Ro Khanna

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. 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. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. 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.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. 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. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. 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. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. 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. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. 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. KHANNA

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

Mr. KHANNA. 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. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. 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.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express a simple principle: People who are working to bag groceries should not have to rely on government assistance, on nutrition assistance, to be able to buy groceries. Yet, across this country, there are thousands of workers who go and put in a full day's work yet can't afford the basic necessities of food and clothing. And it is the taxpayers, all of us, that bear the responsibility for the underpayment by large corporations. A Berkeley study has said that this underpayment by large corporations, low wages, is costing the American taxpayers $153 billion a year. I am proud to introduce the Corporate Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act with nine other colleagues that would require companies to be responsible for the underpayment of their employees. The idea is simple: If people are putting in a hard day's work and a full week's work, they deserve wages that will allow them to be part of the middle class. Too often, what happens is corporations, even if they are paying a $15 minimum wage, will adjust an employee's hours so that they don't get more take-home pay for the month. What this bill will do is say that a corporation that isn't paying a fair wage, where employees are relying on government assistance, the corporation is responsible for that government assistance. It is not the taxpayers who should be paying for that; it is the corporations who should be held responsible for the underpayment of wages. My hope is that none of the corporations will have to pay this tax. That they will do the right thing by working families in the middle class. That they will recognize that, in a time of record corporate profits, they can afford to pay a decent wage. I am hopeful that this bill will receive bipartisan support, because it is the very premise of this country that if you work hard, if you play by the rules, you should be able to be part of the middle class.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Thank you, Congressman Raskin, and thank you for your leadership with the Progressive Caucus and in articulating a positive vision of what the American people need with a budget. I want to address the issue of manufacturing because this President went around the country campaigning on bringing manufacturing jobs back. And there is a simple philosophical difference in what the Progressive Caucus believes and the President's budget. If you believe, as the Republicans do, that we need to cut taxes and have less spending, you would be for this President's budget. But if you believe, as we do, that the big issue facing this country is good-paying jobs and higher wages, you would be for the progressive budget. Let me give you a concrete example. One of the programs that the President cuts in the name of less government and lower taxes is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Now, what does this do? What does the Manufacturing Extension Partnership do? It actually works with small- and medium-sized manufacturers across this country, many in the Rust Belt, to help them be competitive, to help them compete against currency manipulation, against unfair trade deals, to help them compete against lower cost labor. How does the program do this? It partners them with leading technology companies to say, look, if you are a small- or medium-sized manufacturer, maybe you should have cloud technology. Move your technology off the factory floor and use the cloud to be more cost- competitive so that you can compete. Basically, the program helps to bring and keep manufacturing jobs in the United States. Now, here is the irony. You would think, oh, is this a liberal idea? Is this the idea of Democrat, or a liberal Democrat? The irony is this was Ronald Reagan's idea. It was actually a program instituted by President Reagan in 1988 to help American manufacturers compete for the 21st century, and every administration has supported it. One would think this President who ran on bringing manufacturing jobs would say, okay, let's quadruple funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Instead, he zeroed it out, zeroed out the funding for manufacturing programs. The progressive budget says we want to increase our investment in manufacturing. We want to actually help the small- and medium-sized manufacturers create jobs in the United States. I have one more concrete example before I hand it back over to my colleague, Mr. Raskin. The Appalachian Regional Commission invests in helping to create jobs across the parts of this country that most need that investment. I was down in Appalachia visiting Hal Rogers' district, a distinguished Republican who chaired the Appropriations Committee, and we saw the Appalachian Regional Commission's investment in helping coal miners' kids get jobs. This Republican budget, this administration zeros out the funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. Instead, we ought to be increasing funding in programs that are going to help transition folks from the industrial to the digital economy. I think my colleague, Congressman Raskin, will explain that the Progressive budget is not just a moral document. It very much is, and it keeps our commitment to seniors and to those in need, but it is also a blueprint for job creation and good wages and for creating jobs in precisely the places that need them most. This is the big division in this Congress. Do you believe that the big issue is that we need more tax cuts for the investor class, that we need simply to cut government, or do you believe we need government to partner with local leaders, with businesses, to create jobs and better wages? If you believe the latter, I urge you to take a look at the Progressive budget and see our vision for job creation and higher wages.