Ro Khanna

Mr. KHANNA

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

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and I want to just state our opposition to the balanced budget amendment. It is worth reviewing the history on this topic. When President Bill Clinton left office, he left this country with surpluses. He had reversed the policy of Reagan economics, which had some of the largest structural deficits in the 1980s and during the first President Bush's term. And then we went from record surpluses back to deficits. And what was the reason for those deficits? There were two very simple reasons. One, we made a strategic mistake in Iraq and spent trillions of dollars, which even President Trump has acknowledged was a blunder, and that ballooned the deficit. And secondly, we made a decision to provide tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. Now, the Democrats supported the tax cut for the middle class, for folks making $50- to $75,000, but we said you don't need to provide tax cuts for people making $1 million, $500,000; you don't need to provide tax cuts for those who are already paying capital gains tax rates at 20 percent and don't need additional tax breaks. So those two decisions, the intervention overseas and our continued interventions overseas and these extraordinary tax breaks for the very wealthy, have led us to the deficits that we have today, have led us to the $20 trillion debt. No one wants that kind of debt. We don't want to see interest rates continue to go up and crowd out private investment. We don't want to see people's savings lose value. But the solution to that is not a gimmick of a balanced budget amendment where the Republicans have doubled down on more tax cuts for the very wealthy, where they haven't stopped our interventionism abroad. We still actually have escalation in Afghanistan, escalation in Iraq, escalation around the world, in contradiction to what this President promised on the campaign where he said that he would focus on developing our domestic economy and stop the interventionism, and we just have symbolic votes for a balanced budget amendment. The question is how? How can you vote for extraordinary tax cuts? How can you vote for more overseas interventionism? How can you vote for huge spending bills and then just say you are for a balanced budget amendment? The math just doesn't work. And so what Democrats have said is, instead of having a balanced budget amendment, instead of constraining our policy or economic policy to spend more at times of war or times of recession--which, by the way, Roosevelt did, which Woodrow Wilson did, what many of our Presidents did--that what we ought to do is have sensible government, that we ought to stop the foreign interventionism, we ought to repeal these tax breaks and giveaways to the very wealthy, and instead we ought to invest in the middle class, invest in our education, invest in our infrastructure, invest in our schools, invest in new technology that will grow the economy. That is how you reduce the structural deficits. But, by the way, this is not a theoretical debate, because Bill Clinton showed that when you have that kind of ``people's first'' economic policy, you left this country with surpluses, and the trickle-down Reaganomics has always left this country with deficits. It is not enough to just vote for balanced budget amendments while piling on debt. A far more responsible policy would be to end the foreign interventionism, to repeal these massive giveaways to the wealthy, and to invest in the middle class. That is why my colleagues and I opposed the balanced budget amendment. That is why we have offered the Congressional Progressive People's Budget that will lead to greater economic growth than anything that the President has proposed, and that will also reduce our Nation's debt. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act. I represent Silicon Valley, and I am not opposed to fintech. Let's be very clear: If there is technology that is going to make it easier for people to get access to capital, who is opposed to that? But this has nothing to do with fintech. This has to do with basic State laws. The question is not: Are we going to go to the future? The question is: Are we going to go back to ``The Merchant of Venice'' when usury laws were allowed? That really is what the issue is. What this bill does, just to be very clear, is it says: If you want to use fintech, if you want to use technology, now there is no law against being charged 380 percent interest.

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, let me take back my comment. Mr. Speaker, I understand the Second Circuit decision. The Second Circuit decision basically said that, if you are a bank and if you are a fintech company and you are in a rural part of the country--and I totally agree with the gentleman; we need more capital to rural America; we need more tech there. I admire Steve Case's work, the ``Rise of the Rest.'' But what the Second Circuit said is you can't partner with a national bank and preempt State law. So if North Carolina has a law saying you can't charge 400 percent interest, if there is a bank in New York or a bank in California that wants to charge 400 percent interest just because they have some magical fintech, they can't charge people 400 percent interest in North Carolina or Arkansas. I am all for giving more capital at affordable rates and using technology to help rural America. We have done a terrible job of that. I concede that point. But this is not the way to do that.

