Mark Pocan

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am here today on behalf of both the Progressive Caucus and the Equality Caucus, as we are here today to talk about June being national Pride Month--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month--as we celebrate every June. This year has been an especially significant year. We have had a lot of victories. One year ago Thursday--tomorrow--is the year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that ensured that people could have their marriages recognized by the Federal Government. We have also had a number of States in the last year--bringing us up to 19 States and the District of Columbia--where you can legally be married in this country and several others that have approved it, but are currently in the legal status, including my home State of Wisconsin. We have had a big year, in that Michael Sam was the first openly gay person to be drafted into the NFL. So we have had a lot of successes in the last year since our last Pride. We are here today to talk about that and what an important contribution to this country we have from our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens, but as much we have had all these successes, we have also had a number of projects that we still have to get done. Until everyone has access to full equality in this country, we have not provided equal treatment under the law to each and every person as we would expect. Mr. Speaker, we still have a number of States where you can be fired simply for being gay or lesbian. Michael Sam, as much as he has finally made it into the NFL, could be fired in a number of States in this country under the current law. We still have too many students and too many youth who attempt suicide who are bullied in school. We have to make sure they have equal access to a quality education, and we still have too much uneven treatment, depending on what State you live in, whether or not your family is recognized. Whether you are in Wisconsin or Massachusetts, the law is different, certainly, in the State level. We are here today to talk about the many successes we have had and the challenges we still yet have. I am very happy to be joined by a number of colleagues today, and I would like to yield, if I could, right off the bat, to one of my colleagues who has been an outspoken advocate for equality, Representative Al Green from the great State of Texas.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Green, not only because you have been a veteran fighter for civil rights for everyone in this country, but I believe that is the first time that that resolution has been introduced in the body of Congress to recognize this month as Pride Month. We appreciate all the hard work you have done to make sure that happens. I agree with you. I look forward to the day that we actually get a chance to vote on that in the month of June and make sure we recognize everyone in this country, so thank you so much for your contributions.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that, when the gentleman talked about the historical aspect of why this month is so important, he mentioned the Stonewall riots. In fact, this Saturday--June 28--will mark the 45th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, which is often seen as the real birth of the movement for equality for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities. The gentleman mentioned Harvey Milk from California, who just this year was recognized on a stamp by the U.S. Government, the U.S. Postal Service, so we can recognize the many contributions that Harvey Milk made for this country, so that so many people could be out and run for office. Mr. Speaker, I like to remind people that, in my home State of Wisconsin, one of the things is we talk about each coast and the many things that have been done on our coasts for people for equality who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered. My State of Wisconsin--we were the State that sent the first person who ran out for Congress, Tammy Baldwin, to the U.S. House, the first person elected to the U.S. Senate, in Tammy Baldwin. With my election, Tammy Baldwin's, and a Republican's--Steve Gunderson, who came out while he was in office--we have sent more openly gay and lesbian people to Congress than any other State in the country--and that is from the heartland, the State of Wisconsin. So we are really proud of this entire country, from coast to coast and especially in the heartland. We are trying to do everything we can to make sure that everyone is treated with respect and dignity and they have the liberty to live their lives to the fullest, and that is exactly what this month is about. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to another one of my colleagues who has been a hardworking fighter on behalf of equality for every single person. In fact, I think he may have the distinction of being the first person to fly a rainbow flag outside of his office here in Washington, DC, have it outside of his door in his office. He has been a tremendous fighter from the Long Beach area of California and a very good friend of mine. I would like to yield to my colleague from the great State of California, Representative Alan Lowenthal.

