Steven Horsford

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of tonight's Special Order.

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, we are led by a dynamic chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Representative from California, Congresswoman Karen Bass, and I had the honor of attending one of her congressional field hearings this week. The CBC is dedicated on a number of policy platforms, and this is among them. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), my colleague, whom I am coanchored with this evening.

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands, and I appreciate, again, her work as a coanchor tonight and bringing not only the increasing issues of wages for American workers, but tying and connecting the point around housing and the ability to really afford to live. As we have heard time and time again from our constituents, people are falling behind, and it is because they have seen stagnant wages for far too long. While the other side is giving corporate tax cuts to the wealthiest, 83 percent of the benefit of their $1.7 trillion tax going to benefit only the top 1 percent, it has done nothing to help the working poor and those who actually help build a strong economy. For the past 40 years, Congress has failed to increase the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, making it the longest period of time in history without an increase. Today's minimum wage workers have less buying power than minimum wage workers had in the 1960s. In the past 40 years, the Federal minimum wage, stuck at $7.25 since 2009, has lost 30 percent of its value. What does this mean? It means the minimum wage is worth less today than it was in 1960. The same wage can't buy you as much due to inflation and wages not being corrected to match for inflation. The person who has been leading the charge as the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the person who has brought so much perspective on so many issues, from criminal justice reform to voting rights and now is making sure that this body considers the Raise the Wage Act this week, is none other than Congressman Bobby Scott. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman from the Education and Labor Committee. It makes a big difference when he has the gavel and the priorities that he has set as the chairman of that committee and the fact that, as we have done from the beginning of this Congress, the For the People Agenda has been focused on making a difference in the lives of the American people that we represent. The gentleman just pointed out that two-thirds of the minimum wage workers in this country are women and that two-fifths--in fact, 38 percent of African Americans and one-third, 33 percent of Latinos-- would get a raise when we pass the legislation and the Federal minimum wage is increased to $15 an hour. It would also boost the economy. A 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would increase sales by around $2 billion each year. Now, I want to just take on a couple of the myths that have been out there with this administration and my Republican colleagues who have opposed the efforts of the House Democrats to bring forward this wage increase. One of the myths out there is around the Black unemployment rate in this country. We hear often the President say that, among certain racial groups, particularly African Americans, the unemployment rate is at an all-time low. And while it is, in fact, true that the unemployment rate is down and it has been down and has been steadily falling since 2011, well before Trump was sworn into office, that rate of decline has not gained momentum since. In fact, even at an annual rate of 6.6 percent, the Black unemployment rate is still more than double the White unemployment rate, which is at 3.2 percent. What this says is that the Black unemployment rate has been about double the White unemployment rate for more than four decades, making this relationship more historically significant than any single unemployment rate. So, Mr. President, if you want to take credit for the low unemployment rate among African Americans, then you need to be held accountable for keeping the rate down and to propose a plan to close the persistent 2-to-1 racial disparity that has existed for more than 40 years. Another issue that I want to take on is the fact of the amount of jobs that have been created since this administration has taken over. We know that many of the jobs that have been created are, in fact, low- wage, low-paying jobs. Many of the jobs are in the gig economy, and those individuals are not getting paid the same amount as traditional workers. We know that many employers are paying workers for less than full- time work, which means that they still cannot provide for their families, that they are not being afforded healthcare, and, in fact, the government is subsidizing many of these corporations--the same corporations that give their CEOs 17 percent pay increases but then want to tell the workers: ``You can't have a raise.'' And these are the myths that the other side wants to, again, put out there to distract from the House Democrats and our agenda in giving Americans a raise. Now, I want to just touch on one specific point from my home State in Nevada. Recently, our Governor, Governor Steve Sisolak, the first Democratic Governor to be elected in Nevada in 20 years, signed into law a $12 minimum wage increase, following 10 years of wage stagnation for working-class families in Nevada. In fact, the last time we raised the minimum wage in Nevada was when I was serving in the State Senate. So, elections do have consequences. But, with the help of our legislative leaders, Speaker Jason Frierson and Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, the Nevada legislature increased the Nevada minimum wage to $12. But that raise won't go into effect until 2020, and, for now, one in five workers in Nevada are making under $12 an hour, less than $24,000 a year--$24,000 a year. What is a family supposed to do? How are they supposed to make ends meet on $24,000 per year? Mr. Speaker, $12 for Nevadans is a step in the right direction, but we need to be working to provide equitable wages for all Nevadans. The Raise the Wage Act would work toward a $15 minimum wage by 2024, as the chairman from the Education