Mr. KHANNA. This is going to hurt ordinary folks who can't make paycheck to paycheck, and they are going to have to pay these exorbitant interest rates. Now, if the majority comes up with a bill that says we want to expand the SBA, we want to expand figuring out how to get venture capital into rural America, we want to expand the earned income tax credit so that people have more money in their pocket so that they can make a living and meet their daily expenses, I agree. If they say, look, all the capital, 85 percent of the capital is in my district in Massachusetts and New York, and we have got to get the capital into other States, I agree. But to say that just to use the word ``fintech'' and to say okay, because there is something that is going to allow the diffusion of capital, that that means that you should get rid of the State laws capping usury, that is really going back to the Victorian era. I mean, we had that debate. I was reading Shylock; that was what that was all about. They were charging four times as much, and I just don't think that that is what people want.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, thousands marched in every city across America for racial justice, gender equality, and a moral vision of America. Today, we let them down. It was not complicated what citizens wanted. They wanted a vote, a guaranteed vote in this Chamber about whether we would keep our word to the DREAMers, and we failed to deliver. Now, I have no doubt that most Democrats, Senators and congressmen, care about the DREAMers staying in this country, but citizens expect more. They want us not just to look at generic poll numbers or battleground districts. They want us to lead with our hearts because they are leading with their hearts. The question today, Mr. Speaker, is: When will the elected representatives be worthy of the courage of our citizens and the grassroots?

