Pramila Jayapal

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter from the CWA on how unions reduce income inequality. Communications Workers of America, Washington, DC, February 5, 2020. Dear Representative: On behalf of the officers and 700,000 members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), I am writing to urge you to vote for H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, when it comes before the House this week and to oppose any amendments that would weaken the bill. For CWA, this is the most important vote that has come before the House of Representatives in years and our members are watching it closely. The huge surge in economic inequality over the past quarter-century is related directly to many workers' lack of a strong voice on the job. Over that time, wages have stagnated for workers across the economy, while income has skyrocketed for CEOs and the wealthiest 1%. By 2012, the wealthiest 1% made 22.5% of national income, while the bottom 90% of families made less than half of national income--just 49.6%. During that same time period, union density has declined substantially. Since the early 1980s, the overall unionization rate has been cut in half. This harms workers who are unable to form unions directly, but it also hurts other workers, as research by the Economic Policy Institute shows that higher union density increases wages for all workers. Moreover, the harm to workers caused by the lack of an organized voice on the job is not limited simply to compensation. Workers who form unions have stronger protections against discrimination and retaliation, enhanced job security, better retirement benefits, and more effective ways of combating practices that jeopardize their health and safety on the job. Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not currently include protections strong enough to ensure that workers are able to effectively exercise their right to organize, bargain collectively, and have a strong voice on the job. The NLRA's penalties are ineffective and insufficient, amounting to little more than a vague threat of a slap on the wrist to employers who violate the NLRA. As a result, workers are routinely illegally disciplined or even fired for exercising their NLRA rights, with little to no consequence for the bad actors. Just as concerning is what is actually permitted under the NLRA. Employers can hold ``captive audience'' meetings, in which executives can and do force workers to attend hours- long meetings in which management berates and intimidates workers who want to organize. Employers can and do also fail to negotiate fair first contracts, preventing workers who form unions from ever securing a collective bargaining agreement. As a result, many workers are deterred from fighting to exercise their rights in the first place. The PRO Act would strengthen the NLRA and, in so doing, empower workers across the country. The PRO Act would: Strengthen remedies for workers who face illegal retaliation, including swift temporary reinstatement for workers who are illegally suspended or fired, real financial penalties, and the clarification of their ability to have their day in court; Clarify coverage of the NLRA to prevent the misclassification of workers as independent contractors; Protect the integrity of union elections against coercive captive audience meetings; Ensure that the National Labor Relations Board's orders are enforced in a timely manner; Protect workers' right to strike for basic workplace improvements; Ensure that workers and employers are able to reach fair deals for a first contract by establishing mediation and arbitration procedures; Strengthen the ability of workers and companies to negotiate contracts that include fair share fees that cover the basic costs of representation and bargaining; Safeguard the rights of all workers to engage in employment-related class action litigation. The PRO Act would ensure that workers' right to a voice on the job would be protected. In doing so, it would help combat skyrocketing economic inequality and strengthen the middle class. Therefore, I strongly urge you to vote for the PRO Act. CWA will include votes on this bill and any amendments that would undermine the bill in our Congressional Scorecard and this is the single highest priority vote for CWA and our members of the 116th Congress. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Mauer, Director of Government Affairs, Communications Workers of America (CWA).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill today.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise to support Representative Lee's amendment to say no to unauthorized wars. The Trump administration claims that this outdated authorization justifies future strikes against Iran. That is outrageous. And as a result of the assassination of General Soleimani and Iran's retaliation, we now have 50 American soldiers tragically injured. Representative Lee, during debate in 2002 on this very authorization, said: ``It does not take leadership to go drop bombs and go to war. It takes real leadership to negotiate and to develop peaceful resolutions to our security needs.'' Seventeen years ago, Madam Speaker, I spoke at a rally of 50,000 people in Seattle who believed the evidence was not there to go to war in Iraq. Today, we know we were right. We must learn from that. Let's repeal this outdated authorization and ensure that Congress has real oversight and debate before we go into any war. Let's show leadership and stop these endless, unauthorized wars.