and Labor Committee indicated. A pay increase will benefit 127,000 workers in my district alone. Specifically, it will raise wages for 18,800 Black workers, more than any other congressional district in Nevada. So, the Raise the Wage Act is an important measure. It would give up to 27 million workers a raise, lifting 1.3 million Americans out of poverty and boosting economic growth by putting money into the pockets of workers, who will spend that money in growing the economy, not like the corporate tax cut that was given to big corporations where they simply just bought up more shares of their own stock. They didn't do anything to hire more workers or to help stimulate the economy. They just made themselves more rich. All Americans who work hard deserve to be able to afford a middle- class life and opportunities to get ahead. I believe that one job should be enough and that it is time that we set our children up for success by making sure that working families have the wages that they need to provide for themselves and their family. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman was talking about the impact beyond just family incomes, which is important. And we want to give all Americans a raise. While the priorities on the other side were about giving corporations and billionaires more wealth creation, we are laser-focused on putting more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans. But the question I have is around the recent research with States that, following an increase in wages, we actually can see the rates of suicides fall, consumer spending rise, and a more productive workforce. There is no place in America where a full-time worker making $7.25 an hour can support their entire family, let alone afford basic needs. There is no place in America where a full-time worker making the current $7.25 an hour can support their entire family. And, as I said, the productivity piece--which, again, my colleagues are always talking about the need to make America more competitive and more productive. Well, in one study, researchers tracked 10,000 workers at about 200 department stores and found that a dollar increase in the minimum wage led a typical employee to sell about 5.4 percent more per hour. So, if we give workers the wage that they are deserving of, they will put that extra money to work for the American economy, unlike giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. For a worker earning the minimum wage, the increase could be almost 20 percent. Now, again, I have underscored repeatedly the impacts to the economy, and we will take on that debate later this week when this bill comes to the floor. But the point I just wanted to ask my colleague about is that human impact. You know, this is more than just numbers. This is the two- thirds of American workers who are women who are increasingly the head of their household. So can the gentlewoman relate to that impact and the constituents that she serves and the stories that she has heard about the anxiety that they go through every day and not being able to make ends meet?

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I know the affected workers that I hear from in my district, they want this raise. This raise would provide on the order of about $3,000 a year. That is enough money to make a tremendous difference in the life of a preschool teacher, a bank teller. We have got fast-food workers who, today, struggle to get by on around $20,000 a year. A $15 minimum wage by 2024 would generate $144 billion in higher wages for workers and would also benefit the communities in which they live. So while corporate profits, as a share of our national income, are at an all-time high, wages are at a 65-year low. So if we are not going to give workers a raise now, when are we going to give it to them? They have been waiting for far too long. I want to commend the leadership of our Speaker, of course; the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, it is because of their leadership, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Hakeem Jeffries, and others, that this is part of the For the People Agenda. This is why we are laser-focused. And we are laser-focused on a lot of priorities. We want to give workers a raise. We also want to address housing affordability. We want to address the issues around healthcare costs and the out-of-pocket expenses that so many Americans are dealing with. We know that more entrepreneurs want to start a new business, and we want to give them the tools and the resources necessary for them to do so. We want to repeal some of the unnecessary tax burdens on Americans, like the Cadillac tax on healthcare, which I know this body is also going to be considering. So these are among the priorities of the House Democratic Caucus in the For the People Agenda that we are raising up and reminding people that we need to deal with this congressional session. So, just to highlight, again, the Raise the Wage Act of 2019 would gradually raise the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2024; and here is how it would work. As the chairman has indicated, it would raise the Federal minimum wage to $8.55 this year and increase it over the next 5 years until it reaches $15 an hour in 2024. After 2024, it would adjust the minimum wage each year to keep pace with growth in the typical worker's wages, something that we have not done for some time. It would phase out the outdated sub-minimum wage for tip workers, which has been frozen at a meager $2.13 since 1991. And it would sunset the sub-minimum wages for workers with disabilities employed in sheltered workshops, and for workers under age 20. This is a commonsense measure, something that American workers and our constituents have been demanding. In fact, 1 in 9 U.S. workers are paid wages that leave them in poverty today, even when working full- time and year round. And so that is why this bill is so important, the Raise the Wage Act. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to bring this measure to the floor later this week, and to debate with my colleagues on the other side where they stand and whether they will join with the House Democrats to pass this legislation over to the Senate so that they can also take action. I also want to just touch on a point that my colleague was talking about, dealing with home ownership in the Black community. Today, The Wall Street Journal released a report that Black home ownership is at an all-time low. It has fallen 8.6 percentage points since its peak in 2004, hitting an all-time low in the first quarter of this year. Homes and neighborhoods with a concentration of Black homeowners, on average, are worth less than 6 percent than they were in 2006. And in the second quarter of 2018, Black home ownership stood at 41.6 percent, down more than a full half percent from the first quarter rate. Nationally, the Black home ownership rate is only 41.6 percent, virtually unchanged from 50 years ago when the Federal Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in housing. The national White home ownership rate, by comparison, is 71 percent. So these are really dire statistics that I wanted to bring to the attention of this body. I know that the chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters, and her Subcommittee on Housing are working to tackle this problem as well. But it is time that we address the 30 percent point gap in home ownership between Black and White Americans, which is at its highest point in the new millennium. Why is this so important? It is, because, for Black Americans, so much of our wealth is accumulated in the equity of home ownership. And again, this is central to the issue of giving workers a raise because they need that raise in order to afford the higher cost of housing, the higher cost of healthcare, the higher cost of food, the higher cost of gas. Everything is going up but their pay check, and that is what I hear from my constituents, from those who are earning a minimum wage. Under the Raise the Wage Act, it would increase by almost 20 percent. So I am looking forward to, again, debating my colleagues on this important issue when we come to the floor later this week. As we have talked about here tonight, the Congressional Black Caucus is laser-focused on making sure that Americans get a raise. We know that giving Americans a raise would give up to 27 million workers the benefit of increased take-home pay. It would lift 1.3 Americans out of poverty. And it would boost our economic growth by putting money where it belongs, in the pockets of workers who will spend that money in the economy. Unlike what was done with the corporate tax cuts that were given, where 83 percent of the benefit of the $1.7 trillion tax cut went to benefit just the top 1 percent, we are focused on helping everyday Americans get the money they need in their pocket. Now, I asked a question at the beginning of tonight's Special Order hour dealing with the 350 CEOs from the largest U.S. companies who earned an average pay, in 2017, of $1.89 million. That is a lot of money. I have no beef with CEOs getting a fair pay, but that pay increase amounted to a 17 percent increase from the previous year. And just before we started the Special Order hour, one of my colleagues came to the floor and said that increasing the Federal minimum wage would be devastating to our economy. Well, what does he say about the CEOs who are getting record pay and record bonuses, and the fact that all of the corporate tax cuts that they provided went to just buying more stocks in those companies? Meanwhile, the wages for the average U.S. worker grew at .2 percent during that same time. This is a fundamental question that I honestly would like my colleagues to be able to answer, and I will seek them out during this week, because I want them to join with us to pass this bill. This really should not be a partisan issue. Giving Americans a raise is something that we all should agree on benefits all of our workers. My colleagues on the other side have low-wage, low-paid workers in their district just like I have low-wage, low-paid workers in my district. The Raise the Wage Act of 2019, which proposes raising the Federal minimum wage in six steps to $15 an hour by 2024, will result in a pay increase for 38.1 percent of all Black workers and 23.2 percent of all White workers. This disproportional effect on Black workers comes not just because they are more often employed in jobs that currently pay less, as we have discussed tonight, than the proposed minimum wage, but also because they are less likely to work in States or localities that have passed a State minimum wage that is higher than the Federal minimum wage. So that is why it is time for Federal policy to set the standard so, regardless, of where you live, you can earn a decent, livable wage to provide for yourself and your family. We believe that one job should be enough. It should be enough to provide for you and your family. It should be enough to put a roof over your head. It should be enough to make sure that you can pay for the copays and the prescription drugs that you need in order to stay well. It should be enough so that we can address food insecurity in this country; and it should be enough so that your children can be set up for success in their future. I encourage each and every one of my colleagues this week to study this bill; to think about the constituents back home in their district; and to ask themselves, what were we sent here to do; to help the well- off and the well-connected, or to give voice to those who deserve to be heard in this body? I am honored to be a Representative from Nevada's Fourth Congressional District; and I know my district is not exactly the same as every other district, but I have rural parts and I have urban parts of my district, covering 52,000 square miles. The commonality in my district is that there are struggling people throughout every corner of my district. And so when I vote this week in favor of giving workers a raise, I will be voting to give a raise to every single worker throughout Nevada's Fourth, and throughout this great country. I thank my colleague, the coanchor, Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Scott, and each and every one of my colleagues who have spoken here tonight. I thank the Speaker for giving us this hour to bring about the issues that are important. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I am honored to stand to propose an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which is an opportunity to improve the security of the American people and modernize defense policy to meet the demands of emerging security threats. For the first time in years, House Democrats finally have the chance to voice our priorities for national defense. That is why I am happy to introduce this amendment, which will increase by $5 million the Air Force University Research Initiatives. This program provides Department of Defense grants to competing universities, including those in Nevada like the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the Desert Research Institute, and gives our best and brightest minds the opportunity to do the research necessary to develop advanced defense technology. Throughout U.S. history, it has been our continued research and innovation that has secured America as the world's greatest power. My amendment transfers money from Special Operations Command theater forces, which is already robustly funded, and, instead, invests in the wars of the future. As security threats advance and change with weapons of modern war, we must remember that innovation and development made us number one. We must invest in programs that prepare our servicemembers to respond to the threats of the 21st century.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the SECURE Act, a bill that gets to the heart of our retirement income crisis. Unfortunately, too many of my constituents are in danger of not having enough money to put away for retirement. In fact, 86 percent of Nevadans do not feel financially prepared for retirement, and most older Nevadans wished they had saved more money. Fortunately, the SECURE Act will make it easier for Nevadans to save for their retirement. It makes it easier for small businesses to offer retirement plans to their employees, allows part-time workers to participate in 401(k) plans, and provides relief to pension plans, ranging from rural co-ops to organizations like the Jewish Federation of America. I am also proud to share that this legislation includes my bill, H.R. 2806, which fixes a provision in the flawed Republican tax plan that raised the tax rate for scholarship and fellowship students up to 37 percent. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I would like to thank Chairman Neal for his leadership in getting this bipartisan bill passed unanimously through our committee. The SECURE Act will help families achieve lifetime financial security, a core of the American Dream. I urge every Member of this body to support its passage.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague, Congresswoman Plaskett, and I am very honored to be able to join with her as one of the coanchors for the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour. Tonight, as my colleague indicated, we are here to honor the life and legacy of a civil rights icon, the honorable Judge Damon Keith, who was also a member of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated. Judge Keith was born on July 4, 1922, the grandson of slaves, who went on to become an internationally revered champion of justice. Judge Keith has vigorously enforced the Nation's civil rights laws, most notably in the areas of employment and education. In Stamps v. Detroit Edison Company, Judge Keith ruled the Detroit Edison Company had practiced systemic racial discrimination, resulting in fines against the company of $4 million and against the employee union of $250,000. He ordered the company to institute an aggressive affirmative action program. In 2016, Judge Keith wrote a searing dissent when an appeals panel ruled that Ohio's voting rights laws did not discriminate against minorities by restricting early and absentee ballots. He said in that dissent: ``The birth of this Nation was founded upon the radical principle that we, as a people, would govern ourselves. And voting is the ultimate expression of self-government. Instead of making it easier for all persons, unrestrained and unfettered, to exercise this fundamental right to vote, legislators are making it harder.'' He concluded by saying: ``With every gain in equality, there is often an equally robust and reactive retrenchment. We must never forget that constant dialectical tension. For every action, there is a reaction. The majority's decision is a fateful reminder that we can never fool ourselves into believing that we have arrived as a nation.'' That is a statement that is ever so true even today. Judge Keith recalled many of the civil rights activists and innocent children who were slain to make sure minorities had access to the voting polls. They include: Emmett Till, Herbert Lee, Medgar Evers, Jimmie Lee Jackson, Benjamin Brown, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the four little girls who were, sadly, killed in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama. Judge Keith fought on their behalf during his tenure on this Federal court. Some of his other rulings had a profound impact on American life as well, the biggest being his decision that prohibited the Nixon administration from warrantless wiretapping in domestic security cases. He ordered the Nixon Justice Department to end all wiretapping that was not approved by the courts. This was in the midst of the Nixon administration's attempt to go after radicals accused of conspiring to bomb a CIA office in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He stated it violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment rights from ``unreasonable searches and seizures.'' The Nixon administration appealed his ruling, and the Supreme Court, with a vote of 8-0, rejected the administration's claim of constitutional authority to protect the Nation from internal subversion by wiretapping dangerous radicals without court warrants. Along with this case, he ruled in favor of integration of the Detroit Police Department and made the decision that deportation hearings could not be held in secret after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He has left an indelible mark on the judiciary. Judge Keith has received over 40 honorary degrees from colleges and universities across the country and is the recipient of numerous awards. He was awarded the Spingarn Medal from the NAACP, and the Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award, the highest award that can be bestowed on a member of the Federal judiciary. Judge Keith fought on all of our behalf to make this country more just, fair, and less discriminatory.