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, my grandfather spent 4 years in jail during Gandhi's independence movement standing for human rights. One of his crimes was expressing unpopular views in a political newspaper. Similar human rights abuses are occurring today in Vietnam. I speak out, today, for those who have been silenced. In many cases, the victims are the brother, the sister, the friend, or acquaintance of someone living in my district. Over 100 activists and religious leaders are currently imprisoned in Vietnam for expressing their opinions and beliefs. For example, social activist and blogger Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh was recently sentenced to 10 years in prison for highlighting social injustices on her blog. In California's 17th District, I am proud of organizations like The Good Will Brother-Sister Group that stand in solidarity for their oppressed friends and family in Vietnam. The Vietnamese Government must release every political prisoner, stop harassing religious groups, and have the confidence in allowing a free press. Until they do that, we must do no business deals with Vietnam and make it clear that we expect them to honor human rights.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4391, the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act, I am concerned with the United Nations (UN) reports highlighting the detention and mistreatment of Palestinian children. We should stand up for human rights in all cases, even when abuses are committed by our most trusted allies. Israel faces unique security threats and, unfortunately, some underage Palestinians do resort to violence as a means of change. This is unacceptable, and the Palestinian leadership needs to take more steps to prevent children from being manipulated into becoming terrorists. The threat of child terrorism should not be an excuse, however, to torture those accused of such actions or deprive them of rights. Every minor should have a right to a lawyer, to due process, and to having their parents notified. I am encouraged by a 2015 UNICEF report indicating that Israeli authorities are taking steps to address alleged abuses. Although evidence of the ill-treatment of Palestinian children detained still exists, I am hopeful that Israeli forces will ultimately fully comply with international human rights laws. Through continued discussions with the Israeli government, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful changes will continue to occur. Doing so is in the best interest of Israel's security and consistent with their values.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for his work on this resolution, Ranking Member Engel, and leadership on both sides: Majority Leader McCarthy and the Speaker, and Minority Whip Hoyer and Leader Pelosi. I think one thing we can all agree on, as Chairman Royce mentioned, is the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. It is, arguably, the largest humanitarian crisis currently in the world. There are almost a million people suffering from cholera. This is a manmade crisis because of the bombing of civilian targets that has made the treatment of water impossible. Almost 7 million people face famine. One hope out of this debate, the first one on the House floor on Yemen, is that we will collectively demand humanitarian access to people in Yemen. There is no justification for the ports to be closed. There is no justification for the Sanaa Airport to be closed. In The New York Times just this morning, there was an article stating that chlorine medicine tablets are not being allowed in for people suffering from cholera. That is not a Republican or Democratic issue. That is an American issue. This Nation stands for human rights. We stand for compassion and decency. We should demand, collectively, that there is humanitarian access to people who are suffering and that the ports and airports be opened. This resolution calls for that, as has our U.N. Ambassador, Nikki Haley, who made that clear. The second part of this resolution, which I think goes a long way, is the acknowledgment of our own role in the refueling of Saudi planes and in the assistance of Saudi targeting. The resolution explicitly acknowledges that the United States has been engaged in the assistance of Saudi refueling and assisting the Saudis in targeting. It explicitly also recognizes that the 2001 authorization of force that the United States Congress passed does not apply to the Yemeni civil war. Chairman Royce was absolutely correct that there is an al-Qaida threat in Yemen to the United States. Our military, under the 2001 authorization of force, has the full authority to take counterterrorism measures to deal with al-Qaida; but what our military is not authorized to do is assist the Saudi Arabian regime in fighting the Houthis. In many cases, the Saudis have aligned with al-Qaida to fight the Houthis, undermining our very counterterrorism operations. This resolution makes abundantly clear that we cannot be assisting the Saudi regime in any of its fight with the Houthi regime. We have to limit our involvement in Yemen to take on al-Qaida and to take on the terrorists that threaten the United States. The chairman and I have a disagreement about the War Powers Resolution, but I will say that the negotiations were in good faith. As I told some of the groups that were upset about the resolution, this is a body of 435 Members. Every Member has their perspective. Ultimately, we have to come to a consensus that moves the debate forward. In our view, the War Powers Resolution does apply. If I can quote from a plain reading of section 8(c), it says that, for purposes of the War Powers Act: ``the term `introduction of the United States Armed Forces' includes the assignment of members of such Armed Forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government. . . .'' I believe a plain reading of that statute suggests that refueling Saudi planes constitutes coordination with a foreign government in a