Mr. POCAN. I thank Representative Cicilline. You are seen on so many issues as the point person in this Congress; specifically, making sure that we respect those who may be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender in other countries. I think I heard a statistic this year that one out of six people who previously had rights lost them this year because of countries like Russia, India, and other countries across our globe. It is a real concern. While we are having progress here, it is leaving a lot of other people behind around the world. Thank you for all of your advocacy around that. In fact, one of those countries that is a country that has not gone forward in the area of equal treatment of their citizens is the country of Brunei. Brunei is a country that is currently part of the negotiations that we are having with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that is generally offered to countries that we have something in common with, that we want to be able to not only have increased trade with, but you actually want to make sure that they somehow reflect your values. And unfortunately Brunei just recently implemented shari'a law, which includes the stoning of gays and lesbians, the stoning to death for gays and lesbians in their country. This is something that we have great concern about. There was a bipartisan letter recently signed by 119 Members of this body that went to both Secretary Kerry and the U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman specifically saying why are we rewarding something that is considered such a prize, to have status in trading with us as one of the countries that we are going to put into a trade agreement, when they have such terrible human rights conditions? 119 people, in a bipartisan way in this body, sent that letter. So we are hoping that--as Representative Cicilline said, we are seeing us go backwards in Russia, and it looks like we may be going backwards in India and some other countries. Certainly, they have advocated the stoning of gays and lesbians. That is truly a backward idea and something that this country needs to do everything we can to change. I am glad that so many of our colleagues, in a bipartisan way, did that. Some of the other bills that Members of Congress have introduced to try to address some of the issues that we need to move forward on, Representative Titus from Nevada has introduced the Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act, specifically getting at some of the complexities that we haven't gotten to yet within the Veterans Administration to make sure that everyone has their family relationship recognized and that that treatment is extended to their spouses. Representative Walz also has Protecting the Freedoms and Benefits for All Veterans Act; Representative Adam Smith has Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act--all trying to make sure that if you serve this country and you are a gay or lesbian citizen, you have the same benefits and rights offered to your family as offered to the other members of the military. There is also a bill Representative Ron Kind from Wisconsin has introduced, the Social Security and Marriage Equality Act, trying to address the other problem that we have within Social Security, to make sure that everyone has those benefits offered to their life partners, their husbands or wives in same sex-sex relationships. Right now that has not happened yet since that Windsor decision, and it needs to happen and we are moving forward on that. There is a bill that I have introduced that specifically is looking to--the Restore Honor to Servicemembers Act. One of the, I think, uglier parts of our Nation's history when it comes to treatment of folks who may be gay or lesbian has been the fact that we had for so long a policy--and previous to that, outright discrimination--against gays and lesbians who choose to serve this country in the military. Under President Clinton we implemented Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but that still didn't fix it so that you could serve openly in the military. And finally, when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed and anyone was able to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation, we found that 114,000 people since World War II in this country were discharged with something different than the honorable discharge they should have received for their service to this country because we so often let people go previously out of the military because they are gay or lesbian with a either dishonorable discharge, other than honorable, or some other status. Don't forget, a dishonorable discharge in some States is the same as a felony. It can take away your ability to vote; it takes away your ability to have veterans' benefits even though you served this country well. There is a process now that people can get that status changed to the honorable status they should have received, but it is a complicated process. While it is in place under this current President, a future President could change it because it is not actually in statute. Often people have to go and hire a lawyer because it is a complicated process. We have introduced a bill to make sure that we really treat all those veterans with the respect and honor they deserve for treating this country in the way they did by putting their life on the line to do everything they could to make sure that we have the liberty that we all have, that they should now have the liberty that they deserve and have that record changed. That is a bill that we are also trying to get done that we think is very important in moving forward. This is a historic month. When we have Pride Month, we try to recognize the many areas that not only have we moved forward on, but also what we still need to improve. I think by talking about some of the