Mark Pocan

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a vital tool for ensuring workers are able to secure good-paying, family-supporting jobs, and that is apprenticeships. I grew up in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a working class town with a very large skilled trade presence. I understand what good, middle class jobs look like, and the impact they can have on a community. A good middle class paycheck ensures people can afford a mortgage, have healthcare for their families, take a family vacation, and send their kids to college if they want to; and that is what we need right now are more higher-paying jobs. But not everyone goes to a traditional 4-year college or university, nor does every job require this type of degree. That is why, for many, apprenticeships are the key to family-supporting wages. Apprenticeship programs have proven very effective at helping prepare workers for careers in highly skilled professions. This bill would increase the number of highly skilled workers in the United States and strengthen apprenticeship programs as an effective earn-and-learn model for students, workers, and employers. It is a win-win for workers and businesses. The LEARNS Act supports closer connections between registered apprenticeship programs, employers, and others offering good-paying jobs. But there is a problem. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk about their support of apprenticeships. I hear the Secretary of Labor talk about them. I even hear the President talk about them. But that is all it is: talk. As a new member of the Appropriations Committee, I was shocked to see that Republicans' newly released Labor-HHS funding proposal entirely eliminates Department of Labor apprenticeship grants. Again, that appropriations proposal cuts $95 million from apprenticeship funding, every singer dollar in the program. There is not a penny left to connect workers and businesses with apprenticeships. You can't have it both ways. If you support apprenticeships and job training for workers, then you should support funding for job training and apprenticeship programs. It is pretty simple. If Republicans are serious about job creation, about training workers for a 21st century economy, and they actually want to do more than talk about jobs and apprenticeships, then we should move forward to defeat the previous question in order the bring forward the LEARNS Act. Walk the walk, Mr. Speaker. Talk is cheap. The American people deserve action. I urge all of my colleagues to defeat the previous question.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland. The Progressive Caucus has its own version of a budget which we have discussed on the floor of Congress previously that we will be glad to put exactly next to the budget that has been produced by this President, because our budget takes a completely different course than the budget that has been put forth by the Trump administration. We can tell you, now that we have seen the budget from the Republicans, it hits every fear that we thought was going to be in it. There are very few winners, and there are an awful lot of losers in the budget, and that is what we are going to try to show today, just who some of the winners are and who some of the losers are, just to give you a visual display of exactly what is in this Trump budget. So what people need to know is that this is a budget that is not for the average person across the country. In fact, the average person will be hurt in multiple ways by the cuts that are in this budget. There are very few in this country who are going to applaud this, but it is very few because this is a budget that only benefits a very few. And we, in the Progressive Caucus, are going to do everything we can to fight this, tooth and nail, to make sure this doesn't become law. Let me just show a few of the winners that we have on this. One of the winners are the wealthiest Americans. This is going to reduce trillions of dollars in taxes that are primarily paid by the wealthy. So clearly, the wealthy are going to do well. Another group that does well is Wall Street and Big corporations. This budget slashes regulations for Big banks that caused the great recession, and it defunds the agency that is charged with protecting consumers. Another beneficiary is defense contractors--a $54 billion boost in defense spending at the expense of nearly every other program. That will increase money that will purchase unnecessary new weapons. The border wall. This is going to put down a $1.6 billion downpayment to build a wall across the Mexican border, something that truly is not necessary and not asked for. And finally, the last beneficiary is polluters. This is going to roll back environmental regulations that protect our air and water. So those are the winners on the Trump budget. But if you look on the other side of the equation, there are a whole lot more losers. Let's start right up here with our friend, Big Bird. PBS funding. The Trump budget would cut funding for children's shows like Sesame Street. Social Security. The Trump budget will get rid of the insurance to help people with disabilities. Meals on Wheels. You know, I have had the great fortune of doing Meals on Wheels delivery in Madison, Wisconsin, which is in my district. And not only is it often the only meal, the healthy meal that that person is getting delivered who often can't leave their homes, but it is also that daily check-in to make sure that person is all right. I just met with someone who works with Meals on Wheels, and they said that there is not a week that goes by that they don't find someone who has fallen in their home and needed that person to come by for help. Well, the Trump budget eliminates funding for programs like Meals on Wheels. The children's health insurance and Medicaid funding specifically for kids is cut. He cuts dental care for kids, cancer care for kids, access to inhalers, and access to vital medical devices for children. He cuts nursing home care. Families are going to be forced to pay more out-of-pocket for nursing home care. The school lunch program. Now, I understand, everyone may not love everything on their tray at lunch, but this is cutting funding for subsidized lunches, causing kids literally to go hungry in this country. It has education cuts to school and literacy programs, to teacher training and class-size reduction. Over 20 programs are going to be cut. Even Special Olympics gets a cut in this budget. Today, we had Secretary DeVos at the Appropriations Subcommittee for the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, and, unfortunately, she couldn't make a case for any of these cuts, which is truly disappointing, because they are going to add hundreds of millions of dollars to give money to people who have children attending private schools, but we are going to be slashing the very programs that make our public schools so strong. They slash programs for the Department of labor for job training. There is a $6 billion-plus cut to the National Institutes of Health that works on lifesaving research for diseases like Alzheimer's and ALS and diabetes. And it cuts another billion for cancer research, specifically, in this budget. Loan repayment programs. This is going to end the loan repayment programs for police officers, nurses, and teachers who work in a public setting. This has massive cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency that protect our air and water, and it guts general funding that provides that clean air and water programs that are going to affect people across the country. It cuts funding to prevent major outbreaks for diseases like Ebola and Zika by cutting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program budget. Opioid addiction, something that this Congress has, in a bipartisan way, found ways to find additional funding for; in this proposal by the Trump administration, it leaves families that are dealing with addiction on the hook for the cost of treatment in many cases. Border funding. It is not just that they are building a wall, but this also ramps up funding for deportation task forces which are going to tear families apart in this country; and it adds money to build more detention centers. This budget will allow the government to sell off swaths of public land that is going to open up our national parks and public land to oil and gas development, including fracking operations. And this budget, when it comes to women's healthcare, will go after protections in funding for women's healthcare by cutting Planned Parenthood. Finally, for veterans, it makes it harder for veterans and low-income families of veterans to find housing. That is just some of the losers, but we want to show the difference in the balance of the very few who benefit and the whole lot of people--and there is a whole lot of other areas that are going to be cut by this budget. Now, the contrast really is the Progressive Caucus budget that we put forward that we will have a vote on, on this floor of Congress, where we do a completely different approach. Gone are the winners and losers of this case. And the winners would be a big category, being the American people, and the losers really being those, I think, who have abused the system for all too long. We have a $2 trillion investment in infrastructure that puts money into our roads and bridges, our schools, our waterworks, our broadband, and really makes sure that those are family-supporting jobs that people can get back to work and will create millions of new jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute. We make sure that we move forward in affordable healthcare by making it so we can negotiate for prescription drug prices and bring those costs down, as well as allow States to get closer to a single-payer system. We specifically have comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes those who are aspiring Americans, not by building walls and more detention centers but really providing a path to citizenship so that we can find a way to still protect our borders, but also make sure that we have got a path for people who have lived here for so very long. We close corporate tax loopholes and make sure that working families are getting the stronger benefit. We have an investment to make sure that we can have universal child care for all families in this country, not like the proposal that President Trump has put forward that takes care of, quite honestly, President Trump and people like him and the wealthiest in this country, but making sure that every family will never pay more than 10 percent of their income to have child care for their family. And on and on and on is what our contrast is. So as someone who has been very active in the Progressive Caucus, someone who comes from America's heartland in Wisconsin, we wanted to show the winners and the losers but, more importantly, to show the different path forward the Progressive Caucus is going to put for a vote on the floor of Congress. And I think if you get a chance to compare and contrast these budgets, you can see there is an alternative. We don't have to slash funding for all sorts of programs just to get $54 billion of new spending for defense. We can actually invest in America, invest in healthcare, invest in our schools, make sure that college is affordable, all the things that we offer in our contrast budget. It is the only budget that is out there right now, so we would love to be able to show that contrast. But we ask people to take a look at this, and then you decide what is best for your family. I think you are going to decide the Progressive Caucus puts a positive path forward that will make your family prosper and won't just support a very few in this country. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. I appreciate this opportunity to have this time.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of international students, scholars, and the U.S. institutions of higher education they attend who have been unfairly penalized by the administration's efforts to limit travel to our country. I urge my colleagues and the administration to recognize the vital contribution international students, scholars, and their families make when we welcome them to this great country. International Education programs are incredibly important to the higher education experiences of students across the country. In particular, Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs enable American undergraduate and graduate students to develop capabilities and proficiencies in languages and areas of the world that greatly benefit national security. At its core, Title VI strengthens the international teaching and curricula of students, introduces students to a wider, diverse world, and fosters their likelihood of pursuing an internationally focused profession. Similarly, the Fulbright-Hays program is an internationally focused program that awards grants to individual U.S. teachers, post-doctoral students, post-doctoral faculty, and U.S. institutions in order to support research and training efforts overseas focused on non-Western languages and areas of studies. The Title VI and the Fulbright-Hays programs form the vital infrastructure of the Federal government's investment in the international service pipeline. The contributions these programs make to diplomacy and international education must be protected and prioritized. These programs broaden all students' horizons, benefit our country's workforce, and strengthen diplomatic ties. In turn, when we welcome international students to our universities, they strengthen our communities and enrichen discourse through diverse perspectives. The Trump Administration's rhetoric surrounding immigrants has been harmful to international students and the academic community. Following the Administration's proposed travel ban, many immigrant students at our universities have experienced tremendous uncertainty about their status. Additionally, schools across the country have seen their applicant rates of international students decline. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, international students and scholars apply the lessons they have learned abroad to make a positive impact on our state's economy. The University of Wisconsin Madison is one of the nation's top producers of Fulbright students and scholars, with 21 students accepted into the prestigious program. In Wisconsin's 2nd District, we have welcomed nearly 7,000 international students and their families to our area and are profoundly grateful for the contributions they have made. I am incredibly proud of the students and faculty who continue to lead in the field of international education and strongly encourage my colleagues to support these vital education programs.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Judith Wilcox, an extraordinary woman and great friend who dedicated her career to helping others. Her compassion, advocacy, knowledge, and dedication were on full display throughout her extensive public and community service. Judy was a role model and mentor to so many of us in the Dane County community. She improved numerous lives in Dane County through her work, which focused on expanding and providing housing opportunities and the services needed to make those arrangements a success. Judy was an expert on affordable housing and serving the needs of the homeless community, as well as an outspoken champion for mental-health and housing for persons with severe mental health needs. She was the first woman elected to the Stoughton City Council and sat on numerous boards, including the Henry Vilas Zoo Commission and Journey Mental Health Center. Judy's community awards and accolades included the YWCA Women of Distinction and the Sterling Rose Award for her work on housing for persons living with HIV and AIDS and the Arcand Social Justice Award for her pioneering work in affordable housing over more than three decades. I was fortunate enough to serve alongside Judy on the Dane County Board, where she represented parts of Madison's Isthmus for 12 years. She spoke forcefully and eloquently on these issues, when she chaired the Dane County Housing Authority, the Stoughton Housing Authority and the Dane County Human Services Board. Judy also helped people with disabilities and then people struggling to find housing all over Wisconsin in her positions in state government. From her Peace Corps service in Gambia to her passion as a chef, she was truly a servant leader. Yet she was also as good-humored, cheerful and quick-witted as she was generous--Judy never failed to make everyone around her laugh, smile, and know they had a friend. She passed away after a brief illness last December at age 76 and we will gather to celebrate her life, legacy, and friendship this month. I am certain there will be no shortage of stories about her warmth, her laugh and her fiery belief in fighting for those who have few advocates and no voice. Today, Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the life and service of Judy Wilcox, a colleague, a champion for justice and equality, a mentor, and a true friend.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, which is the largest values-based caucus within the Democratic Party--74 members strong--who are helping to lead the legislative arm of the resistance in this country. We, every year, put forth a Progressive Caucus budget, which is really a statement of the values of the Progressive Caucus and the values of the American people. This year, this week, we released our budget. But before I talk about it, let me just take a step back. One of the things that people have asked us to do, asked so many of our Progressive Caucus members in this Congress to do, is to really fight and to lead the resistance here in Washington, D.C. And we are fighting many of the bad ideas that get proposed, from the idea of having a wall on the Mexican border to the terrible tax plan that is going to cost tens of millions of people access to health care, to a tax plan that is going to lower rates for the wealthiest in the country and leave the working class and those aspiring to be in the working class without any benefits. The cuts that the Trump administration has proposed in their budget, there is just so many bad things, day after day, sometimes hour after hour, in Washington, D.C., that happens. And it is the Congressional Progressive Caucus that is largely leading many of those fights, saying no to the bad ideas. But it is not enough to just say no. We also have to have a positive, progressive alternative so that the American people can see there is a true alternative. You don't have to just go by the policies of this administration. You don't have to go down the path that really leaves so many people out so that the top 1 or 2 percent can continue to benefit. And that is exactly what the Congressional Progressive Caucus is doing. So when we put forth a Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, it is a comprehensive budget that lays out the values of the American people from everything from education, to infrastructure, to health care, to our Nation's security. It is a document that we use throughout the year to put forth positive, progressive ideas to show that there is an alternative. You don't have to follow the ideas that have come forth from the Republican majority in this House and the President. Let me just start by talking about the Republican budget, the budget that Donald Trump has proposed in his skinny budget he released a while ago. He will be producing a more in-depth budget, but he laid out the fundamental foundation of what his budget is going to look like. That budget is a budget that has no additional revenue. It has $54 billion of additional spending for the military, and because it has no additional revenue, it has cuts to almost every other program that we see, and these are deep cuts--20, 30 percent cuts--to all sorts of agencies. So let me share a little bit about what that budget looks like, and then I will offer the contrast of what the Congressional Progressive Caucus has put forward and why it means so much to have that budget in place. First of all, that $54 billion increase means you are going to have to have a lot of cuts to a lot of other areas in the budget, and let me just point a few of those out. One that means a lot to my district, and I represent the people of south central Wisconsin, but it means a lot to everyone across the country, is funding for the National Institutes of Health, NIH. That is the area where that funding goes to researchers across the country who are finding cures for diseases so that we can live longer, and better, and have healthier lives, and it is essential funding. That is so important that, in the last Congress, one of the few things we got done in a bipartisan way is, we did additional funding for the National Institutes of Health. Just today, in the Omnibus bill to get us through funding through September 30 of this year, we upped funding in a bipartisan way for the National Institutes of Health, because we, in a bipartisan way, value the work they do. In President Trump's budget, there is a $6 billion cut--almost 20 percent of that budget--that would happen, threatening all sorts of research across the country. For the Department of Education, there is a 13 percent cut, but that is not just a 13 percent cut. That cut would be even deeper if you didn't count the hundreds of millions of dollars put into taxpayer funds going into private schools. It would be more like an 18 or 19 percent cut, but it is huge cuts. Just in higher education alone, Pell grants--something that I was fortunate enough to have--I grew up in a lower middle class family, and I was fortunate enough to get loans, and work through college, and get some Pell grants to help me so I could