foreign conflict. Frankly, it is precisely what the drafters of the statute wanted to prevent after Vietnam. They wanted to prevent us from getting entangled in foreign conflicts where our national security was not at stake without a debate on the floor of Congress. We currently have troops in harm's way in 13 countries around the world. In many of those countries, we have not debated in the United States what the mission is or whether we should be there or whether it is making us any safer. That is certainly the case in Yemen. We know that, to the extent Iran is involved with the Houthis, that has been exacerbated because of the Saudi actions. It is debatable how much Iran was involved in the first place, but what we do know is that their minimal involvement--or, perhaps, now, greater involvement--was triggered because of the Saudi escalation in bombing Yemen. What is the United States' stake in a proxy war in Yemen? How is that making us any safer? If anything, it is creating another generation of Yemeni who will view the United States with suspicion. Nicholas Kristof wrote, in The New York Times: ``We Americans have sometimes wondered how Russia can possibly be so Machiavellian as to support its Syrian Government allies as they bomb and starve civilians. Yet we're doing the same thing with Saudi Arabia, and it's just as unconscionable when we're the ones complicit. . . .'' Our military has the highest standards. We take such great care in minimizing civilian casualties. Why would we want to aid Saudi Arabia, which doesn't share American values, which doesn't have the regard for human life that we in the United States do? We are bearing the brunt of their horrible actions. So it is time, I believe, not just to stand up for humanitarian access in Yemen, but to question whether the aid that we are providing Saudi Arabia is making our country any safer and whether it is consistent with American values. Finally, I will say to those who argue that we need to support the Saudis as a counter to Iran, there is no question that Iran has taken actions that are not in the United States' interest, but I suggest that we learn from our own history. I remember, from history, the time when so many in our country said: Let us arm Saddam Hussein to be a counter to Iran. That didn't work out so well for the United States. It was our arms that fueled Saddam Hussein's rise that led to two costly wars for the United States. My belief is the balance-of-power framework that has dictated our foreign policy and the interventionism has not made us any safer. I wish we would exercise more restraint in our foreign policy and return to the traditions of John Quincy Adams who said: We should not go overseas for monsters to destroy. These are not conflicts where we can judge who is on the right side; rather, we should be restrained, offer our hopes and prayers to those fighting for freedom, offer our humanitarian good will but not engage in interventionism abroad. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again Chairman Royce for working with us to get to this resolution. I want to acknowledge people on my own staff: Geo Saba, who really led the efforts with Keane Bhatt from the Progressive Caucus; Chris Schloesser and Pete Spiro. I also want to recognize Mira Resnick and Mark Iozzi, who really helped with the language; of course, most of all, the peace groups who brought this important cause to the Congress. I know there is some disappointment in wanting to go further, and people are very sincere in wanting to help civilians who literally face famine and cholera, but I believe democracy is a messy and a long process. There are, as I mentioned earlier, 435 Members from different parts of the country. I think today we have shown good faith in taking this step forward, in highlighting the issue, in calling for humanitarian assistance, in making sure that we curtail our support for Saudi bombing. I am confident that with the continued involvement of everyone in this body, we will ultimately uphold our values and human rights, which every person in this Chamber cares about. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3949. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member. I was in his office early on, and he really gave a freshman Member of Congress the guidance on how to get this through. I want to thank Chairman Arrington for coauthoring this legislation and for his leadership. I also thank Congressman Bilirakis for his kind words about the legislation. The legislation is very, very simple. Right now, if you want to offer a veteran an apprenticeship, you have to register in 50 different States. As a result, small businesses or medium-sized businesses say, ``Well, we can't do that; we can't fill out paperwork in 50 different States,'' so they don't offer these apprenticeships. Our bill says, very simply, the only place that you should have to register in is the State that you are headquartered. This is the type of commonsense legislation that isn't partisan. It is going to give more opportunities to the people who have earned them by serving our country: veterans. I wish to recognize a few other people who have made this possible. Of course, Chairman Roe, whose leadership was critical, in addition to Chairman Arrington; Ranking Member O'Rourke; and the staff: Cathy Yu, Kelsey Baron, and Jon Clark. I also want to particularly recognize, on the Senate side, Aaron Murphy and Tony McClain in Senator Tester's office, and a companion Senate bill with Senator Tom Cotton and Senator Thom Tillis, as well as their staff, Jake Bailey and Bill Bode. Finally, I realize that there is only one person more than Members of Congress or staff who often gets things to move in this committee, and that is Dr. Joe Westcott, the legislative director of the National Association of State Approving Agencies. Joe and I have become friends. He has been such a voice for innovation and for this bill. He really is the reason that this bill has moved in the House and, I hope, in the Senate.