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her vision in making sure Congress votes on matters of war and peace. When we were attacked, after 9/11, I, like many Americans, supported strikes on the people who attacked us. But no one in this country would have thought that a resolution would be used for perpetual war. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) had the courage back then and the foresight to stand up with courage and stand up against a resolution that has provided a blank check for the last 16 years. I do believe that that is the type of political courage that one day will be remembered in history, and I applaud the gentlewoman for that. We have seen that, since 2001, the terrorists, which were contained on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, have spread. They have spread to the Middle East. They have spread to Africa. And it is about time that we ask: What have all these interventions gotten us? And this is not a partisan issue, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has mentioned and as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) just articulated. It goes back to our founding principles of John Quincy Adams, an early President who said: ``We ought not to go overseas to slay monsters.'' And he said the reason we shouldn't do that is we should give people who seek freedom our voice and our prayers; but if we go out to destroy monsters, we actually will be seen not as a liberating force, but as a dictatorial force because we often won't know who the truly freedom- seeking people are. I wish every Member of Congress, every Senator would read John Quincy Adams' insight so that we had more restraint. Consider the issue of Afghanistan, where 40 percent of the country is not under our control. And here is the thing: I know this region. I was born here. But being of South Asian origin, on the Pakistan-India border, where there are 3,000 terrorists, there are 150,000 troops to take care of that. Does anyone think sending 10,000 troops again and again has accomplished anything? It has not. All it is doing is further antagonizing people and putting our troops at risk. Then when we called for regime change in 2011 with Syria and Assad, we made Syria a magnet for terrorist groups. Now in Yemen, where we are aiding the Saudi Arabian Government, which is aligned, ironically, with al-Qaida, and al-Qaida, which has claimed responsibility for the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber in this country, we are aiding and intervening in a place where we are actually supporting groups that are harming us. All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is saying is we ought to debate these issues, that the American people ought to know what these interventions are getting us; why they are not making us more safe and why we are not having a thoughtful policy. Madam Speaker, I applaud the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lee) vision and I applaud her leadership. I know that history will vindicate her.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise out of a concern of this administration's policies to North Korea. I urge the administration to look at recent history. From 1994 to 2002, North Korea was not developing plutonium and there was no threat of medium- or long-range ballistic missiles. That was under President Clinton's leadership because President Clinton had come up with a deal to buy the medium- and long-range missiles from North Korea. Then what happened? President Bush came and disregarded both deals and put North Korea under the axis of evil, even though they had no relationship to 9/11. It was a mistake of foreign policy. We know the solution to North Korea. We know they have an army of 200,000. They have 15,000 places of nuclear weapons. There is not a militaristic solution. The solution is to go back to the direct diplomacy that President Clinton had and to have South Korea engage in that diplomatic solution. There is an answer to North Korea. We cannot play games with this issue when President Clinton showed the framework.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern with the recent FCC decision that strips Charter Communications of the requirement to provide broadband in a competitive manner. When Charter merged with Time Warner, there was a regulatory review, and the requirement was that Charter would actually provide broadband in areas that would improve competition. Just yesterday, the Chairman revoked that regulatory decision and said that Charter doesn't have to provide broadband in an area where some other competitor is providing broadband. Now, why does this matter? Americans already pay three to four times more for access to the internet than our European counterparts, and that is absurd. We invented the internet. We built the technology that fuels the internet. We should have the cheapest prices. So why don't we have cheaper prices? It is because four or five monopolies basically provide the internet service for everyone. You have Verizon, AT&T, Comcast. What is the solution? We need more competition. But what is this FCC Chairman doing? He is having policies that are going to lead to less competition, basically carving up the map of this country and saying: You can only provide service here. Don't compete with anyone else. Let's just carve up the map so every ISP provides service in a particular area and you don't have competition. And who suffers? The consumers. And, by the way, it is not just the consumers in my district in Silicon Valley. It is consumers in rural America who are paying the highest prices for internet service. Mr. Speaker, we need an FCC that is going to promote competition, that is going to go after monopolies, that is going to put American citizens ahead of corporate