attend college. There is a $4 billion cut just in that line item. So clearly, there is not the attention to education from the K-12 level or higher education in that budget. Programs like Head Start and others are devastated in the pre-K level. So there are a lot of problems with President Trump's budget for education. When you get to transportation, there is a 13 percent cut-- $2.4 billion--everything from Amtrak, to dollars going to other rail programs and transit programs, investment programs that help people in rural areas, TIGER grants for highway projects, and more. In energy, we see the nonnuclear weapon portion of the energy budget, a cut by 18 percent below the current level, and that contains programs like LIHEAP that helps provide assistance to low-income seniors in winter. Now, maybe a low-income senior in winter in Arizona isn't experiencing the same thing they are in Wisconsin, or Michigan, or Pennsylvania, or New York, or a lot of our States, but it gets cold. And sometimes those heating bills can really sock a senior who is on a limited income. That money is just vital to them being able to live in their homes. It completely cuts the Community Development Block Grant program. That is things like housing programs, Meals on Wheels. I had the good fortune of going around my district and delivering Meals on Wheels about a year ago to constituents one day. It is not just that you are providing a nourishing meal to seniors who often can't get out of their homes, who this is the only place they may get that nourishing meal, but it is also a check-in to make sure that they are all right. Some are still living by themselves, and often you don't know if you don't have that visit to be able to check in. It would cut programs like that completely from getting any Federal funds. At the Environmental Protection Agency, environmental programs, 50 programs would be eliminated, and 31.4 percent of their budget would be gutted for all sorts of things that protect our clean air and clean water--programs like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative or the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative. So many areas would be cut through that funding, and that just doesn't make any sense. This is a time that we have the Flint, Michigans of the world, and we are finding that more and more communities with aging infrastructure of their waterways are having lead in their water and other contaminants. This is not the time to be cutting a program that watches out for this by 31 percent; and on, and on. There are so many cuts that affect real people. So while maybe it is good for the defense contractors to get $54 billion because, trust me, that money is not going to be shared with the people who actually protect our country. I was talking to another Member of Congress recently whose son is in the military making $22,000 a year. I can guarantee you that $54 billion is not going to be targeted to truly improve what that person is doing, what they are getting paid as they fight for our country to protect our country, but it is going to go to a bunch of new weapons systems and other things that allow the money that, again, is going to go to that top 1 and 2 percent in this Nation. So let me offer what that contrasts. Instead of putting 54 billion new dollars into defense and cutting all of those programs I talked about by huge amounts--20, 30 percent, our State Department, 28 percent, go down the list, huge cuts--we actually invest in this country, and we invest in multiple levels. The People's Budget: A Roadmap for the Resistance--that is what we call it--does a whole lot of different things. Let me just highlight some of what we put forward this week, along with 60 organizations, major organizations that are endorsing the efforts that we put forward. First of all, we have a $2 trillion investment in our Nation's infrastructure; $2 trillion that is going into programs to modernize our roads and bridges; modernize our water and sewer systems, our ports and waterways; investing in our transit systems; investing in our K-12 school reconstruction; investing in high-speed broadband infrastructure that we need so desperately in our rural parts of the country; investing in the VA hospitals and extended-care facilities; and investing in the actual workers who are going to do these projects. This alone is a $2 trillion investment, and, throughout this budget, it is estimated, by the Economic Policy Institute, would create 2.4 million new jobs in this country, good family supporting wages, while we are reinvesting in our Nation's bridges, and roads, and schools, and broadband, and other infrastructure. That is a key part of what we have put out there, and it is what is needed in this country. We have to invest in our country, and this budget does just that. We also look at taxes in a very different way, and we rewrite the rules in a system that often seems rigged against the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class. We close loopholes for big corporations that send jobs overseas. We stop CEOs from receiving millions in tax-free bonuses, and we tackle income and equality by having fair tax rates--fair for those who are working, and sharing a little more for those who are the wealthiest in this country. We level the playing field for the working families across this country. In this budget, we also have a new initiative to invest $1 trillion into childcare, childcare for everyone who needs it, pre-K education in this country. There is no question, we know more people are working more and working more jobs, but you can't if you don't have someone to watch your children when you are doing that. Having this in place will allow us to make sure that those crucial years in education that really develop you for often the rest of your educational experience--K-12 and higher education--we have a plan to truly invest in every single person so that no one is paying more than 10 percent of their income for childcare. It is not just that. We are funding K-12 schools. We are funding that infrastructure for our schools. We are making sure that people who live in rural areas have broadband so they can do the homework that you do in a modern America. At the higher education level, we have several innovative ideas offered in our budget, from refinancing of student loans to the lowest current available rate so that you are not paying some of these high 6.6 percent interest rates that don't even make sense in today's economy, to providing for debt-free college; to make sure that if you actually work and you want to do a workstudy job, you should be able to leave a 4-year public institution debt free, and leave with a degree, compared to the $30,000 plus on average that people are leaving with now. We also tackle some of the ideas about free tuition in public institutions. So we have got some real ideas from pre-K, to K-12, to higher education. We also make sure that we are addressing the costs of prescription drugs because that is one of the drivers as we have this debate around health care. One of the reasons we have seen the spikes we have had is because, quite honestly, a lot of prescription drug companies have charged prices that are quite unreasonable, by any reasonable person's standards. There is no reason why the same drug you pay for in Canada or Ireland is substantially cheaper than it is in the United States. We have measures to make sure that we can reduce the price of prescription drugs here in this country and that people don't have to make a decision between paying for their medicine or their groceries. We also are looking at health care in another way. First of all, the Affordable Care Act, as I think now many people across this country understand and now support the concept--while they may not have supported ObamaCare, they love the Affordable Care Act. Same thing, folks. What we are finding is, there are things we need to do to improve it. And while we look at some of those, one of those is allowing States to look at going to a single-payer system, and we provide the pathway to do that, to reduce costs and increase coverage so that even more people can have that. We also expand access to mental health care--this is Mental Health Awareness Month in this country, and we are making sure we are doing that--and treatment for opioid addiction. We also have a humane and comprehensive immigration reform proposal. We are not talking about building walls at a time we should be talking about building bridges. Instead, we are having sensible plans that provide for full implementation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the DACA program. We preserve funding for sanctuary cities, and we prohibit any funding whatsoever to go to President Trump's wall. Those are just a few of the things that we have in this budget. When you contrast those deep cuts to programs that help middle class families and those aspiring to be in the middle class across the country, when you contrast it with the proactive positive alternatives we have in this budget, I think people will see that there truly is a significant difference and why we don't have to settle for something that is out there that is not going to take care of the working families in this country. You know, a lot of people across the country talk to our Members of Congress. We see these huge attendances right now at townhalls, and every Member should be out having those townhalls. And what we are hearing from people is that they are not happy with the proposals offered by the Trump administration and by the Republicans in Congress, the healthcare proposal that they put forward that we could be voting on as early as tomorrow--the second attempt at this. I will tell you, I have learned something very interesting. When someone doesn't want to put their name on something, in this place especially, it is usually not very good. I have found people really like to put their name on things in this town. It's funny that the Trump administration was calling their healthcare bill RyanCare, Congress is calling it TrumpCare, people back home call it I Don't Care. In the end, what we are finding is this is a bill that is going to cut access to 24 million people, give tax breaks of $600 billion-plus to the wealthiest in this country, the top 1 and 2 percent, to insurance companies, to Big Pharma, and other big entities. That is often what it seems like it is really about. It is going to increase fivefold. People will be paying five times as much--older Americans--for their health care, and it cuts Medicaid to so many people who need it in this country. Don't forget, Medicaid is not just for people who are poor and trying to get health care and trying to get work; it is also people with disabilities, it is seniors in nursing homes. It is, quite honestly, incomprehensible that the Republicans think it is all right to cut those programs. That is their tax plan. But