bills that still have to move forward to make sure that everyone has that equal treatment under the law--again, those things include equal treatment for employment, which is why we have the Employee Nondiscrimination Act. In 29 States in this country you can still be fired simply because of whom you love. We have too many students who are still being bullied in school, and the suicide rate among LGBT youth is much higher than youth in general, and we have to help restore that. It shouldn't matter what State you live in whether or not your family is recognized. So, if you live in Wisconsin that unfortunately still has hate in our State constitution, the fact that I live there with my husband doesn't mean I should be treated any differently than if I lived in Illinois or Minnesota or Iowa, neighboring States that all recognize the relationships regardless of whom you love. Those are all things we still have to get done in this country. We need to do that in this body, Mr. Speaker, in this Congress. We need to get these bills to the floor and pass them and move on from what I think at one point in this history was a certain way to get out certain voters. There is a certain constituency that was built around hate. We need to move beyond that. I think many people have. While the Democratic Party certainly, I think, has been a party of inclusion and moved in a positive way, I think I am seeing that happen among Republicans, but we need to have the leadership of this House also moving. We had a Republican Member just yesterday who has been a strong supporter of equality for all people just win his Republican primary. That is important because he has been an outspoken voice for equality. Representative Hanna, I am glad you won your primary. You stood up for your values, and your constituents supported you. I think it is time that more of our colleagues, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, need to also stand up for what is right, because we all have colleagues and we all have constituents who are gay and lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. We can't pick and choose who we represent. You support and you represent every single person in your district, and when you don't support full equality, you are really not standing up for each and every constituent, and that is truly unfortunate. To end, I really want to focus again on those successes. We have had a tremendous year. We have had so much progress from the Supreme Court decision exactly 1 year ago tomorrow, where we have now had a number of States just in the last year move towards full marriage equality, where we have had a country where Michael Sam could finally be the first openly gay person drafted into the NFL. We have been able to move forward in so many areas. This is because society has moved. A majority of people in this country support marriage equality. I believe the last I saw was 58 percent of the people. Even more important, 81 percent of people 30 and under support marriage equality. That is where this country is going. We want to treat everyone with respect and dignity and allow them the liberty to live their lives. Until we do that for every single citizen, we have not reached the goal of treating everyone with equality and equal treatment under the law. With this time that we have had, the Progressive Caucus and the Equality Caucus, I wanted to share some time with our members so we could make sure we celebrate this Pride Month and all of our constituents who may be gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgendered and say thank you for all you do. We are going to continue to fight for your equality, not only in this body in Congress, but throughout society. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. POCAN. As Representative Lowenthal mentioned, one of the things we need to get done yet is a bill called the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, or ENDA. In 29 States in this country, you can still be fired simply because of your sexual orientation, and in 33 States based on your gender identity. This is 2014. Our country has moved far beyond the fact that you can be fired simply because of who you love. In fact, most people assume this is already the law of the land, yet it is not the law of the land, and depending upon what States you live in depends on whether or not you can have discrimination against you. That is simply wrong. The ENDA bill has the support of virtually every Democrat in the House. Eight Republican Members have officially signed on as sponsors. And if that bill were to come to this floor, Mr. Speaker, there would be the votes to pass this bill. The problem is getting it to the floor of Congress. Right now we are not able to do that. The Republican majority has not allowed that bill to come to the floor, but we know and we feel confident that there are the votes to pass that in this House if we can only get it on the floor. We can join the 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies that provide for equal treatment for their employees. And the fact that 82 percent of the U.S. public supports this, it is far past due to make sure that we protect each and every person with these protections. Another thing that Representative Lowenthal said that deserves extra recognition is that the Obama administration, President Obama and Vice President Biden, have been outspoken advocates for equal treatment under the law for each and every single person. In fact, when I think about 1 year ago tomorrow when that Supreme Court decision came out, I was outside the Supreme Court when the decision was declared. I remember going back to my office, and that day we were on the phone with the President and his administration telling us how they were going to make sure that the Supreme Court decision would be implemented in law as quickly