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Adams for her leadership on these issues and her understanding of the dire impacts that the Trump administration's proposed rule change would mean on working families and the poor.

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) for yielding. This is a very serious and important issue that we are talking about tonight. I really want to provide the context to what got us to this point where the Trump administration is now trying to balance the budget on the backs of working people: the poor, seniors, children, and needy families. The President and Republicans in Congress during the last Congress passed the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. What that Tax Cuts and Jobs Act actually did was add $1.5 trillion to our deficit. The tax cuts that were so-called were supposed to help the working poor. Eighty- three percent of the benefit from those tax cuts went to 1 percent of the wealthiest, the well-connected, and the powerful. Now, to balance the budget, they are proposing these draconian measures--cuts and revisions--on our budget, and they are targeting the poor, those who are relying, as my colleague said, on important programs such as SNAP, Head Start funding, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the National School Lunch Program, and other anti-poverty programs. Let me talk to you for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about what these cuts mean to the people in my home State of Nevada. Nearly 434,000 Nevadans would be at risk of losing their SNAP benefits. SNAP benefits help families put food on the table and also help contribute to our local economy because they are buying those groceries at our local grocery stores. They are ensuring that we keep workers working at our local grocery stores. The proposed rule would impact Nevadans, by putting 633,000 Nevadans at risk of being kicked off of Medicaid. Since we have adopted the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion in my home State of Nevada in 2008, we have cut the rate of uninsured in half. Prior to the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid expansion, our uninsured rate among children was over 30 percent. Now it is below 14 percent and continuing to decline. This administration wants to take us backward. We won't go backward. Over 3,000 young toddlers in Nevada would be at risk of being removed from the Early Head Start and Head Start programs. That is unconscionable to me because the Acelero program that helps administer Head Start in my district already has a waiting list. There are already families who can't get into the program because there is not adequate funding based on this administration's lack of priorities around the poor. So while this rule may seem mundane to some, the impact on families is real. So we are bringing attention to this issue so the voters and constituents across the United States can have a voice in this process. The rule that the President is proposing to make has a 45-day window for the American public to comment on just how harmful this rule would be. The deadline to submit comments is June 21 of this year, and I would encourage all of the public to make sure that their voices are being heard. So just to underline again, the Trump administration has proposed a rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty, a move that would more than likely kick people off of certain Federal programs that are meant to assist poor and low-income families. So why would they do that? Because they have targeted the working poor in order to balance the budget to pay for the tax cuts that they gave to big corporations, the wealthy, and the well-connected. The administration is considering switching to a different inflation measure that rises more slowly, a change that over time would make it harder to qualify for assistance. It is already hard enough for many constituents in my district to receive aid. Mr. Speaker, I talked to you about the waiting list of families at Acelero Head Start program. It is right there on the corner of Martin Luther King and Carey in my district. I have talked to the parents at that program, and those families that are in it depend on the Head Start program in order to give their children a good head start and be able to prepare them for school. But without it, they would be left without adequate childcare and without adequate support for their families. The Children's Health Insurance Program is something that I had worked on when I was in the State senate. This is not a partisan issue. In fact, many of my colleagues on the other side have supported funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, but the proposed Trump administration rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty would actually impact 633,000 Nevadans who would be kicked off of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. So I would ask my colleagues on the other side why they would support the administration impacting their constituents in this way? It is not just the constituents in my district. It is not just the constituents in Delegate Plaskett's district. Every Member of this body has constituents who would be negatively impacted if this rule by the Trump administration is enacted. By allowing for these additional substitutions, chained CPI, which is the measurement by which the administration is looking to measure poverty, shows a slower rate of inflation. But for many families who are already choosing between paying the rent and buying food, they are already living as frugally as possible. Time and time again, the Trump administration has attacked programs that help struggling American families put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. But they ran and passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. They did it in 51 days without one hearing, and now there are all these unintended consequences from that measure that was passed in the previous Congress, and they want to come back here and balance the budget on the backs of the poor. We say, No. The Department of Education has said that more than 1 million schoolchildren were homeless in the 2016-2017 school year. One million schoolchildren in America are homeless, and this administration wants to deny them health insurance coverage under Medicaid and a school lunch during the school day? The Department of Agriculture said that 15 million households faced food insecurity in 2017, meaning that they experienced difficulty affording food, and this administration--the Trump administration-- wants to pass a rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty in order to deny more children and families receiving this care. Despite that, 70 percent of voters indicated that they had experienced at least one form of economic hardship last year--70 percent. But we can find ways to give tax cuts to big corporations, to the wealthy, and to the well-connected. The President's proposed rule would be harmful. It is misguided and unfair to so many Nevada families and families all across the country. Again, I would urge the public to write their Member of Congress and ask them what they are doing to protect the public on this issue. After the public has written their Member, they should submit their comment before the June 21 date to the administration so that we can rescind this proposed rule and protect working families and the poor.