here is the best part: they are making it now even worse. The words we are hearing and that they are bragging about are amendments to make it so that, State by State, they can turn down things like coverage for preexisting conditions and turn down other essential health benefits, things like prescription drug care, maternal care, emergency room visits. That is what health care is all about. If you gut everything out of health care, all you have is a shell of what you can call health care but doesn't actually provide any of the benefits. They are doing this to bring in the Tea Party, the most conservative element of their caucus that fundamentally doesn't believe in the functioning of government. They are going to basically do that, make sure government doesn't have any say in what health care is. You will have no guarantees. I guarantee with what they are doing--this is according to the official nonpartisan estimates by the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, not our estimates--at least 24 million people will lose care under the old proposal. Take the new proposal, and if you start adding the States being able to make those decisions, more and more people will lose access to their health care. We will see what happens, whether or not they can get this done. I think they are having a difficult time. When we had a little conversation on the floor about it today, we noticed they didn't quite have answers about when the bill will come up. We will see what does happen with that. But when you contrast that sort of a healthcare proposal with the fundamentals that we have in the Progressive Caucus budget, you see a stark difference. We take and expand upon the progress of the Affordable Care Act that has allowed tens of millions of people to have access. When you look at the proposals that we put forward, there was an Economic Policy Institute article and a Washington Post article today that I will include in the Record. [From Economic Policy Institute, May 2, 2017] The People's Budget, Not Trump's Budget, Will Help Working Americans (By Mark Pocan) After President Trump's first 100 days in office, it's clear that his promises to help the working class were little more than a campaign ploy. His dismantling of Obama-era regulations like the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule and deregulation of the financial industry reveal what he really cares about--lining the pockets of America's ultra-rich. Nothing demonstrates his disdain for working people more than his budget proposal. In it, he cuts 31 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s budget, which ensures people across the country have clean air and water, and 21 percent from Department of Labor programs that provide job training to seniors and disadvantaged youth. Instead of helping working people, Trump's budget imposes a hiring freeze on crucial federal agencies and calls for many more staff to be laid off from public sector jobs--the largest reduction in the federal workforce since World War II. The FY 2018 People's Budget: A Roadmap for the Resistance by the Congressional Progressive Caucus stands in stark contrast to Trump's budget. The People's Budget is a plan to actually help working Americans who have felt left behind by an economy rigged against them. Our budget is a roadmap for the resistance, investing in the progressive priorities and kitchen table issues that matter to real people: infrastructure to create jobs and ensure public safety; education to help our kids reach their full potential; and sustainable energy to protect our precious environment. Progressives in Congress fully want to make investments in our future generations and protect programs that improve the lives of people every day. We believe our budget should strengthen Social Security and Medicare and invest in job growth through infrastructure, education, and research and development, while responsibly reducing our deficits and cutting wasteful spending and redundant programs where they exist. As a business owner from Wisconsin and a long-time union member, I understand what it means to take the economic high road. It means ensuring that working people get a fair shake at economic opportunities, that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, and that we all do better, when we all do better. I urge President Trump and Republicans in Congress to seriously consider the proposals in the People's Budget so that we can create a fairer economy.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a little bit from The Washington Post. ``This new budget points the way forward for Democrats.'' And what this specifically is addressing is the Progressive Caucus budget. It is looking at it and saying: ``Democrats should recognize its ideas as an inspiration for the party going forward. ``The People's Budget starts by acknowledging a problem that most leaders acknowledge but few have addressed: the country's crumbling infrastructure. It provides $2 trillion over 10 years to repair bridges and tunnels, revitalize mass transit, replace contaminated water systems, rebuild public schools and more.'' And that is what we talked about. Those are the very provisions that we put forward in that $2 trillion investment in our infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I will go back to reading this. ``The Economic Policy Institute projects that the People's Budget would add 2.4 million jobs and increase GDP by 2 percent in the near term.'' That is 2.4 million people with a good family-supporting job while we are rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure and increasing our Nation's gross domestic product. What does that mean? I have been a small-business owner for 29 years. It is the rising tide that lifts all boats. The more people that have money in their pockets that can spend it, puts money right back into the economy. If we make sure that more people are working and more people have a family-supporting wage that they can buy a sofa, they can take their family out to dinner or to a movie, that creates more economic activity, and that creates even more jobs. That is exactly what we need in this country. That is, again, the Economic Policy Institute projecting what our budget would do. Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the document. ``While Republicans struggle to reconcile repealing ObamaCare with keeping health care affordable, the CPC puts forward actual ideas to bring the cost of health care down: The People's Budget introduces a public option--which would lower premiums--and ends the ridiculous prohibition on Medicare negotiating drug prices.'' Can you believe that? We don't use our purchasing power right now to negotiate for cheaper prices for prescription drugs. There is a reason why we pay sometimes 8 more, 20 times more, than other countries for the exact same drug. It is because we are not allowed to use that purchasing power in a way that will help create that economic savings. Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the document. ``The document also recognizes the dangers of climate change, putting a price on carbon and eliminating tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry.'' Think about it. We still subsidize gas and oil, which is one of the most profitable businesses on the planet, and we are subsidizing them with tax subsidies. We get rid of those tax subsidies. Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the document. ``And it funds universal pre-kindergarten and strengthens antitrust enforcement, fighting back against the oligopolies in health care, cable and other industries that are hurting Americans' pocketbooks.'' These are the things that we have in our Progressive Caucus budget to make sure that real families, as you are sitting at your kitchen table trying to decide if you can afford to pay your mortgage, send your kids to college, take a family vacation this year, maybe have that one luxury of a camper or a snowmobile, only if you live up north, or a boat. Those are the things that I grew up with. I grew up in Kenosha, Wisconsin, like I said, in a lower middle class family. That was the existence of most everyone I knew. We are trying to make sure that that can be the existence again for every single person. While wages have been largely flat, the economy has come back. We have just recently had a little bit of a bump in the last year or so of the Obama Presidency. We need to do more for those families. Mr. Speaker, let me go back to this document. ``With all this spending, people may wonder what happens to the national debt. But the People's Budget reduces the debt as a percentage of GDP. In addition to the savings and the carbon pricing mentioned above, the budget raises trillions while making the tax system more fair.'' This budget actually reduces overall debt by $4 trillion between now and 2027. You don't see that out of almost any other budget proposed. Yet our budget, while investing in America and investing in Americans, we also help to turn back that crushing debt that this country has so often had and that we need to address. Mr. Speaker, let me just finish with reading a little more of this document. ``The People's Budget, by contrast, is built around sound policies that are also politically popular. It reflects Americans' longstanding desires for fixing the country's infrastructure, strengthening entitlements, lowering the cost of health care, and making the wealthiest pay their fair share. These ideas, if adopted, could be the foundation of a rebuilt and resurgent party, and by embracing the goals of the People's Budget, the Democrats can reorient toward the future.'' Now, that is, again, an opinion out of The Washington Post today about the budget we released yesterday. I encourage people to go to the Progressive Caucus website to learn more about this budget, to look at the work that the Economic Policy Institute has done in working the numbers of this budget, and see what the contrast can be. You don't have to settle for second or third best. We don't just have to make sure the top 1 and 2 percent have even more, and we hope that some of that trickles down on the other 98 percent of us. Instead, we can have a budget that invests in infrastructure and creates good jobs, that invests in our public education system from pre-K to higher education. We can have a budget that expands our healthcare opportunities so that even more people can have affordable health care and helps lower the cost of prescription drugs. We can have a budget that does these things, and we have put that forward in the People's Budget, which is the product of the Progressive Caucus here in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time to be on the floor of Congress to present this on behalf, again, of the 74 Members of the Progressive Caucus, the largest value-based caucus within the Democratic Party. We are proud to present this budget. This should