Mr. KHANNA

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

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 311 from the bill. This section would create a forced arbitration program for forestry management. This section of the bill, in my view, usurps judicial oversight. While many agencies conduct quasi-judicial proceedings, there are still agency actions that are appealable to the courts. Judicial oversight and separation of powers is a core principle of our democracy. The arbitration would be binding, effectively making the Secretary of Agriculture the final judge and depriving the courts of their oversight role. While the bill terms this as discretionary arbitration, the discretion ultimately lies only with the Secretary of Agriculture. The public has no discretion over whether to submit to binding arbitration or not. The public's right to challenge an action or inaction in court is an important check on the executive branch. Shielding an agency from review by independent Federal courts could harm access to justice. The Secretary of Agriculture can designate any objection for binding arbitration up to ten times per year in each of the nine Forest Service regions and each of the 14 State regions. This allows the Secretary of Agriculture to effectively dismiss about 230 cases every year. According to the Department of Justice, in 2016, the total amount of civil matters and cases brought against the United States with an environmental or land cause of action was only 350. This overly broad power would allow the agency to dismiss some of the most problematic cases every year. The process also likely violates the nondelegation doctrine. That doctrine prohibits the exercise of constitutional authority given to any branch of government by another branch or nongovernmental private party. Under the arbitration program set up by this bill, a private party objecting to a management proposal and forced into arbitration would be required to write their own proposal. The appointed arbitrator could then select that private party proposal as the final plan to be carried out by the agency. The arbitrator is not permitted to modify the proposal, and the decision would be binding. I understand the need to streamline the process, but I think the forced arbitration really deprives people of their access to the courts, and that is why, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Chairman, I think the point is not that we need to streamline decisions, or if we have to streamline courts to get rid of frivolous lawsuits, that would be fine, but the problem is the power that is being vested in the Secretary of Agriculture where, if the Secretary of Agriculture shares a view that is not sympathetic to environmental concerns, they can basically dismiss the lawsuits of numerous environmental plaintiffs. I think this is really about the separation of powers. If there is reform needed in the judiciary, those reforms should be in our courts, but they shouldn't appropriate the power to the Secretary of Agriculture who may have his own or her own views and not give a fair hearing to the environmental groups. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, before my colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and I begin our discussion about the response to the Republican tax plan, I wish to take a moment to express our sympathy for the people of northern California who are facing devastating and destructive wildfires. I represent a Silicon Valley district where hundreds of our neighbors to our north and south remain missing. Tens of thousands are suffering at this very moment from the destruction of more than 150,000 acres and counting, as well as an increasing number of family homes and businesses. It seems that our Nation has been struck by one national tragedy after another. Our prayers are with the California residents, and I know that everyone in this body is committed to their relief. I also, on a personal note, want to recognize Liz Bartolomeo, who has been my communications director and worked very hard with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She is going on to work for Democracy Alliance. I wish her very well in her next steps, and I thank her for her service to our office and to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The purpose of this hour is to discuss the Republican economic plan, and I have distinguished colleagues of mine who will be joining us. I just want to, at the outset, articulate the basic difference in philosophy. The President and the Republicans believe that to grow our economy, to create jobs, the way to achieve that is by giving tax cuts to corporations, giving tax cuts to the investors in stock, giving tax cuts to the executives who already get large compensation packages; and that if we do that, if we cut corporate tax rates at a time where corporations are making record profits, if we give more tax breaks to those who are investing in our stock market, if we give more tax breaks to those who get dividend checks, then somehow, magically, people making 30 grand or 40 grand will see their wages go up, that somehow we are going to get many more jobs in places across this country. And the question is why would we believe that? Why would we think the trickle-down economics, which has failed time and again, is going to help? Does someone really believe, in my district, who is a construction worker or a nurse or a teacher, that lowering the corporate tax rate is going to do anything to put more money in their pocket, that it is going to do anything for a nurse who is struggling to get an apartment and pay rent to be able to afford that rent, or that it is going to do anything for people in Youngstown, Ohio, to be able to send their kids to school or get vocational training or get a college education? The difference is very simple. Our belief is, if you want to raise wages--if you want to give more pay to average Americans, just go raise wages. Provide the tax credit to those making under $75,000. For one- third of the cost of the Republican tax plan, which is geared towards corporations and the investor class, we could give every single American, who is making under $75,000, a 20 percent pay raise. I believe that is bottom-up economics, and that is actually what is going to grow the economy. It is not a matter of just the economics. It is a matter of common sense. Think about it. Who do you think is going to create more jobs in the United States? Someone worth 5 million bucks who gets tax money back and is going to invest in stocks? Or is that money going to create jobs in the United States? Or could that money be spent anywhere in the world, sheltered anywhere in the world? As opposed to if you give that money to someone making $50,000, $60,000, they are going to spend that money in their local community; they are going to buy more groceries; they are going to buy more things for their house; they are going to get more education; that money is going to go into the local economy, and it is going to actually create jobs. That is what is going to grow the economy. That is our only shot of getting 3 percent economic growth if we invest in actual workers, the people doing the work. By the way, they haven't gotten a raise for the past 40 years. Since 1979, wages in this country have stagnated, and we heard the same thing: just cut the taxes on the top and the wages will go up. But the wages haven't gone up. Guess who promised to help, finally, those forgotten Americans? Guess who promised to help them? President Donald Trump. That was his whole campaign: The stock market is doing great, but you are being left behind. The coasts are doing great, but you have been left behind. And I am going to come to the White House and I am not going to give the keys to the Wall Street bankers. I am going to actually worry about raising wages. His biggest disappointment as President is that he went back on the promise that he made to ordinary Americans, and we know that he can do it if he wants to. All he has to do is tell his Wall Street advisers: No, no more tax breaks for Wall Street. I want the tax credits going to Main Street, and I can do that at a third of the cost of the plan that you are selling to me and the American people. This is the debate in this country, supply-side economics that believes the greatness of America is with the investor class and the CEO class and the elite class, or bottom-up economics that our party and the Progressive Caucus is putting forward that believes the greatness in America is with the people who actually do the work, who work 40, 50 hours, who go on the assembly lines and work in factories, who work overnight as nurses taking care of folks, who are doing the education as teachers. Who do we believe is really contributing to the economy? Who do we believe is really driving America's economic growth? The Democrats believe it is ordinary workers across this country, that that is the greatness that drives the American economy, and the Republican tax plan believes it is the investor class. It is a very clear difference, and our commitment is not just one towards fairness but also one about investing in people who are going to create jobs and create innovation in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my distinguished colleague, who is not just a constitutional law professor and a leading thinker on issues of juris prudence but has also been a leader with the Congressional Progressive Caucus in helping us craft an economic policy that is really for ordinary Americans and not for just the very wealthy.