as humanly possible. I can tell you, that has certainly happened. In fact, just last week, the Obama administration released a report on the implementation of the Windsor decision detailing exactly how Federal agencies have moved to implement the law, and we have had tremendous progress in virtually every area. While we still have some areas to move forward, specifically in Social Security and in veterans benefits, we are moving forward with that law, making sure that the Supreme Court's decision is implemented in the laws of the land in this country so that everyone is treated equally. I tell you, that President Obama and Vice President Biden have made it such a priority that everyone is treated with dignity and respect in this country has been amazing, and it is part of why we have the progress that we have. If only this Congress could get an employee nondiscrimination bill on the floor, I know this Congress would pass in a bipartisan way the very protections that we need. In fact, the President just within the last 2 weeks made sure that some of those protections are in place. The LGBT Equality Caucus has long asked the President could we possibly do an executive order to make sure that anyone who does business as a Federal contractor provides these protections to their gay and lesbian employees, just as should happen under the law. If this Congress can't act, it doesn't mean nothing should happen. If this Congress can't act, something has to happen to fill that vacuum. The White House says they will be drafting an executive order to make sure that any Federal contractor does not discriminate based on their sexual orientation. That is a tremendous step forward, but we still have to make sure that each and every one of those States that doesn't provide these protections does provide those protections under the law. Another area within the Federal Government where we need to do more is specifically on a number of bills that have been introduced by a number of Members from across this country to make sure that everyone is respected under that court decision--no matter what you do for a living, that you have that respect and dignity. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has introduced the Respect For Marriage Act to ensure that those who live in States that aren't recognized can be recognized. For example, in the State of Wisconsin, my husband and I were married in 2006 in Toronto. My State still has hate in its constitution. By Federal law, we are recognized for the thousand rights and responsibilities that are afforded to marriage, but the 213 under State law are still in limbo. Despite the fact that a Federal judge recently ruled our marriage ban as unconstitutional, it is still back in legal limbo. Until that decision gets made, people who have been married, which is in the hundreds in Wisconsin who just got married, and before that hundreds and hundreds more, can still have recognition of their benefits so we have consistency in the law. There are other bills that I am going to talk about as we go through this hour, but I would like to yield to another one of my colleagues, someone who has been an outstanding Representative from the State of Rhode Island. First he served as the mayor of Providence, and he is an outstanding advocate for equality for each and every single person of this country, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the chairman for including language supporting continued work on lithium ion battery research. However, in reviewing the underlying bill, I am concerned about the possible interpretation by the Office of Naval Research with respect to this effort. I believe it is important that the Office of Naval Research emphasize battery safety as a part of this work. I would also request the opportunity to continue to work with the chairman and the ranking member to allocate research and development funding to promote battery safety and to retain such funding through conference on the underlying bill. I hope to make it clear that this Chamber encourages investment in battery safety research.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous work of the Latino Children and Families Council and their programs for the Latino community in Wisconsin's Second District. The Latino Children and Families Council hosts El Diia de los Ninnos, an annual event in Madison, Wisconsin for Latino children and their families. This event includes music, food and plenty of games and educational activities for youth to enjoy. Also featured are opportunities for parents to receive information about childcare, parenting and the resources available to them in our community. The day culminates with a parade of Latin American Nations which allows the children to showcase their talents and celebrate their heritage. Through education and advocacy, the Council continually promotes the success and wellbeing of Latino children and families. The Council promotes strong partnerships between community organizations and works to ensure our schools provide quality education that is inclusive of all students and the unique backgrounds from which they come and the diverse languages that they speak. The Council also provides leadership, giving a strong voice to the concerns of the Latino community. I am proud to celebrate Saturday, May 3, 2014 as ``El Diia de los Ninnos.'' I thank the Latino Children and Families Council for their efforts to engage with and support the Latino community in Madison. This recognition is a most fitting honor of the important work that they do, not just today but throughout the year.