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Franklin High School student and Burien resident, Abigail Batinga, as the winner of the Washington's Seventh District Congressional App Challenge. My office this year received a record number of submissions, highlighting the incredible work of teachers across my district in advancing STEM education for all students. Abigail's app, which is called Climate Now, is a collaborative platform that helps users create, facilitate, and participate in environmental projects in their communities. Abigail recognized the need for a tool to increase the efficacy, organization, and participation in efforts to solve our climate crisis locally, due to her involvement in sustainability and environmental justice issues in Burien and South Seattle. Abigail's focus on addressing a public goal serves as a model for all of us to use our creativity, skills, and knowledge to benefit the greater good. I am so proud of Abigail, and I congratulate her.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her incredible leadership. It has been wonderful working with her not just here in this body and in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which I am proud to co-chair, but for years we have known each other and worked together. It is wonderful to have her here to talk about this issue and her leadership on this issue, really the kind of leadership that America needs to show by passing the NO BAN Act. Three years ago, I had just been elected to Congress, and it was within my first weeks here that Donald Trump issued his first Muslim ban. When that happened, I thought back to after 9/11--that is actually when I started becoming very involved in politics as an activist. We faced some similar situations of Muslims, Arab Americans, and others being targeted simply for their religion, their ethnicity, their place of origin. The good news is that I knew what to do, which is that I immediately rushed to the airport. That Muslim ban created irreparable harm on Muslim families, here at home, but also around the world. We had generals in our military testify that we desperately need to have our allies and that some of those allies are, in fact, Muslims who help us in other countries. When I heard the news and rushed to SeaTac Airport, I saw absolute chaos, chaos that was caused by an administration that put forward a Muslim ban with no preparation, no notification, no planning at all for the kind of harm, irreparable harm, that would be caused for American citizens, for lawful residents, and for international visitors. Today, families remain separated from their loved ones, American businesses, and research institutions. I have many of those research institutions in my district and many American businesses in my district that are not able to recruit the best minds from abroad. Our Nation's doors are closed to people seeking safety from violence, war, and persecution. But it wasn't just then. The chaos has not stopped. Earlier this month, up to 200 Iranian Americans--almost all the ones that we know of are U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, green- card holders--were unjustly detained at the U.S.-Canada border in my own State of Washington. In the days after the Muslim ban, I had introduced the Access to Counsel Act, an act that once again was so important as we watched these detentions of Iranian Americans, who, by the way, travel across the border regularly. In fact, some of them travel across the border so much that they have expedited processing. What that means is that you go through additional security screening so that you can get a card that you hold up at the northern border as you cross the border. You don't need anything else other than that expedited screening, that extra security screening in order to cross the border. But that day, we believe over 200 Iranian Americans were stopped at the border, U.S. citizens, legal green-card holders, simply because they were of Iranian descent. The Access to Counsel Act, which we hope to mark up and bring to the floor at the same time as the NO BAN Act, just says that if you were here as a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident, or have any legal status and you are put through this unjust secondary screening, that at least you can have access to counsel, not counsel paid for by the government, but just counsel provided either through your own pocket or through nonprofits that provide that service, because people are being deported in an expedited manner. In fact, that is what happened in Seattle 3 years ago when I rushed to the airport when the Muslim ban was first introduced. We actually were able to, at the airport, get a temporary injunction from a judge that allowed us to essentially go and stop a plane on the tarmac that was ready to take off with some people who should not have been deported. We were able to stop that plane from taking off, thanks to the courts and the incredible speed of attorneys and nonprofit organizations that came together and filed for a temporary injunction. That allowed us to stop the plane and to stop people from actually being deported. It is not right that we are seeing U.S. citizens detained by CBP for up to 9 hours without a chance to speak to a lawyer simply because they weren't born here, even though they are United States citizens. It is not right that students with visas have increasingly been rejected at our airports and deported without a chance to speak to a lawyer, when people have legal status in the United States. It