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

Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Raskin for his thoughtful points and comments on the President's tax policy. I have a few other points before we conclude. The President has said that we can't afford foreign aid given our deficits, but the President thinks that the average American doesn't know math. Mr. President, the average American can do math. The deficit is $20 trillion. Our foreign aid every year is no more than $30 billion to $40 billion. Your proposal would increase the deficit between $200 billion to $500 billion. So this red herring that somehow foreign aid is responsible for the deficit is just false. What is responsible for the deficit is the massive tax cuts that you are proposing that would add, according to conservative economists, between $2 trillion to $5 trillion more to our deficit, and it is all to finance the corporate interests, all to finance the investor class. We have, on the Democratic side, on the progressive side, proposed an alternative, and that alternative is based on the view that we need to encourage job creation and raise wages for mainstream America, that we need to invest in the people actually doing the work. It is based on the thinking of people who used to be Republicans and people like Jack Kemp, who said: Let us invest in areas that don't have jobs and economic growth and have heavy investment for training on the technologies of the future. That used to be the thinking on the other side of the aisle. We used to have differences, but there used to be creativity and a sense of what is actually going to invest in people to grow the economy. And now, under this President, it is just a mantra of tax cuts for the very wealthy, tax cuts for the people who need it least, tax cuts for corporations, no sense of actually investing in new industries, investing in the training and skills of the 21st century, investing in bringing capital to places that need them. I hope and believe that as people in good faith will look at the two contrasting proposals, one that says tax cuts for corporations, the other that says let's invest in American workers, let's invest in American communities, that they will conclude that the way to actually raise wages, the way to actually create jobs, the way to actually grow our economy is by bottom-up economics by investing in the American workers and in those Americans who are part of the middle class. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, here is the Republican and the President's case. They want you to believe that if you cut corporate taxes, if you cut taxes on the investor class, that this is going to raise wages. That is the President's argument. Here is what I don't understand. If you want to raise wages, why not just raise wages? Why not just give the tax credits to working families? The President's Wall Street bankers have a different theory that only gets credence in the beltway. This is not about economics. This is about common sense. Think about it. You don't have to be a Ph.D. economist to know that the better way to raise wages is not to cut taxes for corporations, but to actually give the tax relief to people making under $75,000. You don't have to be a Ph.D. economist to know that if you cut taxes for shareholders and corporate CEOs, they are probably going to invest it overseas. If you cut the taxes or give the tax relief to people making 50 grand in Michigan or Ohio, they are going to spend it and create jobs in the United States. This is just common sense. You don't have to be a Ph.D. economist to know that if you really want to create jobs, invest in technical training for the million skills gap we have, instead of putting hopes on corporate CEOs who already have record profits, that somehow they are going to create more jobs. Mr. Chair, it used to be that there were serious thinkers on the Republican side, people like Jack Kemp. I disagreed with him, but at least he had innovative ideas of enterprise zones and how to really create jobs. But for the past 20 years, the Republican party has been devoid of ideas. It is a mantra: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Oh, we are changing into a digital economy. How do we solve it? Tax cuts. That is not a constructive solution.

Mr. KHANNA

Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Chinese General Sun Li-jen. He was known as the ever-victorious general, and fought with valor against Axis forces in Burma during World War II. General Sun's strategies on the battlefield were a combination of traditional Chinese military theory and American military training. He was an important ally for the United States and a popular figure among his people. He was born in Anhui, China, and was the son of a Confucian scholar. He moved to the United States to attend Purdue University on a Boxer Indemnity Scholarship, and graduated with a degree in civil engineering. As China fell deeper into political upheaval and war, General Sun believed he could be more useful as a soldier than as an engineer. He went on to attend the Virginia Military Institute, where he faced prejudice from other cadets. When he returned to China, he advanced to the rank of colonel. In one of his earliest battles in World War II, he led troops to the defense of Shanghai and was wounded while leading his own men to safety. After recovering from his injuries, he established a military training camp in southern China. The men at the camp were trained in both Eastern and Western military strategy. General Sun is internationally renowned for his extraordinary service during the Battle of Yenangyaung in 1942. He saved the British First Burma Division by leading a regiment in a flanking maneuver. His bravery protected Allied forces from encirclement by the Imperial Japanese Army. During this battle, General Sun was also given command of a small group from the British Second Royal Tanks, making him the first Chinese officer to command British troops. In recognition of his victory in Burma, he was knighted by the United Kingdom and awarded the Legion of Merit by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was a friend of American Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower. In the report that recommended General Sun for the Legion of Merit, the U.S. War Department wrote the following: ``For exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service during the Burma operations in 1942. Under most trying conditions, General Sun displayed high qualities of leadership. The First Burma Division of the British Force at Yenangyaung was extricated by the attack of the 38th Division and saved from annihilation. General Sun held his unit together at all times during the retreat and brought it ready for combat to India. His example of courage and leadership reflect great credit on Allied Arms.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the FDR Library and the Congressional Research Service for finding this document. I include this document in the Record, along with a letter from the Virginia Military Institute. War Department, Washington, DC, 20 September 1943. Memorandum for General Edwin M. Watson: Subject: Awards of the Legion of Merit. Submitted herewith for the approval of the President are five awards of the Legion of Merit in degree of Officer to members of the Chinese Army. Also enclosed are Certificates of Award for the signature of the President. The State Department has been consulted and has no objection to the awards. I recommend that the President give approval to these awards. Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War.