporate CEOs who already have record profits, that somehow they are going to create more jobs.

Mr. Chair, it used to be that there were serious thinkers on the Republican side, people like Jack Kemp. I disagreed with him, but at least he had innovative ideas of enterprise zones and how to really create jobs. But for the past 20 years, the Republican party has been devoid of ideas.

It is a mantra: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.

Oh, we are changing into a digital economy. How do we solve it? Tax cuts. That is not a constructive solution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Chinese General Sun Li-jen. He was known as the ever-victorious general, and fought with valor against Axis forces in Burma during World War II.

General Sun's strategies on the battlefield were a combination of traditional Chinese military theory and American military training. He was an important ally for the United States and a popular figure among his people.

He was born in Anhui, China, and was the son of a Confucian scholar. He moved to the United States to attend Purdue University on a Boxer Indemnity Scholarship, and graduated with a degree in civil engineering.

As China fell deeper into political upheaval and war, General Sun believed he could be more useful as a soldier than as an engineer. He went on to attend the Virginia Military Institute, where he faced prejudice from other cadets.

When he returned to China, he advanced to the rank of colonel. In one of his earliest battles in World War II, he led troops to the defense of Shanghai and was wounded while leading his own men to safety.

After recovering from his injuries, he established a military training camp in southern China. The men at the camp were trained in both Eastern and Western military strategy.

General Sun is internationally renowned for his extraordinary service during the Battle of Yenangyaung in 1942. He saved the British First Burma Division by leading a regiment in a flanking maneuver. His bravery protected Allied forces from encirclement by the Imperial Japanese Army.

During this battle, General Sun was also given command of a small group from the British Second Royal Tanks, making him the first Chinese officer to command British troops.

In recognition of his victory in Burma, he was knighted by the United Kingdom and awarded the Legion of Merit by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was a friend of American Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower.

In the report that recommended General Sun for the Legion of Merit, the U.S. War Department wrote the following: ``For exceptionally meritorious

conduct in the performance of outstanding service during the Burma operations in 1942. Under most trying conditions, General Sun displayed high qualities of leadership. The First Burma Division of the British Force at Yenangyaung was extricated by the attack of the 38th Division and saved from annihilation. General Sun held his unit together at all times during the retreat and brought it ready for combat to India. His example of courage and leadership reflect great credit on Allied Arms.''

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the FDR Library and the Congressional Research Service for finding this document. I include this document in the Record, along with a letter from the Virginia Military Institute.

War Department,

Washington, DC, 20 September 1943.

Memorandum for General Edwin M. Watson:

Subject: Awards of the Legion of Merit.

Submitted herewith for the approval of the President are

five awards of the Legion of Merit in degree of Officer to

members of the Chinese Army.

Also enclosed are Certificates of Award for the signature

of the President.

The State Department has been consulted and has no

objection to the awards.

I recommend that the President give approval to these

awards.

Henry L. Stimson,

Secretary of War.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read very briefly from that letter from the Virginia Military Institute, which recognized General Sun for his leadership in the China-Burma-India theater, and recognize that his story has inspired many other Virginia Military Institute graduates since then.

General Sun's legacy lives on through his family, including California Assemblyman Kansen Chu. I am pleased to recognize Assemblyman Kansen Chu and his wife, Daisy Chu, who have joined us here today with his family and our honored guests in the House gallery.

The district that Assemblyman Chu and I represent are some of the most ethnically diverse areas in our country. General Sun valued diversity. He found greater strength as a leader by combining Eastern and Western ideas. He led soldiers with different ethnicities and religions. His accomplishments demonstrate that we are better when we embrace diversity.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage Congress to remember the contributions and legacy of General Sun and their importance to the people of the United States, of China, and those of Chinese-American ancestry.

I want to end on this note. Several of us went a few days ago to the Library of Congress where Graham Allison was speaking. Graham Allison has this theory of the Thucydides Trap, which argues that two powers-- when one power is rising and another power is established--often are likely to face conflict and war. He said that Xi Jinping in China is familiar with Thucydides Trap.

I would submit that General Sun's story is a reminder for why the United States and China can be allies and not adversaries. We often forget that China was critical in the United States' efforts in winning World War II, and General Sun's story is a reminder of that and an inspiration for us in this new century in finding common ground between the United States and China to help create a more peaceful world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for increased investment in research to combat Alzheimer's disease. Over five million Americans are currently living with Alzheimer's and more than fifteen million Americans are acting as a caregiver to a family member or friend with Alzheimer's. The disease is projected to afflict thirteen million Americans by the year 2050 unless we achieve significant advances in treatment. Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States.

Investing in Alzheimer's research is the right thing to do and good policy. The cost of caring for people with Alzheimer's disease to Medicaid and Medicare is 175 billion dollars. That makes up nineteen percent of the total Medicare budget. By 2050 that cost could grow to 758 billion dollars. Medicare for an individual with Alzheimer's or dementia costs nearly four times more than it does for a person without Alzheimer's or dementia.