profits. If anything, we need a country that is going to have universal broadband, universal internet access. Just like we talk about having a universal right to health care, just like we talk about a universal right to college, we can't live in a society where everyone can't have access to the internet. The jobs of the future are going to require it, and it ought to be a bipartisan issue to have universal access to the internet at the cheapest prices, cheaper than any other country, not five or six times more expensive than other countries, given that all of the technology was developed here in the United States. And one final point. Noah Smith and Heather Boushey and others have talked about what really will create the jobs of the future, and they have written about having universities and colleges spread out across this country. Abraham Lincoln did it with the land grants in the 1860s. We need college towns across America, and if we did that, if we expanded our universities, if we expanded research, if we expanded broadband in a competitive place, we could create the jobs of the future all across this great country.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Polis for yielding and for your leadership on this issue. This resolution would overturn rules that protect a consumer's privacy, and they would be a handout to internet service providers: Comcast, Verizon, AT&T. Now, as it is, the average American, 80 percent of Americans, don't have a choice about which internet service provider they can use, and they pay six to seven times more than people pay in France, than people pay in Britain. And people wonder: Why is this? Obviously, the United States did all of the research that invented the internet. Why are Americans paying more? It is because they have monopolistic, anticompetitive practices. So what is the solution? Instead of making the industry more competitive so Americans have more choice and don't have to pay as much, what this bill wants to do is give these four or five internet service providers even more power, allowing them to take an individual's data and sell it to whoever they want. The fear of Big Brother is so real out there, as it is, people fear that the bureaucracy and big companies are controlling their lives. This bill would allow that to continue and get worse. What we need is more anticompetitive legislation. What we need is a stronger internet bill of rights that applies to ISPs and other internet service companies not a rollback of the regulations that currently exist.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for yielding me the time. When the President campaigned, he said he wanted more benefits, more coverage, and lower premiums. Since he got to the White House, he said, well, health care is complicated; and they have tried to create a bill with the Republicans cobbling every special interest group and every faction. But the President knows it doesn't have to be complicated. He knows the solution. In 2000, he wrote that the Canadian plan, single-payer plan, helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans. There are fewer medical lawsuits, less loss of labor to sickness, and lower cost to companies paying for medical care for their employees. He wrote further that, ``We, as a Nation, need to reexamine the single-payer plan;'' and he advocated for a single-payer plan. Mr. President, what has changed? You know what the solution is. If you are serious about health care, work with people like Senator Sanders, Congressman Welch, and others, and offer a real solution to the American people.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Gallagher for his bipartisan leadership on the term limits initiative, and my friend General Bergman for his leadership on this issue. I don't think term limits are a partisan issue. The Economist had an article that the turnover rate in the people's House is less than European monarchies. European nobility turnover is at a faster rate. Incumbency reelection is 96 percent. When folks say, ``Why can't you just vote people out of office,'' it is not looking at the actual statistics. Ninety-six percent of folks here are reelected, and that is not what our Founders intended. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton agreed: ``The security intended to the general liberty consists in the frequent election and in the rotation of the Members of Congress.'' They envisioned a place where people would come, serve, and go back home to their communities. Thomas Jefferson said that people ought to live, lawmakers ought to live under the laws that they pass. The only way we get back to our founding ideals is if we pass some version of term limits so that people do their public service, and then return to the communities where they reside. This bill on term limits is really a move against political dynasty, and that is one thing that this election showed us people really were not for. They don't like the idea of a few families, or people connected, holding the reins of power. Let me end with someone who I think summed this up so eloquently, which is Barbara Bush, our former First Lady. She said: ``If we can't find more than two or three families to run for high office, that's silly, because there are great governors and great eligible people to run. And I think that the Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes, there are just more families than that.'' This is from Barbara Bush, who understood the essence of democracy is to have new voices, new families, new ideas. That is why I hope that people across the aisle will support the initiative for term limits.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, due to a scheduling miscommunication, I missed Roll Call vote 136 in the House yesterday afternoon of Wednesday, March 8th. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call No. 136, H.R. 1301, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2017.