Joseph Morelle

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service of Mr. Eugene Dollard of Hamlin, New York. On June 9, 2021, Mr. Dollard was presented with the Legion of Honor Medal, an honor given to those who demonstrate unparalleled courage and patriotism in the face of mortal danger and France's highest accolade conferred for military bravery and service. In 1943, when he turned eighteen, Mr. Dollard enlisted in the United States Navy. A year later, on June 4, 1944, Mr. Dollard participated in the largest naval invasion in history, D-day. On that fateful morning, Mr. Dollard sailed with the U.S.S. Henrico under the command of Rear Admiral John Hall. Departing from Portland, England, the Henrico crossed the English Channel transporting the 16th Regiment of the First Infantry Division. Under heavy fire, the Henrico delivered the infantry to Omaha Beach. During the fighting, Mr. Dollard manned twenty-millimeter machine guns while under attack from German artillery and aircraft. Then, under continued fire, he landed on the beach and administered first aid to the wounded. As the fighting raged on, Mr. Dollard did what he could to assist the wounded soldiers who were taken back to the Henrico. After D-day, he moved on to the Mediterranean theatre serving his country honorably in Morocco, Algeria, and Italy. Mr. Dollard was then transferred to the U.S.S. Chilton in the Pacific where he fought in the Battle of Okinawa. During a Japanese bombing raid, he was sheltering in a bunker when he spotted shadowy figures moving on the beach. Crawling out into the darkness, he tackled a Japanese General. Although unarmed, Mr. Dollard was able to overpower the General and capture him, eventually turning the Japanese General over to the Military Police. After three years of service, Mr. Dollard was honorably discharged from the United States Navy in 1945. Returning to Hamlin, he has lived a full life: running a business, raising a family, and leaving his mark on the world for generations to come. Mr. Dollard is an extraordinary example of commitment and selfless service. Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring Mr. Eugene Dollard.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Military Appreciation Month. Serving in America's Armed Forces is one of the most courageous and selfless decisions citizens of this country can make. It is a decision we should never cease to honor and celebrate. Too frequently, however, our Active Duty servicemembers and their families do not receive the essential care and support they need and deserve. Force readiness is contingent on a servicemember's ability to be confident that their family is kept safe when they are called to serve. Too often we find that these families aren't safe. They are living in homes with toxic mold and no recourse. Their drinking water has been poisoned by years of chemical dumps with no recourse. It is simply unacceptable. As a new member of the House Armed Services Committee, I will always stand up to ensure that those who have so bravely defended our freedoms have access to the essential resources and support they need to thrive. Military families serve too, and it is time we recognize this and act to show them the appreciation they deserve.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I regrettably missed Roll Call vote 86 H.R. 1620 The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 on March 17, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I regrettably missed Roll Call vote 86 H.R. 1620 The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 on March 17, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 179, providing for consideration of H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021, under a structured rule. It self- executes a manager's amendment by Chairperson Lofgren and makes in order 56 amendments. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration and provides one motion to recommit. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides for one motion to recommit. The rule also deems as passed H. Res. 176, which directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in the engrossment of H.R. 1319, and H. Res. 177, which authorizes candidates for election to the House and Members of the House to file statements with the Clerk regarding the intention to participate or not participate in the small donor financing system for such elections created by H.R. 1. Mr. Speaker, the House will be considering two pieces of critically important legislation this week that are a long time coming. H.R. 1, the For the People Act, will expand voting rights, limit partisan gerrymandering, improve election integrity, and revise rules for political spending and government ethics. The 2020 election brought out unprecedented turnout, even in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks in large part to voting by mail, more than 159 million Americans voted, the largest total vote turnout in United States history. What followed was the most heavily scrutinized election in modern history, with our airwaves filled with horrific and dangerous lies that fundamentally damaged many people's faith in our democracy. Yet, through that entire ordeal, not a single shred of evidence of any systemic fraud was ever discovered--none at all. Voting in this country, however, is far from perfect. Many people, particularly Americans of color and those from low-income families, face tremendous barriers to making their voices heard, from long lines at the polls to discriminatory ID laws. I believe, and the Democratic majority believes, our national effort should be aimed at eliminating barriers to the ballot. We believe true participatory democracy can only be achieved when everyone--everyone-- is afforded the opportunity to vote. We believe it is better for America that every voice be heard here in Washington, in State capitols, and in city, town, and village halls across our Nation. It is better for all of our citizens when each and every citizen has a stake in what their government says and what their government does. And we believe it is better for us on the world stage when our democracy shines as a beacon of hope and success for others to emulate. It is becoming increasingly clear that not everyone