is not right that they are subjected to a second loyalty test simply because of their religion or their place of birth or their ethnicity. Madam Speaker, I am one of only 14 immigrants in the United States Congress, out of 535 naturalized citizens, who have the great honor and privilege of being a United States citizen. I don't want us to think that we have separate loyalty tests that we have to go through. We have examples of that--the Japanese internment, 123,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry who were put into internment camps simply for being Japanese American. The reality is we need the NO BAN Act to repeal President Trump's Muslim ban and stop any future President from implementing future discriminatory bans. I am very grateful to my colleague, Congresswoman Judy Chu, chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, for introducing and championing this critical bill to send an important message to our Muslim brothers and sisters here and abroad that America believes in religious liberty and that we remain committed to welcoming people regardless of their faith, regardless of the country in which they were born. In recent weeks, we have heard that an expanded Muslim ban may be coming from the Trump administration this week. Let me be very clear: Each iteration of these bans sends a terrible message to Muslims, to those who are targeted, that our foundational value of freedom of religion does not apply to them. An expanded Muslim ban will only worsen our relationships with countries around the world, and it will not make our country safer. It will harm refugees. It will isolate us from our allies. It will give extremists propaganda for recruitment. It will be a different Muslim ban pushed by the same xenophobic administration, and it will have the same negative ramifications as past versions of the Muslim ban. Madam Speaker, I just had the opportunity to come back from a codel to Sudan with a number of our Members, Republican and Democrat. This is a country that is transitioning from a 30-year dictatorship to a democracy, a civilian-led government. That was powered by a people's revolution in the streets that inspired us here in the United States and around the world, people who sat and peacefully protested a brutal dictatorship. Over 200 people were shot and killed in those peaceful protests on June 3. Madam Speaker, Sudan has been supposedly added to this next round of countries that may be added to the Muslim ban. The people of Sudan said to us, Republican and Democratic Representatives of the United States Government: ``Doesn't America believe in democracy, in transition?'' Why would Sudan, with a people's revolution that led to a democratic government through the overthrow of a dictator who has been in power for the last 30 years, why would Sudan be on a list of countries that have these restrictions and be part of this ban? That sends the totally wrong message. As the vice chair of the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, I will do everything in my power to resist the Muslim ban and demand liberty and justice for all, without any caveats. We must pass the NO BAN Act to end not just the Muslim ban but other anti-immigrant policies pushed by this administration. Most importantly, we must pass the NO BAN Act to remind ourselves again of who we are as a country, a country that has welcomed people from all over the world, including myself. I came here as a 16-year-old with nothing in my pockets, by myself, and to now be standing here in the United States Congress, my responsibility--our responsibility as a body is to preserve those foundational values of freedom and justice and religious tolerance. Madam Speaker, I look forward to passing the NO BAN Act. I thank Representative Tlaib for her friendship, for her leadership, and for all that she does to advance justice. On behalf of the Progressive Caucus, 100-members strong, we are so glad to have her in it.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for her fierce leadership on this. I rise in strong support of this resolution to block Betsy DeVos' callous attempt to rewrite the borrower defense repayment rule. That original rule protected student borrowers who have been cheated by predatory, for-profit colleges. This rule change would make it nearly impossible for defrauded students to have their loans forgiven, and it strips away justice for 240,000 borrowers whose claims the Trump administration has refused to process. That includes my own constituents, whom I had a roundtable with, and they have filed claims after their school, the for-profit Art Institute of Seattle, abruptly closed last year. Some of those students have rightly applied for loan forgiveness through the borrower defense to repayment process because they are ineligible for closed school discharge, and now they face extreme barriers to the relief that they deserve because Secretary DeVos has put profits before the students she took an oath to serve. One of those students said: I am left with no degree, extra thousands of dollars in private loans that they pressured me to get. I feel tricked, guilted, and screwed. Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution that will defend students, and I call on the House to also pass the College Affordability Act, which will crack down on predatory for-profit colleges in a comprehensive manner. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution that reasserts congressional authority over going to war. We know this: War is devastating for our troops, for their families, for families and children everywhere, for not just this generation but future generations to come, for our humanity. That is why our Framers gave this body the opportunity, the responsibility to have that discussion and declare war should it be needed. In 2002, we rushed to war based on made-up claims of weapons of mass destruction, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars took hundreds of thousands of lives, created millions of refugees, and cost us trillions of dollars. Today, the President, without providing any raw intelligence to prove an imminent threat, has brought us to the brink of war with Iran. This resolution makes it clear that Congress has not authorized this war. We also must repeal the 2002 AUMF and vote to withhold funds for this unauthorized war. It is time to reassert our authority.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, this is a day of accountability and defending our democracy. The facts in front of us are clear: this President, Donald J. Trump, coerced a fragile foreign ally to investigate his political opponent and interfere in our elections. He leveraged critically needed, congressionally-approved military aid to Ukraine. The President's allies want to claim that he did this because he cared about corruption, but if President Trump truly cared about corruption, then he would have listened to the talking points that were prepared by the National Security Council on anticorruption. He did not. In fact, on those two calls with President Zelensky, he never mentioned the word ``corruption.'' He did not abide by the Department of Defense's own recommendation that Ukraine had passed all the anticorruption benchmarks, and he didn't listen to the unanimous conclusion of all of his top advisers that he must release that aid to Ukraine. He did release the aid in 2017 and 2018, but not in 2019. Why? Because in 2019, Vice President Joe Biden was running for President. This is not hearsay. We have a responsibility. The President told us himself on national television exactly what he wanted from the phone call with President Zelensky. He came onto the White House lawn and he said: I wanted President Zelensky to open an investigation into the Bidens. He solicited foreign interference before, he is doing it now, and he will do it again. The President is the smoking gun. Our Founders, Mr. Speaker, entrusted us with the awesome responsibility of protecting our democracy, which gets its power not from the bloodlines of monarchs, but from the votes of We the People. Without that, we are no longer a democracy, we are a monarchy or a dictatorship. So today, to uphold my oath to Constitution and country, I will vote to impeach Donald J. Trump.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I am so proud today to stand here to support H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. And I want to congratulate my incredible colleague Congresswoman Sewell for her leadership. When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was a recognition that systemic discrimination based on race continued to deny people the right to vote. And as an organizer, I understand the Voting Rights Act as a victory that was hard fought by Black activists like Fannie Lou Hamer and Ella Baker and, of course, our esteemed colleague Representative Lewis, who devoted their lives to fighting for the right to vote. And it was a victory of the movement that recognized that this right to vote is absolutely fundamental to our concept and our actualization of democracy. Unfortunately, we have not followed with the same courage. Instead, since 2013, States have enacted laws that have suppressed voting rights across the country, and today, half of the country faces stricter voting regulations than they did 9 years ago. If we want a true democracy, Mr. Speaker, we must protect the right to vote for all, and this bill is critical to doing that.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of longtime Seattle resident Ginny NiCarthy. Ginny was a wonderful friend, author, activist, and advocate. She was humble, brilliant, and deeply compassionate, and she changed the lives of tens of thousands of people across the world through her writing and her activism. She passed away at the age of 92 last month, choosing to die gracefully on her own terms before dementia could take over her life and her mind. Ginny was born in 1927 in San Francisco. She was the youngest of five. Her father once served as the mayor of Redwood City, California. Her mother worked as a switchboard operator. Passionate about social justice as a young woman, Ginny moved to Seattle in her 20s and became involved in her new city's artistic and political scene. She first pursued a teaching certificate in the 1960s, going on to teach middle school in Seattle's Central District. Informed by her experience working as a caseworker at a mental hospital, she decided to pursue a master's degree in social work at the University of Washington and became a practicing therapist. Born with the last name McCarthy, she changed her surname to NiCarthy in the 1970s to use an Irish prefix that means ``daughter of,'' rather than ``Mc,'' which means ``son of.'' This was emblematic of her deeply- rooted feminism and her drive to challenge the status quo in every aspect of her life. In 1972, Ginny cofounded Seattle Rape Relief, which at the time was the only rape crisis center in the country. The volunteer-run organization managed a 24-hour hotline for sexual assault victims. A decade later, she