As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am especially concerned with the number of our Veterans that suffer from dementia. Traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder have been linked to an increased risk for Alzheimer's and dementia. I am glad the military has recognized the importance of Alzheimer's research. Programs like the Peer Reviewed Alzheimer's Disease Program are essential to address the long-term consequences of traumatic brain injuries.

I urge my colleagues to join with me to support and increase in funding to combat Alzheimer's. We owe it to all Americans, especially those who have served, to find a way to prevent and treat this disease.

Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Walz.

I want to commend Ranking Member Walz and Chairman Roe for this extraordinary piece of legislation that invests in the education of our veterans. I also am pleased that you included Majority Leader McCarthy's legislation of which I was a proud original cosponsor, the VET TEC Act. That will allow veterans, for the first time, to take technology courses and learn some of the skills that are going to be needed for the 21st century economy.

It is no surprise that I read that the majority leader got this idea from his son, who spent a lot of time out in Silicon Valley and is well regarded. It is really heartening to see this House come together with the chairman's and ranking member's leadership on the jobs of the 21st century and making sure our veterans have opportunities for them.

Mr. Chair, I am a strong supporter of our troops and voted to move the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) out of Committee in early July. As I pointed out in my Additional Views expressed in House Report 115-200, however, I remain very concerned with the size of the defense spending increases proposed by the legislation and the required cuts that would likely be necessitated in non-defense discretionary spending. The measure would provide $621.5 billion for regular national defense activities, which would exceed the $549 billion cap set in the 2011 Budget Control Act (Public Law 112-25) by $72 billion. If you include war funds for the Pentagon, nuclear programs at the Energy Department, and mandatory spending, the measure would authorize a total of $696 billion for FY18.

The BCA was enacted in August 2011 in response to increased deficits in the wake of the Great Recession. The primary method of direct deficit reduction imposed by the BCA was the installation of caps on discretionary spending from FY12 through FY21. There have been three major revisions to the deficit reduction measures imposed by the BCA and each one included parity where the effects on total defense and nondefense budget authority were identical. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I know the discretionary caps are already scheduled to decline by a combined $5 billion in FY18 relative to FY17 levels. House Republicans have yet to release their Budget Resolution mark which would

quantify the exact spending cuts they propose to pay for the large increase in defense spending.

With the uncertainty of the size and scope of potentially massive cuts to our non-defense discretionary spending such as to diplomacy, foreign aid, education, housing, basic research, job training, and infrastructure, I cannot in good conscience vote for the additional billions of dollars in defense spending. I support our troops and a strong military to keep the peace, but this bill's spending levels would weaken our country's efforts at home and abroad. Our diplomatic and foreign aid budgets are an integral part in keeping the peace abroad. An increase to defense in conjunction with a cut in diplomacy and aid is a choice I cannot support. This should not be an either-or issue. However, because of the BCA and the decisions made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is the choice I had to make on behalf of my constituents in Silicon Valley and what is right and in the best interests of our troops and national security interests and objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for votes in the House of Representatives yesterday, Wednesday, July 12, 2017, due to the recent birth of my son. Due to the absence, I missed Roll Call votes 347 through 352. Had I been present, I would have voted:

Nay on Roll Call vote 347 (ordering the previous question on the Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 23, the Gaining Responsibility on Water (GROW) Act of 2017, and H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18));

Nay on Roll Call vote 348 (the Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 23, the GROW Act, and H.R. 2810, the NDAA for FY18);

Aye on Roll Call vote 349 (passage of H.R. 1492, the Medical Controlled Substances Transportation Act);

Aye on Roll Call vote 350 (the DeSaulnier amendment to require the Interior Department to review available and new technologies for capturing municipal wastewater);

Aye on Roll Call vote 351 (the Carbajal motion to recommit H.R. 23 to add an exemption

to the underlying bill to ensure there is an adequate supply of water from reservoirs or other surface waters to help fight wildfires); and

Nay on Roll Call vote 352 (passage of H.R. 23, the GROW Act).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank his wife, Lisa McGovern, for being a great support to my wife.

I rise today in opposition to this rule. It is not just because I am opposed to our policy of refueling planes into Yemen, refueling Saudi- led planes. It is because of our view, a bipartisan view, of the place of Congress, Congress' Article I of the Constitution. It is Congress' responsibility and duty to have a public debate about our foreign policy, about who we ought to be arming, who we ought to be intervening in overseas. We are abdicating that responsibility.

My amendments would have been very simple. They would have said that this body should debate whether we should be refueling Saudi-led airplanes that are leading to civilian deaths in Yemen, that are causing civil war in Yemen, a Saudi coalition that is aligned with al- Qaida in Yemen, and al-Qaida has hurt the United States.

Why wouldn't we debate this on the floor of the United States Congress? Why wouldn't we have transparency and let the American public weigh in on whether this policy is making us more safe and is upholding human rights?