believes our national interest is served by greater voter participation. It is held in some quarters that, rather than seeing greater participation as a sign of our democracy's enduring strength, it is instead seen as evidence of a dark, sinister plot. Or perhaps, more cynically, they express that view because suppressing votes, particularly of those with whom they disagree, will improve their chances for electoral success, even though it weakens our democracy. Rather than trying to build on the successes of record voter turnout, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would rather turn their backs on those successes and begin an organized effort to change the rules because they didn't like the outcome. The minority has put forward a narrative that suggests we must choose between two separate paths, accessibility and security. But that is a deliberately false narrative. We can, and we must, achieve both. H.R. 1 is the vehicle to advance both. The For the People Act places a significant emphasis on election security, in everything from voter registration to ensuring all voting systems are secure with paper ballots and robust election result audits. The outrage we have heard from Republican leaders in Congress demonstrates how out of touch they are with their own voters. More than two-thirds of likely voters, including 57 percent of Republicans, said they would back the proposals in H.R. 1. Americans want more accountability from their leaders, not less. They want the influence of money out of politics. They want an end to gerrymandered districts. They want voting to be a celebration of our civil duty, not a constant battle to overcome administrative hurdles. We owe it to those Americans to create the ethical and accessible democracy that they so richly deserve. The House will also take up H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. This legislation represents the work of hundreds of legislators and millions of American advocates who have fought for decades for a more equitable future. This fight is especially personal for me, as my own community of Rochester, New York, has grappled with two recent tragedies that underscore just how necessary police reform truly is. Just one block from here, on the west pediment of the United States Supreme Court, is a promise to every American: ``Equal justice under law.'' Sadly, we know that for too many Americans, that promise is an empty one. It was an empty promise for Daniel Prude, who, while naked and unarmed, faced a mental health crisis in the streets of Rochester when police arrived on the scene last March. He needed a warm blanket and treatment by a mental health professional. He got neither and died in police custody just days later. It wasn't true just a month ago for a young girl in my community, who was forcibly restrained and pepper sprayed as she called out for her father. She is 9 years old. A police officer on the scene, impatient with her pleas to see her dad, urged her to stop acting like a child. Her response: ``I am a child.'' It would be laughable if it were not heartbreaking. Equal justice under law was an empty promise for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, and for countless others in every corner of America and for countless more still to come unless we take bold, decisive action. Indeed, it is up to each of us to make the changes necessary to finally fulfill the promise of equal justice. The time for incremental change has passed. It is clear that we need a cultural paradigm shift and massive reimagining of our public safety protocols, and that starts with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. The bill prohibits religious, racial, and discriminatory profiling by every police department in America, supported by improved training for officers and comprehensive data collection and tracking to ensure departments are following the law. It will save lives by banning dangerous police practices, like choke holds and no-knock drug warrants. It will ensure that law enforcement uses deadly force only when absolutely necessary and only after exhausting deescalation tactics. This legislation would limit the transfer of military-grade equipment to State and local law enforcement because peace, safety, and community trust cannot--cannot--be realized with weapons of war. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will create desperately needed accountability by expanding the use of body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras and eliminating the qualified immunity protections that allow bad actors in law enforcement to stay on the force. As a whole, this legislation addresses police misconduct, creates greater transparency, and affords victims meaningful avenues for redress. With these policies, we can build trust and we can begin to build cooperation between law enforcement and the communities they are supposed to serve and protect. We passed both the For the People Act and the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in the previous Congress, and it is my hope that this year represents a real opportunity to move both bills forward to the President's desk so that we can build stronger democracy and justice for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule and to support both underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I began my comments this evening, I have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee. I don't want to be argumentative, but I would note that I think there is a significant and substantial difference between a symbolic objection made by one or two Members to the electoral college results of a single State versus the objection of 140 Members of this House, particularly as it follows a violent, unprecedented attack on what I consider the sacred cathedral of democracy, the United States Capitol. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment. As much as it pains me, because I have nothing but incredible admiration and respect for my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, but when it comes to the question of voting in the United States, the fact is that States right now are working--many of them overtime--to restrict ballot access. That is why it is necessary for the Congress to step forward, as is given us, the power in the Constitution, to make sure that we pass laws that fulfill the dream of voter access for all Americans. I do also note that I think it would be much easier for us to believe that there is good faith on the other side of the aisle to negotiate some of these items and to perhaps reach compromise, but I find it hard to believe--and I stated this in the Rules Committee--given what happened over the last several months, that we would be in this position, that there is any ability to have a belief in good faith. It is hard to imagine 60 lawsuits were brought against decisions made by States--not the Federal Government, but States--on the electoral college. Two-thirds of the members of the House Republican Conference-- two-thirds--objected to the results of the electoral college, and, in many cases, States that had Republican leadership and Republicans serving as secretaries of state or as elections commissioners. So I would suggest that since--for the first time since 1800, when John Adams turned over the keys to the White House to President Jefferson and we observed the first peaceful transfer of power from one party to another, that since that foundational moment in American history over two centuries ago, this is the first time that people in this House have objected so strenuously and systematically to the results of the free and fair election of the American people. So we are for the people. We want to continue to expand ballot access, and we want nothing more than those wishes of the American public to be respected by their elected officials. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chair of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much, as always, the thoughtful comments by my colleague and friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole). Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the question of matters before us here, we do have significant differences in how we view access to the ballot. I would note that, historically, parties change. They evolve. Typically, because this is in keeping with American democracy, we evolve to reflect the needs and concerns and wishes and results of American elections and their expression of the will of the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, what I find troubling right now is that friends across the aisle seem to be focused not so much on learning the lessons given to us by those voters, by the American public, as expressed in the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But instead, conscientious, by-design work to limit those who would want access to the ballot so that they can choose the voters, as opposed to the other way around--disenfranchising those, and setting up barriers, as we see happening in State capitals across the country, is troubling indeed. And, I think, it demonstrates the clear division between the two parties on this particular issue. We seek, and we will always seek, to expand access to make sure that every single American, every single citizen who wants to participate in our democracy has the right, because that is how we end up with a better America, and we fulfill the promise of moving toward a more perfect Union. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for their words in support of the rule before us today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do want to again just note, although it has been said ad nauseam for the last several months, that while we clearly respect States' roles in these elections and that it is the States who run elections and organize them, we do have the power in the Congress given to us in the Constitution. But more importantly, this year, while the voters in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona cast ballots in free and fair and open elections, and those were certified repeatedly despite an onslaught of lawsuits brought by the former President and his advocates, all of which were denied going all the way up to the Supreme Court, our colleagues didn't respect those States' elections even though they were certified and even though, as we all met on what will be one of the darkest days in American history on January 6 to accept and certify those results given to us by the States, my colleagues and friends objected to them. I am not sure what that says about their respect for State elections since they didn't respect the results of those elections, in many cases run by Republicans in their respective States. Mr. Speaker, I must say I find this a most curious discussion. If we are not going to abide by the results of elections, and if we are not going to trust those various States to submit elections unless they agree with the outcome that we want, why we would be arguing so strenuously for the continuation of State control and no involvement by the Federal Government, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly vests that power here in the Congress? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Illinois, and I may not agree with him very much on this subject. But I really disagree if he thinks the Committee on Rules today was fun. He must be a heck of a cheap date. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, and distinguished colleague from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the new Member, I also welcome her to the Chambers and I look forward to working with her on important issues, such as education. It should not need to be said, but I will say it: This package has billions of dollars that will support education and schools. So pass this resolution. There is no need to substitute it. I would look just to my home State of New York, which has lost $15 billion in revenue as a result of this pandemic. And I know a little bit about this. I served in that State legislature for many years. The State of New York provides the highest level of support per capita of a State to its local school districts of any State in the Union. So not helping local school districts, not helping our States provide lost revenue in support, damages, irreparably, the children in our K-12 across our country. So pass this resolution. Work with us to make sure that we can provide support for our local school districts. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Bera).