published her groundbreaking book, ``Getting Free: A Handbook for Women in Abusive Relationships.'' Her book, based on the premise that women's voices needed to be heard and believed, became a bible for domestic violence survivors. Translated into multiple languages, her book had and continues to have a global impact. She went on to publish several more books on abuse at home and in the workplace, as well as many articles addressing issues of disability, race, sexuality, youth, and aging. She volunteered on behalf of countless groups advocating for women's rights, criminal justice reform, and antiwar efforts. We first met when I approached her to join the board of Chaya, an organization that supports South Asian survivors of domestic violence that I, too, was on the board of. Much later, Ginny gave me some of her writings that turned into a book of her travels around the world for peace and justice. I was amazed at her curiosity, her love of life, even with all the traumas that she, herself, had been through. I was struck by the way that she listened to others and absolutely refused to stop living life to her fullest. She was fearless in questioning what she saw as unjust, and her commitment to racial equity was striking. She was arrested multiple times for peaceful, civil disobedience actions, even at the age of 86, for speaking out for more fair and just immigration policies. Ginny always found meaning in politics and social justice activism, and her legacy lives on strong--in her books, her friendships, the tremendous work she did her entire life on behalf of survivors of violence, and her quest for justice for all. Ginny saw the intersectionality of gender, race, and class very clearly. She was right there on every major issue that we fought for, whether that was a $15 minimum wage, rights for immigrants, mass incarceration of Black and Brown people, sexual assault, and LGBTQ rights. It is fitting that The New York Times devoted a substantial part of one of their pages of obituaries to Ginny and her national impact. I would like to commemorate Ginny's lifetime of achievements, her decades of service to our community, and her never-ending dedication to the fight for justice. My heart is with her loving family and friends. Mr. Speaker, may Ginny rest in peace. May Ginny rest in power. She will long be remembered and missed by all of us.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2134) to reauthorize the Helen Keller National Center for Youths and Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind, as amended.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2134.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am excited that the House of Representatives is considering this bill, the Helen Keller National Center Reauthorization Act, a bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. This bill will reauthorize funding for the center through 2023. Congress established the Helen Keller National Center in 1967 to provide nationwide services for people who are deaf-blind. Headquartered in New York with regional offices across the country, the center is the only organization of its kind that provides training and resources exclusively to people 16 and over who have both vision and hearing loss. Unfortunately, deaf-blind people face unique and diverse challenges. Many youth who are deaf-blind have not been provided with the type or quality of education that generally yields successful outcomes in employment, independent living, and community involvement. In fact, deaf-blind youth have some of the lowest levels of access to special education services. I am so proud of some of the work that we are doing in my home State of Washington to advance justice for deaf-blind people. Washington State Deaf-Blind Citizens is doing incredible work to organize community events, to provide support for everyday tasks like reading the mail and doing errands, and to advocate with lawmakers on the unique needs of the deaf-blind community. We also have the Deaf-Blind Service Center of Seattle, which focuses on breaking down communication barriers by providing interpretation and advocacy services for free to deaf-blind individuals. I think we can all agree that every deaf-blind person deserves equal access to services that promote their successes, independence, and full participation in their communities. That is exactly what the Helen Keller National Center provides to this underserved population. Thanks to the center, deaf-blind people in every congressional district can connect with support systems to grow productively and find meaning in their lives. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to enthusiastically support this bill to extend congressional authorization for the Helen Keller National Center. I urge my colleagues to support it as well, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), who is the sponsor of this bill, H.R. 2134, a member of the Appropriations Committee, and my co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He is a real champion for communities across the country.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi), who is my good friend.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this is commonsense, bipartisan legislation to help deaf-blind students across the country. I am so proud that the House is considering this legislation today. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, this is a big day. Today we pass the first minimum wage increase for workers in decades. And, yes, I am proud to represent Seattle, a leader in the Fight for $15, where I served on the committee that actually drafted the legislation that passed, ultimately. It has been 4 years since Seattle raised the wage, and I want to tell my colleagues across the aisle what the effect of that increase has been. Seattle is flourishing. Today we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, and jobs are growing steadily. Last year, Forbes ranked Seattle the number one best place for business and careers in 2018, and despite the doom and gloom predictions from the National Restaurant Association when we passed the bill, what we have seen is what The Seattle Times called ``a crazy restaurant boom''--that is a quote--with new jobs created every year. The most recent and credible research shows that wages for Seattle's low-wage workers went up without any negative impact on employment, and local food prices remained constant so that families could better afford to buy healthy food. When we increased the minimum wage in Seattle, Mr. Speaker, we got strong businesses, healthy families, and flourishing communities. All American workers deserve the same thing. Let's raise the wage today. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a second letter from the National Employment Law Project in support of this legislation. July 16, 2019. The undersigned organizations enthusiastically support the Raise the Wage Act of 2019, introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders (VT) and Patty Murray (WA), Representatives Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (VA), Mark Paean (WI) and Stephanie Murphy (FL). If enacted, this legislation would: Gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2025; After 2025, adjust the minimum wage each year to keep pace with growth in the typical worker's wages; Phase out the outdated subminimum wage for tipped workers, which has been frozen at a meager $2.13 since 1991; and, Sunset the much criticized ability of employers to pay workers with disabilities a subminimum wage through certificates issued by DOL. Phase out the subminimum wage for workers under the age of 20. At a time when wage stagnation and income inequality pose serious threats to our families and our economy, the Raise the Wage Act of 2019 will begin to reverse that cycle and raise pay broadly across the bottom of the workforce. According to the Economic Policy Institute, this Act will deliver long-overdue raises to more than 1 in 4 workers, 90% of whom are over the age of 20. The average age of workers who would get a raise is 35, nearly half have some years of college education. In fact, those who work year-round would see a raise in the order of $3,000 a year, which is enough to make a tremendous difference in the life of a preschool teacher, bank teller, or fast-food worker who today struggles to get by on around $20,000 per year. 28 percent are working parents with children, and half have family incomes of less than $40,000 per year. Women make up nearly 58 percent of the workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage, which would be instrumental in helping to close the gender-wage-gap. Raising the minimum wage to $15 would also significantly benefit workers of color, with 38 percent of African American workers and 33 percent of Latinos seeing a pay increase once this law goes into effect. These are the frontline workers who make America run-yet due to the erosion of the real value of the minimum wage over the last half century, they are struggling even as our economy enjoys a solid recovery. The time for the Raise the Wage Act is long overdue, and we cannot delay in working toward its passage. We call on Congress to enact this important piece of legislation as quickly as possible, and for President Trump to sign it when it comes to his desk. Sincerely, Jackson State University; Jewish Women International; Jobs with Justice; Just Harvest: A Center for Action Against Hunger; Justice and Advocacy Committee of the Lehigh Conference of Churches; Justice for Migrant Women; Kalamazoo Loaves & Fishes; Kansas Association of Community Action Programs; Kentucky Equal Justice Center; Kentucky State AFL- CIO; Keystone Progress; Keystone Research Center; Kings Local Food Pantry; Korean Resource Center; KWH Law Center for Social Justice and Change. La Frontera Ministries; La Plata County Thrive! Living Wage Coalition; Labor Education Program, School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois; Lamoille Family Center; Law Foundation of Silicon Valley; Law Students in Court; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Leadership Team, Sisters of the Presentations; Legal Aid at Work; Legal Aid Service of Broward County; Legal Momentum: The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund; Legal Voice; Let Justice Roll: Living Wage Campaign. Lincoln Hills Development Corporation; LiveWell Colorado; Long Beach Gray Panthers; Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy; Louisiana Budget Project; Louisiana Progress Action; Main Street Alliance; Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence; Maine Women's Lobby; Mainers for Accountable Leadership; Make the Road PA; Maryland Center on Economic Policy; Maryland Hunger Solutions; Maryland National Organization for Women; Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. Maternal and Child Health Access; MCCC/MTA; Men of All Colors Together (MACT)/Phila.; Mercyhaven Inc.; Methodist Federation for Social Action; Metro-Detroit Chapter of the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW); Metropolitan Community Church of Washington, D.C.; Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association; Michigan League for Public Policy; Michigan's Children; Middlesex Coalition for Children; Milwaukee Area Service & Hospitality Workers Organization; Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless; Mississippi Families for Kids; Mississippi Low Income Child Care Initiative. Missouri CLUW Chapter; MomsRising; Mountain State Justice;