Mr. HORSFORD. I am at a loss for words how we choose to balance the budget on 1 million homeless children, but find a way to give tax cuts to the wealthy. We added $1.5 trillion to our Federal deficit, but now we have 1 million homeless children in last year's school year whom we are struggling to make sure they get adequate support in their schools and a nutritious meal. And this administration wants to deny them that by this rule change.

Mr. HORSFORD. We have to have a more balanced discussion in this body. I believe that we need to be competitive, and we need to make sure that we are doing things to help incentivize our private sector. There is a way to do that, but, unfortunately, our colleagues took the approach to ram this measure through in 51 days with not one hearing. They didn't discusses the impacts, and none of the issues that we are now bringing forward on how the working poor, the middle class, and those who are struggling and aspiring to be part of the middle class are being negatively impacted by these policies. So there is a direct correlation. We can't just talk about the budget or the cuts to the budget that this administration is making without talking about what this administration and Republicans in Congress did last Congress by adding $1.5 trillion to our Federal deficit. It is not just these Federal programs that we are talking about tonight. It is Medicare, it is Social Security, and it is the Affordable Care Act. I am sure we will have a Special Order on those topics as well, but we wanted to bring attention to this tonight, because we only have 45 days for the public to get their comments in to, hopefully, reverse this rule so that it won't go into effect.

Mr. HORSFORD. Would the gentlewoman yield on that point?

Mr. HORSFORD. There was a recent article that showed many of the workers of large employers who don't pay a livable wage are on SNAP benefits. These are people who are working, but because they are not being paid an adequate wage, they are eligible for SNAP benefits. On top of that, based on the rule change and the discussion the gentlewoman just outlined, 11 million could lose their benefits. These are people, some of whom are working but because employers aren't willing to pay them a living wage, they are on benefits, Federal benefits, being subsidized by the Federal Government. Either we need these employers to step up and give America a raise so they don't have to be on SNAP benefits or we need this administration to understand that balancing the budget on the working poor isn't the solution.

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, the comment period for the American public for this proposed rule by the administration ends on June 21. The Trump administration floated this proposal through what is called a request for comment, essentially a request for the public to provide information and views to the Federal Government on this potential change. They are expecting them not to know that this is happening. This administration presented no research on how low-income families' costs for basic necessities has changed over time, nor did they provide information on the implications of changing the poverty line for individuals' and families' access to needed assistance. That is why tonight's Special Order was so important and timely, for us to bring awareness to this. I don't know how many Members of this body know that the administration is doing this. Again, I would ask my colleagues on the other side, who have constituents just like we do who will be impacted, whether they support this administration in this proposed rule change that will take away fundamental benefits from their constituents, just like it will ours. This is not a handout. This is a hand up. It is a hand up in order to help individuals bridge, if you will, while they are going through difficult times.