be coming to the floor as we debate all budgets in the coming months. But we are proud to put ours out first. Let's set the standard. Let's see how we can see what the Republicans in this House will put forward, and we will see what details the President puts forward. I can guarantee no one will have more in place for the middle class in this country and those aspiring to be in the middle class than the People's Budget that is put forward by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 125th anniversary of The Daily Cardinal newspaper serving the University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus since its debut on April 4, 1892. This distinguished student newspaper has been a valued staple on the University of Wisconsin-campus since it was founded by two natives of Monroe Wisconsin, who originally distributed the newspaper on horseback. One of its founders, William Wesley Young, was the University of Wisconsin-Madison's first journalism graduate. In fact, the current home of UW-Madison's School of Journalism in Vilas Hall is built on the site of former Cardinal offices. Thousands of students used the Daily Cardinal to pursue investigative journalism, expose corruption and develop photographic and storytelling skills. Alumni of the paper have subsequently become not only leaders in journalism, but also in politics, business, law, and medicine. Some of these students have even subsequently gone on to win Pulitzer Prizes, Emmys, Peabody awards, and Nobel prizes. As one of the oldest college student newspapers in the United States, The Daily Cardinal has survived and thrived through decades of change at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Its editorial board has proudly been on the forefront of advocating for important issues and advancing progressive stances from women's suffrage to civil rights to marriage equality, while also fighting injustice and racism. Today, it is my honor to commend The Daily Cardinal staff, advisors, and distinguished alumni for all they have accomplished at this venerable student newspaper for the past 125 years. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the 125th anniversary of The Daily Cardinal.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, when Queen Helen of Sparta was abducted by the Trojan prince Paris, Helen's jilted husband convinced his brother, a Greek king, to lead an expedition to retrieve her. He was accompanied by a fleet of more than a thousand ships. They crossed the sea to Troy and demanded Helen's return. The siege, punctuated by all sorts of battles and skirmishes, lasted more than 10 years until one day when Odysseus had a bright idea. He said: Hey, guys, let's build a really massive wooden horse. Let's pretend like we have given up and sailed our fleet behind some island, but really about 30 of us will hide inside the horse. We will have someone tell the Trojans that it is some kind of gift to Athena, the goddess of war, and they will haul it into their city. When they are asleep, we will all sneak out, open the gates for everybody else, and totally kill everybody in the city. And that is the legend of the Trojan horse. So what is the moral of that story and why am I reciting Greek lore on the floor of Congress today? Well, because history has a way of repeating itself. Today we have our own Trojan horse, a so-called GOP healthcare bill, TrumpCare, that professes to be about health care but, in reality, is a Trojan horse to give tax breaks to the wealthiest in the country. Let's take a serious look at it. We are told that it is the replacement to the Affordable Care Act, a bill that has offered insurance to over 20 million people in this country. Now that replacement is supposed to fix the problems of the Affordable Care Act and ensure health care for everyone, as promised by President Trump. But the covert part of TrumpCare was that he got busted last week when the Congressional Budget Office, our nonpartisan agency that evaluates bills, said that, in reality, the bill does little to improve health care. In fact, it said 24 million people would lose access to health care, not gain it. And it said older Americans would pay more for health insurance than under the Affordable Care Act and get fewer subsidies, and that more people on Medicaid would lose access to health care as well. So how can a supposed healthcare bill actually reduce health care? Well, when it is only a pretend healthcare bill. And what else did the CBO say? Well, they said this bill also includes almost $600 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals in our country, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. It gets worse. Those tax cuts for the wealthy, just how bad are they? Well, the 400 richest families in the country making more than $300 million a year will get an annual tax cut of $7 million each. So Charles Koch and Betsy DeVos get $7 million a year while a retired farmer in Janesville, Wisconsin, in Speaker Ryan's district, earning $26,000 a year may have to pay $14,600 for the same health care she got under the Affordable Care Act, but the old cost was only about $1,700. That is a 750 percent increase on low-income, older Americans so the richest can bank millions. And the CBO said another tax cut in TrumpCare provides about $275 billion in tax breaks that only the top 2 percent of Americans can get, while 98 percent of us will never see a dime. And who else gets tax cuts? Insurance companies get a tax break of about $145 billion, drug companies get a tax break of $25 billion, and medical device companies get a break of about $20 billion. That is almost $600 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthy, and what do we get? Less health care for more money. That is not a serious healthcare alternative. That is a tax cut for the wealthy disguised as health care, and you and I get to foot the bill. That is what is called a Trojan horse. And you have to be especially careful these days because Trojans are a little bit different than they used to be, and they are only used when you get--well, the same thing this will do to America, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Ed Garvey, a progressive icon in Wisconsin who founded the Fighting Bob Festival, championed the underdog and fought the good fight for equality, justice and true representative democracy. Ed Garvey's unwavering support of working people was evident in his career as a labor attorney, including early years as executive director of the National Football League Players' Association. Before that he was a civil rights crusader as president of the National Student Association, who in the 1960s traveled south with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. In his legal work, his advocacy, his writings and speeches, Ed championed progressive causes from women's rights to environmental protection to LGBT rights to protecting voting access and getting big money out of politics. He sought, in founding Fighting Bob Fest, to bring together groups from diverse walks of life that shared in common our values and beliefs, so we could all see we are more alike than different. Bob Fest always offered the chance to talk, debate, socialize, argue and, at the end of the day, join together to take on the powers-that-be. He united progressive causes with a populist bent, a dry wit and a rabble-rousing spirit. He laid out an admirable path for all of us who believe in fighting for the underdog and staying involved in our democracy as informed and vocal citizens. Ed Garvey kept the spirit of Fightin' Bob LaFollette alive and passed it along so generations of Wisconsinites will continue to honor that Wisconsin legacy. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the life of Mr. Ed Garvey today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Cecilia Zarate-Laun, a constituent and dear friend of mine who dedicated her life to building a more just and peaceful world. I first met Cecilia while serving on the Dane County Board of Supervisors in Wisconsin, where we worked together on a sister-city relationship between Dane County and Apartado, in Antioquia, Colombia. I had the honor of visiting Apartado on a delegation that Cecilia led, and worked with her to host Colombian dignitaries visiting the U.S. over the years. Cecilia was born in 1945 in the Santander Province in Colombia. The eldest of five sisters, she studied nutrition in Bogota, and later, as a Master's student at the University of Wisconsin. In 1976, she married Jack Laun, whom she had met while studying in the United States. They celebrated their 40th anniversary together last year. Her lifelong mission was to educate and inspire ordinary people to become involved in the messy work of democracy. She had an intimate understanding that efforts to change government policy here in the U.S. had a profound impact on the lives of untold billions across the world. By shifting our priorities away from militarism and war-making, the United States could instead contribute to sustainable development and solving real human needs globally. Co-founding the Colombia Support Network (CSN) in 1987, Cecilia went on to lead more than 50 delegations of residents of the United States to Colombia, supporting the formation of CSN chapters in the U.S. and matching them with communities in areas of conflict. CSN sought to achieve peace with justice in Colombia by changing U.S. policy and minimizing the violence faced by people caught between guerrillas on the one hand and state security forces and paramilitaries on the other. Cecilia's commitment to social and economic equality, and a deep sense of solidarity with people around the world, drove her tireless efforts. That passion had a lasting effect on me and will continue to inform my work and the values I strive to uphold as a public servant. Even in the weeks just before her passing, she worked closely with me as we pursued strategies to ensure accountability, truth, and justice for the victims of Colombia's 50-year conflict. She lived to see the end of Colombia's brutal civil war, which was the fruit of her labors and the efforts of persistent, dedicated peace activists just like her. Her life is a window into the decades-long commitment from millions of people in order to produce real social change. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the life and legacy of Cecilia Zarate-Laun today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, if you would have asked me when I first got elected to Congress, would I ever expect to be in a position, months after a Presidential election, about whether or not the integrity of that election was at stake, I would have said ``of course not.'' Our democracy's strength is that any adult has an equal say in it through their vote; that the wealthiest or the poorest, the youngest or the oldest adult, regardless of their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, we all have an equal say in our democracy via our vote; which is why the vote is so important. It is the great equalizer and it gives us confidence in our government, that whoever the people select to be President should be the force of the majority. But the concern I am speaking about today is the concern that somehow the election this past November might have been interfered with by another government. Now, I know we have all heard about the intelligence community's classified report regarding Russian hacking and interference in our elections. I have read it and so have many of my colleagues. And, allegedly, President Trump has read the document as well. My concern is that we seem to have different interpretations of a document that is very clear about unprecedented outside interference. For those of us who have read it, shock. Shock that another country would be so cavalier in their approach to interfere with an election, to manipulate the truth, to go farther than we have ever seen in trying to get the outcome they wanted and ultimately got. There is no secret that President Trump has an unnerving affection for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump has called Putin ``very smart.'' He claimed Putin was a better leader than Barack Obama. And Trump even defended Putin in a recent interview with a FOX News talk show host. The connections to Russia and his Cabinet are equally unnerving. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had numerous business dealings with Russia, and was even recognized by Putin with the Order of Friendship in 2013. But it doesn't stop there. Just last week, U.S. investigators confirmed that parts of the 35-page intelligence dossier, compiled by a former British spy, were accurate. The dossier contained still unconfirmed details of an all-too-cozy relationship between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Trump Cabinet. Just yesterday, President Trump's own National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned after being busted for having potentially illegal conversations with the Russian Government regarding lifting sanctions on the country prior to President Trump taking office; conversations he had previously misled to the FBI and the Vice President. Who else knew about Flynn, and when did they know about it? Now, I don't bring this up as an effort to get back into a Cold War with Russia, as some seem to condone. I am disgusted by the Russian Government's scapegoating of the LGBT community and their authoritarian approach to civic affairs. I think getting back into a Cold War would be a terrible idea, and there are some areas around the globe where we could welcome cooperation to solve humanitarian crises. My concern lies in that the Russian Government did something, hacking and interfering in our elections with the intent of electing their choice for President, Donald Trump. That must be addressed through sanctions and safeguards to make sure it never happens again. If anyone in the executive branch is suggesting lifting any sanctions after what just happened, there needs to be a public dialogue about why, because if they read the same report that I did, there is no way that would be the appropriate response. But given President Trump's unwillingness to accept the reality of the Russian interference in our election, given the closeness of several leading members of the President's Cabinet to Russia, and given the recent resignation of our National Security Adviser over his dealings with Russia, I feel it is imperative that the American people get all the facts. Should we be lifting sanctions against a country our intelligence community tells us intentionally, and in multiple ways, tried to interfere with our elections and, ultimately, get the person they wanted elected? Or should we be doing even more to guarantee the sovereignty of our country and the integrity of our elections in every possible way? Currently, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are investigating Russian interference with our elections, and I applaud them for taking the issue so seriously. Personally, I would love to see an outside, nonpartisan, independent review as well. However, we need to take this right to the people. The classified report about election interference by the Russians could, in my opinion, with appropriate protections, be declassified so that the American people could see it for themselves. Mr. President, I request you ask for that report to be fully declassified. If your administration's assertions are correct, let the American people see it. Let the truth come out. But my guess is, when they see the totality of the report, there will be a lot of explaining for this administration to do, both about our response to Russia and how we protect our elections in the future. It is really that simple. Let the people decide. Declassify the report.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, it is only day 13 into the Donald Trump administration and we are already faced with yet another round of questions about President Trump's potential conflicts of interest over his business holdings. The most recent issue to raise questions is President Trump's Muslim ban executive order. At face value, this action looks like yet another harmful step in his divisive agenda. Trump's hateful scapegoating of refugees will make us less safe, and it goes against our country's moral fiber and small ``d'' democratic values. It is hard to believe that these seven countries were targeted based on a serious threat that was posed by their citizens who were traveling to the United States. The people responsible for some of the most egregious attacks on American soil in recent decades, including 9/11, the Times Square bombing, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Pulse nightclub shooting, and others did not come from these seven countries. In fact, refugees from these countries already face a lengthy and rigorous vetting process led by our security intelligence agencies. This 20-step process involves multiple background checks, interviews, and screenings, and it frequently takes between 18 and 24 months for approval. However, these seven countries do have at least one thing in common. According to Bloomberg News, The Trump Organization does not have business or has not pursued business deals in any of them. President Trump does, on the other hand, have business ties to other countries in the region that were excluded from the ban. His FEC filings indicate The Trump Organization has development projects in Saudi Arabia and business projects possibly related to Egypt. These countries were excluded from the executive order despite their being home to many of the terrorists who carried out 9/11. In Turkey, President Trump has a licensing deal for two luxury towers to use his name--a deal he received up to $5 million for just last year. He also has licensing agreements with businesses in other countries in the region. I am not saying that we should ban people from these countries. I firmly oppose any ban that is based on nationality or religion, but it is unacceptable that business interests have played potentially a role in such a destructive policy that also makes our country less safe in the long run. This move will likely damage relationships with our Muslim allies who are fighting ISIS militants, and be used as a tool by the Islamic State to increase their recruitment and radicalization efforts. Of course, my friends in the majority and in the White House claim that the seven countries under this order were similarly targeted by our previous administration. In reality, President Trump's discriminatory ban is drastically different than President Obama's specific changes to the State Department Visa Waiver Program, in which the changes focused on expedited visa privileges for dual nationals and did not target all citizens from specific countries; but I will bet you didn't hear Sean Spicer make that distinction. Instead, the administration is busy downplaying the number of people who were impacted by this decision and is claiming that only 109 people were affected--aka alternative facts. At least 700 people were denied boarding after the order was issued, and 90,000 people in these countries already have visas but will not be able to travel to the United States. It is time for the President to stop defending his divisive and unconstitutional executive order and start being transparent about his business interests. Every President who has been elected in the modern era has released his tax records to ensure the American people that his actions will not be impacted by financial holdings. After promising throughout the campaign to release his tax returns, President Trump's advisers recently announced that he will indefinitely hide this information from the public. These holdings potentially put President Trump in direct violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution on day one. The safeguard is designed to prevent corruption and foreign influence over policy decisions by not allowing Federal officials to take money from a foreign entity without there being congressional approval; but we have seen report after report of foreign leaders and diplomats choosing to stay at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., in order to gain favor with the administration. They stand to profit from foreign governments, including a big paycheck from a Chinese bank, which is a large tenant at the Trump Tower. These are just tip-of-the- iceberg examples of direct conflicts in both domestic and foreign policy under this President. Mr. President, it is time for you to fix this. One, divest your business holdings immediately to remove any suggestion of there being a conflict in your decisionmaking. Two, show us your tax returns so that your business and financial interests are transparent to the American people. Three, get rid of your unconstitutional executive order, which will make us less safe and only serve to embolden our enemies. Short of that, we will have to take other actions, including legislative directives, resolutions of disapproval, even exploring the power of impeachment.