It is with great disappointment that we are not having this debate in the United States Congress. I believe it is an abdication of our responsibility to the oath we take to uphold the Constitution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2842, the Accelerating Individuals into the Workforce Act. I would like to thank the sponsors of the bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

This bipartisan bill will assist low-income individuals by helping some of our most needy Americans to enter the workforce and maintain their employment. I believe one of the top priorities for Congress is to help our middle class by creating wealth in the middle class and to help the wages of the 50 percent of Americans who haven't had a wage raise since 1980.

For far too long, many Americans have seen falling incomes, which have left working families behind. My amendment is simple. It adds a requirements for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to measure the effect that training and credentialing has on the recipients helped by this bill.

The public report and recommendations to Congress are already mandated by the original bill. This amendment will not affect the overall cost.

There is a body of research demonstrating that providing education and training to TANF recipients makes people more likely to obtain good jobs and increase their wages. They are more likely to stay employed.

The projects funded by this bill provide a great opportunity to add to this

research so we can know how to better assist TANF recipients and other unemployed workers.

I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Washington, (Ms. DelBene), for her amendment to the bill during markup by the Committee on Ways and Means. That amendment requires that at least one of the employment demonstration projects must be an apprenticeship program.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment that seeks to add information that can be used to modernize our job training, credentialing, and apprenticeship program to match those seeking employment with our current job openings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Raskin. It is a real honor to be able to co-chair this Special Order hour with the gentleman. The gentleman is one of the most brilliant Members of our body on constitutional issues and constitutional law, really understanding our role in Congress as a check on the executive branch, and I look forward to working with the gentleman. I appreciate Liz Bartolomeo's and my staff's help in organizing this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what Congresswoman Jayapal said about this bill and the impact it is going to have on middle class families and on jobs, because here is one of the things that Congresswoman Jayapal said that folks don't understand: this bill is going to affect almost every family that has someone that goes for eldercare, to a nursing home.

The average cost at a nursing home is about $80,000 a year. Most families can't afford that. Most middle class--most upper middle class families can't afford that.

So what do they do when their savings run out?

Medicare, by the way, doesn't cover nursing home costs. They rely on Medicaid.

What this bill does, in a shocking way, is say: we are going to cut Medicaid funding. Of course, we are going to conveniently cut it starting 7 years from now, coincidentally, after everyone has faced reelection, because we don't want people to know that we are going to cut these programs that they rely on. We are going to start these cuts 7 years from now, and we are going to make sure that people no longer have access to funding to be able to go for eldercare.

Now, here is what is so problematic about this from an economic perspective. One of the biggest job creators, according to McKinsey and according to every economic study, is in healthcare, is for eldercare. Medicaid creates more jobs for working class families and middle class families at a time of globalization and automation than probably any other significant government program.

So not only are we hurting middle class families and the elderly, we are eliminating the very jobs that we ought to be creating at a time of automation. We are eliminating jobs of people who are going to take care of folks who are sick or folks who are elderly, service jobs, jobs that should be paying more.

At the same time, we are coupling this with drastic cuts in a budget for Alzheimer's research and for research on diseases that are affecting middle class families.

Congressman Raskin said what the bill's motivation is. It is to really save money for tax cuts for the well-off--not for the well-off talking about people

making 70 grand or 80 grand or $100,000. Those are folks who are going to need Medicaid. We are talking about tax cuts for people who are making over $1 million, over $1.5 million.

Now, let's put aside the President that he said it is mean. Let's just see what is their philosophy. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Why do they want to do this? Because they think that giving these tax cuts to these multimillionaires is going to somehow fuel more entrepreneurship and more growth.

I ask people who are listening to this: Is that the problem in our country? Is that really the issue, that we think millionaires and corporations aren't making enough profits? Is that really what is the issue about why we aren't creating jobs? Or is the issue that, for half this country, their wages have stagnated for the past 30 years, and that people can't afford a decent place to live, college, and healthcare, and they are having trouble getting jobs?

If you believe that the problem is we need more corporate profits, we need more speculation on Wall Street, and we need more economic breaks for the investor class, that that is really what America needs at this moment in our economy, then I suppose you could look for the Republican bill. But if you believe that the real problem in our economy is that the middle class and the working class are getting squeezed by the economic concentration of power, by the excess on Wall Street, that ordinary folks are having a hard time getting jobs, and that what we really need to be doing is providing more jobs in healthcare for people so that they can have a decent middle class life, that what we really need to be doing is providing middle class families with basic economic security so they know that when they retire they will have some dignity for them, or their spouses when they fall sick, that they know that they won't be bankrupt because they have to bear the cost of the care for their parents; if you believe that we ought to be on the side of middle class families--working class families--then it is such a no- brainer that you would oppose this bill.

I will just end with this: People often say, Well, what can we do?

Well, I think you can speak out. I believe you should speak out and hold every Member in this body and in the Senate accountable because this bill is about our fundamental values. It is about what type of country we want to be. Are we going to be a country that gives power to the elite and believes that that is the ticket to American success? Or are we going to bet on middle class families and working class families like we have throughout our history?

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Raskin, and I am looking forward to co-chairing this with the gentleman.