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record information from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities titled ``Trump Administration Floating Changes to Poverty Measure That Would Reduce or Eliminate Assistance to Millions of Low-Income Americans.'' [From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Tuesday, May 7, 2019] Trump Administration Floating Changes to Poverty Measure That Would Reduce or Eliminate Assistance to Millions of Lower-Income Americans (Statement by Sharon Parrott, Senior Fellow and Senior Counselor) The Trump Administration yesterday floated a proposal to use a lower measure of inflation when adjusting the poverty line each year. Consistent with other policies the Administration has pursued, this policy would over time cut or take away entirely food assistance, health, and other forms of basic assistance from millions of people who struggle to put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads, and see a doctor when they need to. The reductions in assistance that this proposal would produce stand in stark contrast to the Administration's 2017 tax law, which conferred large new benefits on the highest-income households. If the poverty line is altered in this fashion, fewer individuals and families will qualify over time for various forms of assistance, including many who work hard but are paid low wages. That's because using a lower measure of inflation like the chained CPI to adjust the poverty line each year would make the eligibility thresholds for various programs that serve people in need lower and lower over time, compared with what the thresholds otherwise would be. This, in turn, would lower the income eligibility limits for programs like SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) and Medicaid, which are tied to the federal poverty line. It also would reduce the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) premium tax credits--and thereby increase the out-of-pocket premium charges faced by millions of people who purchase health insurance through the ACA marketplaces. The notion that the nation does too much to help struggling families stands in contrast to a broad set of data. For example, even with our current poverty line and set of supports, the Department of Education says that more 1 million school children were homeless in the 2016-2017 school year, and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) says that 15 million households faced food insecurity in 2017, meaning that they experienced difficulty affording food. This proposal is entirely discretionary on the part of the Administration. No statute or regulation requires it to alter the methodology for updating the poverty line. Rather, the Administration is choosing to consider a policy that would weaken basic assistance programs and thereby increase hardship. The Administration is considering using a lower inflation measure to adjust the poverty line while wholly ignoring other questions about the adequacy of the poverty line as a measure of whether households can meet basic needs. And, it has failed to put forward evidence about whether the chained CPI itself accurately captures changes in the cost of living for low-income households. Indeed, the issue of what measure to use in adjusting the poverty line for inflation is only one of a number of questions about the poverty line and the official poverty measure. Considerable research over the years--including a major report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)--has identified a number of ways in which the poverty line appears to be inadequate. For example, the poverty line doesn't fully include certain costs that many low-income families face like child care. In accordance with the guidance of the NAS panel, federal analysts worked carefully with researchers over a number of years to develop the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which more fully measures the cost of current basic living expenses. With this more careful accounting, the SPM's poverty line is higher than the official poverty line for most types of households, and its poverty rate is slightly higher than the official poverty rate. Another indication that the poverty line is too low is the high rate of hardship among families with incomes just above that marker. Near-poor families, using today's poverty line, face high rates of food insecurity, difficulty paying rent and utilities, and high rates of uninsurance. The Administration's announcement, however, ignores all other issues regarding poverty measurement that the NAS and other analysts have raised and cherry-picks just one issue-- the measure used to adjust for inflation--to focus on in isolation. Simply switching to a lower inflation measure would likely make the poverty line less rather than more accurate as a measure of what families need to get by. Moreover, it is not at all clear that the chained CPI is a better measure of inflation for low-income households' basic living expenses, even if we had a poverty measure that measured those living expenses more adequately. Research on different inflation measures generally focuses on the best way to measure inflation for the economy and consumers overall. But the consumption patterns of low-income households--and their ability to change their consumption in response to changes in prices--may be different from those of typical consumers. A recent study indicates that inflation tends to rise faster for low-income households than for the population as a whole. As just one example, housing costs comprise a significantly larger share of low-income households' budgets, on average, than they do for middle- and upper-income households. And Labor Department data show that costs for rental housing, which low-income people rely on disproportionately, have been rising faster than the overall