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I first welcome the gentlewoman from Florida to the House, and I look forward to many opportunities to work together in a bipartisan fashion. I would note that one of the very first things we did in this House was the bipartisan passage of Public Law 117-1, which was paving the way for an historic appointment of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. So we have worked together, and I think we will find common purpose on so many things facing the American public. And I certainly hope we find commonality and purpose in this work that we will do over the next several days to work on support, in the most difficult of times, for American families. Because I have heard this now said so many times in the last few days about a trillion dollars that the Biden administration has not spent, I would say, first of all, if anyone in a period of 2 weeks could spend a trillion dollars, I would find that remarkable. The second is, this is in the pipeline. And we don't wait for every dollar to be spent and then think about having another debate about further support. There is nothing about this that I find extraordinary. What I do find extraordinary is that you point out that money that has been appropriated, is earmarked, and is moving out the door in appropriate ways and going through the proper channels, and that would be a point of debate and argument. This is necessary. We have heard it from so many leading economists around this country. We have heard it from the American public. So I think the case is clear, and I look forward to further discussion on this. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague from the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 101 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 101, providing for adoption of S. Con. Res. 5, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2021 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2022 through 2030. Madam Speaker, I am, once again, on the floor today to urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and to support passage of this budget resolution. Across our Nation, Americans are facing a dire crisis. Many have lost loved ones. Even more have lost livelihoods. Small businesses are shuttering their doors, hospitals are being pushed to their limits, and students are falling behind. In the past year alone, Congress has taken steps to respond to the needs of struggling Americans, but I know that each and every one of my colleagues can agree that we have a long road yet to travel. Passing this budget resolution is a necessary step to fast-track essential COVID relief, the American Rescue Plan. I know the gentleman from Texas and many of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle have aired complaints about the process begun earlier this week. If these were normal times and if we were dealing with more mundane issues, I would share their concerns. I am a strong believer in bipartisanship, in compromise, and in regular order in the House and Senate. But these are certainly not normal times, and we are not dealing with mundane issues. We face the greatest crisis in our lifetime. Americans are counting on us, relying on us, and we have a moral imperative to save lives and families from destitution. As of yesterday afternoon, 454,272 Americans have died from this tragic disease, a disease which has ripped a hole in millions of hearts that can never be repaired. The victims of this disease have left spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, friends, neighbors, and people who needed them, who relied on them, and who loved them. Nothing we can do now will fix that. But we face the prospect of losing thousands more, and we can and must fix that. This isn't just appropriate, this isn't just wise; this is a moral imperative. Even families who have not lost a loved one have faced the disastrous consequences of the pandemic. Nearly 11 million Americans are unemployed, more than double the number before the spread of COVID-19. As a result, one in three American families have faced difficulty covering their regular household expenses, an estimated one in five adults are behind on rent, and 10.3 million homeowners are behind on their mortgages. This isn't just desirable, this isn't just sensible; this is a moral imperative. Parents in my district and in so many communities are struggling to put food on the table for their family. Nearly 24 million people, or nearly 11 percent of all adults in this country, have reported that their households sometimes, or often, didn't have enough to eat in the past 7 days. Before the pandemic, the Department of Agriculture found that number was fewer than 3.5 percent over the full 12 months of 2019. This isn't just advisable, this isn't just constructive; this is a moral imperative. So let's talk about what we are going to do to rise to this challenge. We are moving forward with the budget reconciliation process to ensure that Congress can pass meaningful coronavirus relief without delay or partisan gridlock. The budget resolution before us provides a framework for reconciliation with a target of up to $1.9 trillion. It is designed solely to respond to the ongoing crisis and to deliver critical relief as quickly as possible. This will enable us to finally beat this virus and continue on the path of a national economic recovery. We will mount a national vaccination program, setting up vaccination sites in communities across