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal) for the Progressive Caucus' Special Order hour. I was on the floor earlier today talking about my concerns very specifically around this, as it relates to the countries that were selected and the fact that these were not countries that were selected for any reason other than the fact that they are Muslim countries and that Mr. Trump has decided that they should be included. What I want to talk about tonight is my district and how this affects it. We saw the crowds in New York, California, Chicago, Boston, and other big cities that have international airports and the activities this weekend; but in Madison, Wisconsin, we have had a very direct impact. We have 115 faculty, students, and staff, right now, impacted by this decision. In fact, there is one joint national Canadian-Iranian student who is in Brazil who has been advised not to come back. What I want to do is read into the Record this statement. We are working on a case of someone who is an Iraqi national, and this is a letter written by someone who served with him in the military. I want to read this very quickly: I am contacting you regarding John, an Iraqi national who earned a special immigration visa for his work with the U.S. Army over two different 3-year periods in Baghdad and another region of Iraq. My personal acquaintance with him, where he is a translator in a small 12-man military training team I led. The recent executive order curtailing immigration from Iraq, along with six other countries, has halted his plan to emigrate with his family. He and his fellow translators provided an invaluable service to the team. They braved the same dangers we all faced. They rode in the same vehicles, walked the same streets, met with the same people. The only difference is is they were unarmed and, after missions when we returned to secure FOBs, they had to return to live in their communities unprotected. John was wounded while working with the U.S. Army, and he provided honorable service to the country for years. This is who is the target of President Trump's executive order banning Muslims. This is wrong, and we need it to stop. President Trump, rescind your order.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Paul Mickelson--a constituent who dedicated his life's work to public service in his community, his state, and abroad. Paul Mickelson began his career in public service by joining the Beloit Fire Department. He worked there for 26 years serving several roles including motor pump operator, firefighter, and ambulance attendant. Paul also honorably served as the Fire Department's Union Representative and Union President. After his retirement from the Beloit Fire Department, Paul joined the U.S. Peace Corps and served in Cameroon. While he was there, he fell in love with the country and wanted to give back to the community where he worked. He founded Paul's Computer Institute (PCI) in Bamenda, Cameroon in 1997 which focuses on delivering high levels of professional training based in the Information and Communication Technology sectors. Thanks to Paul's hard work and dedication to increase access to high quality education and professional training, the PCI has become one of the largest and most respected computer training centers in West Africa. For all his contributions to public service, Paul was recognized as a Paul Harris Fellow by Rotary Club and was honored by Beloit College for his work and success with PCI. Paul's commitment to education and public service will live on through the Beloit community and the school he built in Cameroon. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the life of Mr. Paul Mickelson today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can bring up my amendment, which would block the House GOP majority from cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. President-elect Donald Trump has promised many times throughout his campaign that he would not cut Social Security benefits for seniors nor would he support cuts to Medicare or Medicaid benefits. In fact, at least 15 times he said he would not make cuts to Medicare or Social Security. He even tweeted it; so we know he really, really meant it. If it is important to the Democrats and if it is important to the President-elect and if it is important to the American people, let's make sure it is absolutely certain that no one has to worry about a cut in one's Social Security and Medicare benefits--not a single cut to anyone. If we could do that, that would be the single biggest success of the 115th Congress. If you support the idea that you will not cut Social Security and Medicare and that you will protect the promise to our constituents, then support this amendment. But if you are not sure yet or if you might be willing to cut Social Security and Medicare or if you are actually considering cutting these programs, then you should oppose this amendment. Again, our amendment would block any legislation before the House or Senate which cuts guaranteed, earned benefits under Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid programs; which increases the retirement age for these benefits or which privatizes Social Security. Nationally, over 64 million people receive benefits from Social Security. I want to read a couple of comments from constituents from the State of Wisconsin, the home State of Speaker Paul Ryan and mine. Robyn from Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, said: ``Please do everything in your power to oppose Speaker Ryan's legislation to privatize Social Security and Medicare. These are our earned benefits for a lifetime of working as dairy farmers.'' Carol from Madison said: ``I am a retired Navy veteran and a cancer survivor. My grandfather, a World War II and Korean war vet, is living in a home on Medicaid and Medicare. What is going to happen to him if . . . Republicans are successful in drastically altering these programs?'' Democrats believe we need to protect our senior citizens and the most vulnerable in our society. Democrats believe we need to strengthen the middle class through the preservation of Social Security and Medicare, and so do the American people. Do Republicans share our belief? Let's make it crystal clear. Do you want to protect Social Security and Medicare, or do you want to cut these earned benefits? You can decide that with this vote. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can bring up the CPC--the Pocan-Ellison-Grijalva-Lee-Schakowsky amendment--and find out who truly supports Medicare and Social Security in this House.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. POCAN. I am opposed.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, when I was 23, I decided to open a small business in my home State of Wisconsin, a business which I still own today nearly 3 decades later. I know what it takes to create jobs, good family supporting union jobs. I know what a headache misguided regulation can be. No one supports dumb regulation. There is a regulation that says it is a crime to sell ``turkey ham'' as ``ham turkey'' or with the words ``turkey'' or ``ham'' in a different font. That is just dumb. But I also know that rhetoric about regulation can go too far and in the wrong direction and sometimes be done for the wrong reasons. Last week, we all heard loud and clear that there is economic anxiety in this country, more than anyone ever imagined. While the economy has largely come back from the crash of 2008, too many are working more hours for less, and many don't earn what they used to in jobs that have left us and have gone overseas. The last thing we should be doing right now is anything that costs us jobs in this country, and that is exactly what this bill before us would do today. This motion to recommit is simple. We should support any rules and regulations that help put Americans back to work. I think that is something everyone should be able to agree with; but, unfortunately, some in Congress want to stop all sorts of regulations, even ones that help the American people get back to work, just because some powerful special interests don't like them. That means you would throw out regulations that have the ability to help increase people's paychecks and create jobs right here in America. Let's face it. President Obama knows a thing or two about creating jobs. Under his administration, over 13 million jobs have been created--twice the number that were created under President Bush--and we have added jobs consistently for the last 73 months. That should be something we are all glad about and support. It is no wonder that President Obama's approval rating is at 56 percent today; but now Congress wants to take away the President's ability to continue to help the economy--Congress, which, by the way, cost 1.6 million jobs through passing sequestration; Congress, which cost the economy $24 billion when we shut down the government a few years back; and Congress, which can't even pass a budget or appropriations bills--the essential 101 of government. Congress is going to tell the President what he is doing wrong and what he should and shouldn't do while he is still President. Really? Remember, the President's approval rating is 56 percent, and the majority's rating is about 15 to 20 percent. So Congress is going to tell the President what he should do even if it would cost us jobs. That is not the message from last week, my colleagues. People want more job growth and bigger paychecks, not less. If you are serious about stopping bad regulation, we are with you. If you simply want to stop the President from continuing to be President for the remainder of his term and stop us from creating jobs by doing that, you didn't get the message from last week--but we did. We are hyper-focused on creating good, family supporting jobs, and we aren't going to stop a President who is doing that just so Republicans can say ``thank you'' to some corporate special interests. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize La Comunidad News and its founder and publisher, Rafael Viscarra on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Latino newspaper's publication. In the 2nd Congressional District of Wisconsin, we are fortunate to have such a longstanding newspaper focused on ``helping, empowering and serving the Latino community,'' as its mission states. The newspaper began when Rafael Viscarra and his son, Dante Viscarra, sought a way to keep our growing Latino community informed and participating in the community and the democratic system. The newspaper was Madison's first Spanish-language newspaper, beginning publication under the name Spanish News/La Nacion. Today it continues to celebrate Latino holidays and culture. It honors the achievements of community members, as well as connecting people within the Latino community and informing our broader community. In its 25 years of publication, La Comunidad has been an important voice as the Latino population has grown from several thousand people to more than 30,000 residents from diverse nationalities in the newspaper's Dane County readership area. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize La Comunidad News for its service and contributions to our community.