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the co-anchor for this hour. This has been a very enlightening topic for us to bring attention to. Each one of us has constituents who are impacted, to whom we speak on a regular basis. We cannot allow this administration to make this type of an executive order and not have the consequences explained to the American people. That is what tonight was all about. Sometimes the other side questioned President Obama making executive orders. Well, this executive order that President Trump is proposing directly impacts the working poor in this country. We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow children who are homeless, families who are struggling, and the working poor who are trying to do everything they can to keep it together to be impacted by this misguided, reckless, and totally unnecessary rule change being proposed by the Trump administration. Again, we urge the American public to have their voice heard and submit their comments by June 21 or contact their Member of Congress. We are fighting on their behalf, but we need to make sure that every Member in this body understands the implications of this proposed rule change.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Nevada Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson, who recently passed. Tyrone's passion for service and community was reinforced by action. He was constantly on the front lines advocating for children in family court as a CASA advocate. Through his life-coaching and mentoring efforts, he spearheaded the annual Clark County Summer Business Institute, providing summer college and career exploration for high school students. When Tyrone had the opportunity to be appointed and then elected to the Nevada Assembly in District 17, he made it his mission to propose new ideas to move Nevada forward and bring an experienced and pragmatic voice to the challenges our State faces. He became a leader and champion for increased funding, for more equitable education for all students, and for making our schools and communities safe from gun violence. Tyrone was always present, leading the way to make the North Las Vegas community and the people in it stronger, whether it was working tirelessly to improve education, addressing racial equity and inclusion, volunteering with Camp Anytown, supporting Project Homeless Connect and Family Connect, or launching the My Brother's Keeper initiative. At the age of 52, he still had so much more to offer to his community, in public service, and most importantly, to his family. I am proud of the work my dear friend accomplished, and I am honored to ensure that his legacy is permanently enshrined in the Congressional Record. May he rest in peace.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, every 16 hours, a woman in this country is shot and killed by a current or former partner. Just last week, an 18-year-old woman in Las Vegas was shot dead by her boyfriend while they sat in their car outside of a neighborhood barbecue. This country has an epidemic of violence against women, which is why I stand here today to ask this body to reauthorize and expand the Violence Against Women Act. This bill will provide crucial resources to survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse. It will invest in education programs that teach young men to stop the cycle of violence. It will provide Tribes with new mechanisms to hold non-Indian predators accountable for preying on Native women. And it will close the boyfriend loophole that allows physically abusive ex-boyfriends and convicted stalkers access to guns. Madam Speaker, this legislation will save lives, and I urge every Member of this body to support its passage.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask that this body recognize the Culinary Union's 84th Anniversary. Since 1935, the Culinary Union has improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Nevada hospitality workers and their families. Its continued fight to secure good benefits and union wages for its members have made it an essential economic institution in the Silver State. The Culinary Union can rightfully claim that it has won a ``middle- class standard of living'' for more than 700,000 hospitality workers during its 84 years. Its guest room attendants, cocktail and food servers, porters, bellmen, cooks, bartenders, laundry and kitchen workers hail from 178 different countries and speak 40 different languages. I'm proud of the work this union has accomplished.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise to reflect Nevada's status as the first state in the Union to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution which granted African-American freedmen the right to vote. The Fifteenth Amendment states that: ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' It's important that we recognize the important role Nevada played in extending the franchise 150 years ago this month. The work of these Nevadans is directly connected to H.R. 1, H.R. 4, and this Congress' ongoing fight for voting rights for all eligible voters.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 106.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of Nevada's Fourth Congressional District, a district that is home to over 50,000 square miles of geographically diverse land, including several national monuments and parks, I am proud to voice my support for the Natural Resources Management Act. As we have heard, this bill permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an integral conservation program that has provided the State of Nevada with $40 million for investment in local parks and another $60 million to benefit our public lands. Moreover, this bill expands access to outdoor recreation opportunities for communities across America. Outdoor recreation is a vital aspect of Nevada's economy. In 2017, it supported nearly 90,000 jobs, contributed $4 billion in wages, and spurred $12 billion of consumer spending in our State. I am proud to vote for this bill to expand outdoor recreation opportunities, particularly for our underserved communities, many of whom depend on Federal funding to develop parks and recreation. As the 116th Congress continues, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to develop conservation programs that work for all of America.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about legislation that I introduced to protect Nevadans from the pain of another government shutdown. Federal employees and contractors shouldn't be on the hook for the fees, interest, and fines that pile up when the government shuts down. That is why yesterday I introduced legislation to ensure these workers don't just receive backpay, but they also get paid back for the late fees and overdue rent notices they receive, through no fault of their own, during any government shutdown. This bill also requires the Federal Government to reimburse States and Tribes for extra funds that they were forced to spend during shutdowns, ensuring Nevada taxpayers aren't picking up the tab when the Federal Government refuses to do so. The President made clear on Tuesday night that he is willing to create another self-imposed crisis so that he can get money for a border wall. This bill will ensure that our Federal workers and State and Tribal governments aren't footing the bill for that crisis.