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous work of the Latino Children and Families Council and their programs for the Latino community in Wisconsin's Second District. The Latino Children and Families Council hosts El Diia de los Ninnos, an annual event in Madison, Wisconsin for Latino children and their families. This event includes music, food and plenty of games and educational activities for youth to enjoy. Also featured are opportunities for parents to receive information about childcare, parenting and the resources available to them in our community. The day culminates with a parade of Latin American Nations which allows the children to showcase their talents and celebrate their heritage. Through education and advocacy, the Council continually promotes the success and well-being of Latino children and families. The Council promotes strong partnerships between community organizations and works to ensure our schools provide quality education that is inclusive of all students and the unique backgrounds from which they come and the diverse languages that they speak. The Council also provides leadership, giving a strong voice to the concerns of the Latino community. I am proud to celebrate Saturday, May 3, 2014 as ``El Diia de los Ninnos.'' I thank the Latino Children and Families Council for their efforts to engage with and support the Latino community in Madison. This recognition is a most fitting honor of the important work that they do, not just today but throughout the year.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Wanda Fullmore, who, after 39 years of dedicated service to the people of Madison, Wisconsin, is retiring from the Mayor's Office. Her welcoming voice, warm smile and engaging personality greeted the visitors of five Madison mayors since 1975. Regardless of who sat in the mayor's chair, her unofficial title was ``The Real Mayor.'' You knew you had become a local community leader when Wanda knew you well enough to call you ``Honey!'' Mayors would come and go, but Wanda was the consistent presence and institutional memory that guided residents through the complications of local government for nearly four decades. Her knowledge of Madison city government was unparalleled. Better than any directory, organizational chart, or 211 referral system, Wanda could find the one person in city government who could solve even the most esoteric of problems. And chances are, she not only knew their phone number by heart, but also the names and ages of their children. As anyone who answers phones for a living knows, her job was not always pleasant or easy. She incurred the wrath of many constituents upset about everything from parks to potholes and taxes to traffic. She handled them all with patience and grace. Wanda Fullmore: greeter, listener, caseworker, gatekeeper, public servant, sounding board, advocate, friend. She will be missed by all who had the pleasure of working with her and the thousands of people whose lives she touched. I ask the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in wishing her an enjoyable and well-deserved retirement.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth year in a row that the Republicans have introduced their roadmap for the future. If they took over the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, what would they do? Who would be the winners and losers? The chairman of the Budget Committee said this is a win-win budget. It is a win if you are in the top percentile, and it is a win if you are in the second percentile, but the rest of us--the 98 percent-- certainly aren't winning. We lose 1.1 million jobs in 2015 and 3 million jobs in 2016 in the Republican budget. That is like firing every single person in the State of Wisconsin. We lose by slashing investments in infrastructure and science, in transportation and education, and for our seniors. The middle class taxpayers pay for it. We also lose on the fact that this has fuzzy math. The logic is terrible. To say this actually balances in 10 years is to say that Cheez Whiz is like real Wisconsin cheese. They cut the Affordable Care Act's benefits, but they keep the revenues, and they keep the savings, which is simply impossible. I hope the American public realizes that, if the Republicans take over, this is their roadmap. These are the cuts you are going to see, so I urge a ``no'' vote on the budget.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from northwest Wisconsin is right: let's put the budgets side by side. The Better Off Budget will create 8.8 million jobs. The Republican Paul Ryan budget will cut 3 million jobs. That is equivalent to the entire workforce of the State of Wisconsin. If you have family with kids going to school, the Better Off Budget invests into hiring more teachers, invests in our schools and pre-K, invests in our college students. The Paul Ryan Republican budget, it cuts $18 billion in early education, $89 billion in K-12 education, and $205 billion in higher education. Oh, and if you get Pell grants, another $145 billion cut. Senior citizens, we invest in Medicare and Medicaid and we make sure you can negotiate for your drug prices. Seniors under the Republican budget, you voucherize Medicare and you will lose $732 billion in Medicaid. And, oh, yeah, we are going to open up the doughnut hole and you will pay more for prescription drugs. Finally, on taxes, we close corporate loopholes for gas and oil companies. We make sure that companies sending jobs overseas don't get tax breaks. The Republican budget, it cuts taxes on millionaires on average $200,000 each. And you know how it gets paid for? On the backs of the middle class, $2,000 per family. The head of the Budget Committee said it is a win/win budget. It is a win for the top 1 percent. It is a win for the second percentile, and the other 98 percent of us pay the difference.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, for those wise comments about the word ``discretionary.'' I think, all too often, people don't understand what we mean when we talk about discretionary. Those are hardly discretionary programs.