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding time. The issue before us is far more basic than one's view on the Affordable Care Act. I recognize that there is a philosophical difference about the Affordable Care Act: on our side of the aisle, we think it is good legislation; on the opposite side of the aisle, they have concerns. But the issue is whether the American people, whether taxpayers, ought to know the cost of the repeal legislation, whether they have the right to know how much a legislation introduced in this House costs. Now, here is the irony: the Speaker of the House, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, made his entire career demanding that we know numbers behind legislation. That was his mantra in his time of service in the House. You talk to Doug Elmendorf, who was the former Congressional Budget Office Director, and he said that the one thing he respected about the Speaker is that he would actually insist on the numbers, that he would want to know how much we are adding to a $20 trillion deficit. That is why it is incomprehensible to me that, in this Congress, under this Speaker, we would ever be asked to vote on legislation without knowing the financial impact of that legislation. These are basic issues: How much is the repeal legislation going to add to our deficit? How much is it going to finance tax cuts for the wealthy? How many people will it leave out of insurance or how many people would it add to insurance? There just ought to be a transparent discussion. Now, it is not just Democrats who want this transparent discussion; actually, a Republican, the gentleman from Ohio, a founder of the Freedom Caucus, has expressed similar concerns. He has expressed concerns that this repeal legislation will balloon the deficit and explode the deficit, and he wants to know the numbers. We can have as much respectful disagreement about how to cover people and whether the Affordable Care Act is a good piece of legislation or not, but what we should not be debating is the public's right to transparency. That is why I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so that we can hold an immediate vote on requiring the Congressional Budget Office to score the repeal legislation and provide the American people with the basic financial costs of the legislation.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the freshman initiative on civility. I thank Congressman Johnson for his leadership. I want to echo the remarks of Congressman Suozzi and Congresswoman Blunt Rochester about getting things done. We have disagreements on many issues. I don't think I voted with the Republicans on almost any issue since I have been in this body. On economic issues, I come from a perspective of economic populism and a very different perspective than Members on the other side. But we also have areas of common agreement. Congressman Gallagher and Congressman Arrington have talked about term limits, and that is an area of potential agreement. Congressman Rooney has talked about getting PAC money out of politics. Congressman Will Hurd has talked about cybersecurity and tech jobs. So my view is that, in areas where we disagree, we should disagree with spirit and conviction, but that doesn't mean that there won't be areas where we can agree. And on a personal note, Congressman Fitzpatrick represents the district where I was born and where my parents are, so I have to be civil, certainly, to him and the other side.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Garamendi for his leadership in the State of California and the country. I rise today to voice my strong objection and disapproval for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to roll back a program that would provide internet access to low-income Americans. I was shocked that this was one of the first decisions that the FCC Chairman made. What he has done is provide few subsidies for low-income Americans who need internet access. Now, we know that 45 percent of Americans under 30,000 currently don't have internet access. Providing these folks with internet access is giving their kids a basic shot at digital proficiency and having a job in technology or a chance at the American Dream. Chairman Ajit Pai has become a poster child with this decision for everything that is wrong with Washington. It is what people complain about. He is writing the rules of modern-day capitalism in a way that privileges these elite telecom companies with concentrated economic power at the expense of low-income Americans. This Congress must stand united to make sure that an unelected bureaucrat doesn't get to write the rules of our economy in favor of wealthy interests at the expense of ordinary Americans. Mr. Speaker, I will be circulating a letter to our colleagues that I hope we can send to Chairman Pai, and, hopefully, he will reconsider this decision that is really not in the interest of ordinary Americans.

Mr. KHANNA. I have. I appreciate the Congressman's leadership on this. Net neutrality, as the gentleman knows, is a very simple idea. That means that everyone should have equal access to the internet; that you shouldn't get to pay for faster service or you shouldn't get to pay to have more of your message out. You would think that if anyone would appreciate the importance of it, it is the President, who uses the tool of the internet with Twitter and Facebook.

Mr. KHANNA. You would think we would want a democracy where every citizen has equal access to these tools. Well, who doesn't want that? Some of these big companies that have concentrated economic power and have an interest in making money and not for speech. This Chairman has shown a consistent pattern already, in a few weeks, of basically siding with these large telecommunication companies at the expense of ordinary citizens. It may sound like a technical issue. Some folks glaze over when you say net neutrality or you talk about the technical issues of the lifeline program, but I think what they have got to know is you have an FCC Chairman who is siding with wealth interests in telecom companies over what would benefit ordinary people.

Mr. KHANNA. I thank Congressman Garamendi for his leadership and showing what is really happening with the scale-back of all these regulations.

Mr. KHANNA. If I can make one more comment. Everyone says they are not for regulation. That is easy. Every time I get on an airplane, I am very thankful that we have some regulations. Regulations can't just be eliminated with a hatchet, like this administration is doing.