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6094. There has been a lot of talk about what small businesses think about this law. We put it in the name of the bill. Well, let me give you a perspective of a small-business owner for 29 years. I am, this week--maybe not right now; they might have left--paying overtime to one of my employees. They are working extra hours because we are extra busy at this time of year. You know what that means when I pay them extra money? That means I am making more money because we have got more hours that we are billing out. All I am doing is sharing it with the employees who, otherwise, are spending less time with their families. That is why we pay overtime pay. It is a pretty basic concept. The problem is, if you delay this rule for 6 months, you will deny Americans $600 million in pay during that time. There will be 4.2 million Americans newly eligible for overtime pay, under the proposed rule. Another 8.9 million working Americans will have their overtime protections strengthened under this rule. Let's make sure people really understand what it is really about. The current level that is in place for overtime is $23,400. The Federal poverty line for a family of four, Mr. Speaker, is $24,300. We are asking people to work overtime--extra hours--for free who are living below the Federal poverty line at the current level. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As an employer, I would feel terrible that I have an employee putting 60 hours a week in and living below the Federal poverty line. So the problem is there are some employers and some business models that simply aren't sufficient because they are taking advantage of the current overtime rule because it is so antiquated--it is from 2004--and that is simply why we have to have it increased. Only 7 percent of the full-time salary workforce right now is under that rule. If you go back to 1975, that was at 60 percent. Even with this rule, we are only bringing that up to a third of full-time salaried workers. It is long overdue. So what does this bill do? This would delay it for 6 months. Let's be honest. This isn't about delaying it for 6 months. This is about trying to kill the bill outright. This is about trying not to have an increase in overtime pay. It was very clear from the hearings that a lot of these businesses make money off of their current model. We have seen that in the economy. Wages have generally been flat; although, recently, we have seen a little uptick. Corporate profits have soared. CEO profits have soared. The stock market has soared. The only thing left behind are wages. This is one of those things to deal with it for someone who could be living on the Federal poverty line, giving free hours to an employer who, I would argue, needs a better business model. What will happen if this rule goes into effect? One of three things: First, you will see people working fewer hours for no less pay and able to spend more time with their family or time to get a second job if they need additional money to support their family; Second, they will receive more compensation in their current jobs in the form of overtime pay; Third, many unemployed or underemployed people will see new opportunities for jobs or extra hours at their current jobs once those extra hours are no longer worked for free and, instead, spread out among workers. It is a scare tactic to say that people are going to be fired and lose work before the holidays. I am an employer. I am happy. I make money this week because I am paying someone overtime. I know I am making even more money for my business. I learned this once when I talked to a very successful businessowner in Wisconsin about taxes. He said, I don't mind paying taxes. If I am making money, I pay taxes. If I am not making money, I am not paying. That is the way it should be. That is how I look at this. I want to share it with my employees because, if they are making the sacrifice away from their families, that is why we have overtime pay in place. That is why we have this rule in place. This delay is a bad idea.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from organization that support the overtime rule.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Again, I thank the gentleman so much. I appreciate it.

Mr. POCAN. I think the point that the gentleman brought up, especially around why we can't amend it, is a real significant one. Congress gave up its ability when it passed trade promotion authority to allow the President to do the final negotiations. We gave up our ability to have any amendments, and we have limited debate. So when there are so many concerns with this trade agreement, unfortunately, there is very little other than an up-or-down vote that we can do. This is exactly why when you have two major party Presidential candidates and scores of candidates for Federal office across the country in both parties opposing this agreement to allow people who could be kicked out of office, essentially by the voters, to make that decision in a lameduck is certainly undemocratic, with a small D. That is one of the real problems we are facing on this. The other issue you brought up, gentleman, and I want to talk about too is the accompanying job loss. Other trade agreements we have had in the past, we have seen that we have had a net job loss both, I believe, from the Korea Free Trade Agreement where we were made one promise and a different result happened from NAFTA. I just last year had a company leave Lafayette County, Wisconsin. Lafayette County is one of the most rural counties in the State of Wisconsin. The largest city is 2,400 people, Darlington. It is one of two counties in the State of Wisconsin that doesn't have a stop-and-go light. This is a rural, rural area. A company just last year, with about 32 jobs that did auto parts, left to go to Mexico. Now, there is some trade adjustment assistance that can help in the short term to help the workers. But think about it: 32 jobs in a community of 2,400. I also have Madison, Wisconsin, in my district, with about 240,000 people. That would be like losing 3,000-plus jobs in the city of Madison, Wisconsin. That is the effect that happened to that city, Darlington, because of previous past trade deals. That is why it is so important we get it right and we get it right the first time. In this case, I think there are many people in both parties who don't think we have it quite right, and that is why we need to address it. Another thing I want to raise that we talked about, and I think it is so important because this is new news from this week, is the provisions around the investor-state dispute settlement, the provisions that allow, essentially, the multinational corporations to sue government if they think something affects their future profits. Just this week there was a group of academics who have traditionally embraced free trade but are alarmed by the inclusion of the ISDS provisions in the deal who just sent a letter to Congress warning of this system. It is 223-strong, led by Harvard law professor, Laurence Tribe. He warned that the U.S. will be subject to a flurry of suits by profit-seeking actors with no interest in working through a democratic or constitutional process. Let me read the quote in the letter: ``Unfortunately the final TPP text simply replicates nearly word for word many of the problematic provisions from past agreements, and indeed would vastly expand the U.S. government's potential liability under the ISDS system.'' This is about our sovereignty. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, I am here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, which is in charge of this hour. We are here today to talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and trade. The people in the Progressive Caucus have been some of the leaders in the movement to make sure that we have trade deals that protect American jobs and lift our wages here in the United States. We want to make sure that there are environmental protections across the globe. We want to make sure our food is safe and our prescription drugs are affordable. We want to make sure there are human rights in countries that do trade with the United States. And we want to make sure we are addressing issues like currency manipulation. All of those issues are important when you want to advance trade. No one in this room is against trade. We are all for increasing our ability to have more exports and to have imports into this country, but you have to have trade deals that work on behalf of the American worker. And all too often, past trade deals have cost us jobs here in the United States. They have made our wages continue to be depressed. That is not a good trade deal, in the minds of the members of the Progressive Caucus. That is why we are here at this hour to talk specifically about what is good trade, why we are skeptical of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and why we especially don't want to see a vote during the lameduck session after the election in November. With people who are no longer going to be serving in Congress, taking that vote at that time would be an especially bad idea. Today is a national call-in day of action on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There are over 90 public interest groups that have been calling our offices. I heard my staff picking up the phone over and over again, responding to people who want to make sure that we have trade deals that take care of all those things that we talked about, all the things that members of the Progressive Caucus have been leaders in this Congress and trying to advocate for. In conjunction with the tens of thousands of people who have called Congress today to urge their Members not only to not support the Trans- Pacific Partnership, because it is really not a trade deal, there are parts about a trade--this is a rewriting of corporate rules that could have huge ramifications. Forty percent of the world's gross domestic product is involved in this one large deal. We want to make sure we get it right, not just fast. That is why we are joining with these groups today to make sure that people know what is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and why it is vitally important that we don't take this up during a lameduck session. As I said, not only do we have Members who will no longer be serving here who might even be looking for jobs with some of the very industries advocating for the Trans-Pacific Partnership because it will benefit their bottom line, but also we have two Presidential candidates in the main two parties who both oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This should be something that, with as much enormous respect I have for President Obama, we should allow the next President to be able to address trade, especially when a deal like this has so much controversy and so many questions about it. So we are here. During the next hour we are going to hear from various members of the Progressive Caucus. It is my honor to yield to one of my colleagues from the great State of California. The 17th District of California is very lucky to have a representative who has been such an outspoken advocate for middle-class families not just in California, but across the country. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), my colleague from the 17th District of California.