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is this. My colleague across the aisle just referred to Members of Congress as ``anti-American.'' I believe that those words are defamatory, and I would like to ask whether that is appropriate for a request for the gentleman to take down his words.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, so a Member can say that other Members of Congress are anti-American and no resolution for that? We would like to ask the gentleman to take down his words.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am asking that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I was trying to get the attention. Mr. Speaker, I will relinquish the point, but I just want to remind my colleagues that that is completely inappropriate to tell any of us that we are anti-American.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I am appalled at the statements coming from the White House telling people who dissent that somehow you should go back to your country if you criticize the United States. Well, let me remind you that dissent is patriotic and, in fact, a core value to our democracy, enshrined in our Constitution. And, yes, I am a proud naturalized citizen born in India, a proud patriot, a proud person who belongs in this country. And it is not the first time I have heard, ``go back to your own country,'' but it is the first time I have heard it coming from the White House. And, frankly, Madam Speaker, I am appalled that, on this floor, my Republican colleagues would call any of us anti-American. That is why this vote is so important, because we have to let the rest of the country know that the House of Representatives will stand up for the Constitution, represent and defend every single person in the country, regardless of the color of their skin or the country of their birth. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues have been talking about patriotism, about love of country. One of them said ``love it or leave it.'' But what is love if not to make what we love better through our critique, our work, and our service. That is what real Americans do. We do not stifle dissent. We do not otherize or sow hatred, and we certainly never say ``go back to your country'' to a brown or a Black person, because that is a racist trope. I hope that every single Member of this Chamber, Republican and Democrat, will join me in rejecting the President's message and vote in support of this resolution. Madam Speaker, that is the American thing to do.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to start by recognizing the work of our chairman, Mr. Schiff, on this bill. Madam Chair, my amendment would require Congress to provide much- needed oversight to the intelligence community's use of face recognition technology. The amendment does three things. First, it requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to the Intelligence Committees in both the House and the Senate on the use of this new technology. This is a critical step in ensuring that there is a deeper understanding of the technology here in Congress and also, appropriate transparency. Second, the amendment expresses the sense of Congress that using this technology to suppress dissent, or to target people based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion is contrary to our Nation's values. And finally, it makes clear that Congress believes that the government should not sell or transfer face recognition technology to any country that is using this technology to suppress human rights. I offered this amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act because I am concerned that face recognition poses grave privacy concerns. As a Nation committed to democratic norms, including constitutionally-enshrined rights to freedom of speech and privacy, it is critical that we ensure that our national security activities do not come at the expense of our individual liberties and our right to privacy. And thus, it is critical that this body know exactly how this technology is being used. In addition to the civil liberties concerns of those in our country, the technology does disproportionately impact people of color. The technology, unfortunately, misidentifies people of color and women at higher rates than Whites and men, which undermines its usefulness to the intelligence community, and makes it potentially problematic for large-scale use. Finally, my amendment makes clear that the United States should not be providing this technology to countries who are using it to perpetuate human rights abuses. We should not be selling or transferring the technologies to countries like China, who are actively using this technology to suppress dissent and target minorities, like the Uighurs, a Muslim minority group. Although this sense of Congress lays down an important marker, we do need to continue to work to ensure that there are proper controls on the sale and the transfer of this technology, and I look forward to doing that with my colleagues. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the chairman of the committee.