the country. We will invest in reopening schools and provide direct housing and nutrition assistance to families in need. The American Rescue Plan will also provide direct assistance to Americans, stimulus payments, including assistance for dependents. We will also provide crucial support for the hardest hit small businesses, as well as first responders and frontline workers, who have done so much to turn back the tide of this virus. But without the reconciliation directives in this resolution, any bold action could languish indefinitely in the Senate, putting the health and well-being of millions of American families at risk. For those concerned about the national debt or possibility of future inflation, I urge them to heed the advice from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, a Republican appointed by President Trump to the Federal Reserve chairmanship, when he warned us to be more worried about falling short of a complete recovery and losing people's careers and lives and the damage that will do to our economic future. Moving forward with budget reconciliation does not preclude a strong bipartisan agreement on a relief package that can gain wide support in both the House and the Senate. In fact, there is no need for partisanship on this issue. While it seems we may be divided today in this Chamber, the American people clearly are not. The overwhelming majority, including a majority of Republicans across this country, support passage of emergency legislation, including stimulus payments, vaccine funding, and other pandemic responses in this plan. This is not a partisan issue because it is not only red or blue families, but families of all political persuasions that are struggling, and I am certain my colleagues in the minority know that all too well. I urge Members of this House to support this budget resolution so we can immediately get to work on this desperately needed American Rescue Plan. It is our moral imperative. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just a couple of brief points. First, as it relates to the amount of discussion about this, we debated this resolution with few changes earlier this week on Wednesday. We had a lengthy conversation. We are discussing it again now. If we are successful in passing this resolution, it will go to the appropriate standing committees for their markup on the various allocations in this resolution, and then it will come back here for passage again. So I think it is fair to say from a process point of view that we will have plenty of opportunities to make our arguments in front of the American public and let them decide on the appropriateness of our actions. But I would hardly say that there isn't going to be ample time to have these conversations and make these distinctions if that is what we choose to do. Just a brief word on the minimum wage. I hope we come back to it. I had the privilege of leading the debate on the rule when we increased the minimum wage in this House last year. If you make the minimum wage in the United States--the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. So if you work an entire 40-hour week you will make $290 gross. If you work 52 weeks out of the year at that level, you will make $15,080 for a year gross income. So do we think Americans who work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year should make more than $15,000 a year? Yes, we do. Guilty as charged. And we can have that conversation either in reconciliation, should that be the desire of the committees and the Senate, but we will certainly have it again on this floor because it is part of what we believe and the values that we hold dear as the majority in this House. As it relates to the bipartisanship, we have said before, I said it earlier, Chairman Yarmuth said it repeatedly, we are happy and want to have a conversation about a bipartisan agreement. But whether we have a bipartisan agreement or not, we are going to move forward. President Biden met with the 10 members of the United States Senate just earlier this week to talk about compromise. He has signaled repeatedly his willingness to do it. But we are going to do it with or without a bipartisan agreement because leadership is what this moment requires. I dare say, I imagine there are not many families in America who really at the end of the day care more about how we put this deal together than they care about getting a stimulus check to pay their rent; that they care about their children being safe when they go back to school; that they care about unemployment benefits, if they happen to be one of the nearly 11 million Americans who was out of work through no fault of their own but because of a deadly virus which doesn't care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. So we are going to provide leadership and, frankly, I think it is probably surprising to some to see a President engaged in the daily activities in the life of his government and the life of our country, someone who cares deeply about the future of America, who cares about the families who are in need, who cares about those who are sick, those who are dying. So that may be surprising. It is a little out of the norm in recent years, but we have a President who is fully engaged. Bipartisanship is what he has asked for. Bipartisanship is what he has talked about. It is what we seek here. But absent it, we will lead because too many Americans are suffering and in crisis. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).