Mr. POCAN. Again, thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, for your service, for your hard work on this budget, and for all you do for the people of California. When we talk about those discretionary funds, it is interesting because, when we had the sequester that made a huge cut to these programs and that affected people in all of our States, the Paul Ryan Republican budget doubles down on these sequester cuts, and it makes even deeper cuts in a number of areas. I just want to go through a little bit of a chart. Unfortunately, I found out that I can't use a marker on the House floor because that is against the rules, so we are going to use this in a little bit of a different way, to try to have you take a look at this and decide where the difference is and who winds up winning on the side of the GOP Paul Ryan budget and the Congressional Progressive Caucus Better Off Budget. I just want to go through a few examples of programs that would matter. Let's start with unemployed workers. Let's take a look at the two budgets. When you look at the Better Off Budget, as I showed before, 8.8 million jobs are created by the Better Off Budget. In the Republican budget, according to the Economic Policy Institute, it would cut 3 million jobs by the year 2016. If you are someone who is unemployed, the Better Off Budget would make sure we extend emergency unemployment benefits. The GOP budget is silent--crickets. There is absolutely nothing to help people who--in a tough economy and who have worked hard all of their lives and who have played by the rules--have lost their benefits. SNAP, for people who are getting help on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, by and large, two-thirds of those people are children, seniors, and people with severe disabilities. If you add the working poor, you are at 92 percent of the people who receive these benefits. The Democrats restore the cuts that happened this year in the farm bill and previous cuts to the program. $31.50 a week is what someone was making on the SNAP program to help him in getting by with food. We know this program is one of the best programs to help lift people out of poverty, and we restore that funding. What does the Paul Ryan budget do? You may remember the debate that we had on the farm bill. Originally, the Republicans wanted to cut the SNAP program by about $20 billion, and they couldn't get enough votes because Republicans wanted to cut it even more, so they finally cut it by $39 billion. Now, when we got to the conference committee with the Senate, we were able to get that down to $8 billion of cuts, but these are cuts to, as I mentioned, children, seniors, people with severe disabilities, and the working poor--two-thirds of whom are seniors, children, and people with severe disabilities. What does the Paul Ryan budget do? Does it cut the $20 billion that they couldn't pass originally? No. Does it cut the $39 billion like the Republicans ultimately passed? Oh, no, as it was not nearly enough. There is a $125 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the Paul Ryan Republican budget. Let's take a look at that for jobs. It costs 3 million jobs. It does nothing for the long-term unemployment extension, and it cuts assistance to the needy by $125 billion. I would say that the Progressive Caucus Democratic budget, by far, would win out in that category. Let's next look at education. We have got pre-K, K-12, and college students. Let's look at each of these areas. The Better Off Budget invests $100 million into a stimulus for teachers and schools, so that we can help do what we need to in order to be competitive globally. We need to be investing in our students through our teachers and our schools. We provide funding to rehire teachers who have lost their jobs through the bad economy in the last several years. We invest in early childhood development, which is crucial for someone to get a fair start in life, and we invest in job training. That is what the Congressional Progressive Caucus Better Off Budget includes. What does the Republican budget include? Let's start with pre-K. In pre-K, there is an $18 billion cut to early education programs. Right off the bat, are they investing more? There is an $18 billion cut. Once again, the Progressive Caucus budget leads us. Next, on K-12, in which we invest in the hiring of teachers and invest in our schools, what does the Republican budget do? In the Republican budget, if you have a child in K-12 public education in this country, there is an $89 billion cut. Again, $89 billion in cuts or investing in our teachers and schools? Once again, the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget outdoes the Republican budget. How about college students? This is where you are going to see some really big differences. We invest in the very financial aid programs that people need. We invest in higher education because, in order to be competitive in a global economy, we have to have the most talented, the smartest, the most innovative people we can possibly have in the economy to create the jobs we need to for the future. What does the Republican budget do? It cuts $205 billion in higher education services--$205 billion--and I am not even counting Pell grants. Pell grants, which help some of our neediest students get access to higher education, get a $145 billion cut. We are talking, overall, just in higher education, almost $350 billion. We invest more in those educational opportunities, and the Republican budget cuts over $350 billion. Overall, in those three areas in education alone, the Republicans cut $871 billion to education. That is what we do for middle class families and those aspiring to be in the middle class in the budget that this House will very likely pass tomorrow. Let's look at the next category, seniors. Seniors, you have put your entire lives into this country, and you have worked all of your lives. You expect to have a retirement that you have invested in, and you have put your hours in. What is the difference in the budgets? The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget does a number of things. One, we protect Social Security and Medicare. We make future investments in those programs. We protect funding in the Medicaid program. We allow Medicare to negotiate for better prescription drug prices, so that seniors can pay less on drugs that they have to pay a larger percent of their income on, so that they can get by in those years, and we help, overall, in putting America on a path towards offering a single-payer option. What does the Republican budget do when it comes to seniors? First of all, they end Medicare as we know it. Under the Republican budget, you now have a voucher program. You don't get Medicare. You get a voucher, something you can trade in, hopefully, for something in the future, which will very likely be a cut in the very health care that you have now and that you receive. They increase the costs for seniors on prescription drugs by reopening the doughnut hole, which is going to cost seniors $4.1 billion extra on prescription drugs. Seniors are going to pay more for the prescription drugs they need. They raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67, and they put seniors who rely on Medicaid at risk because they are making big cuts to the Medicaid program, $732 billion in cuts to the Medicaid program. Once again, for seniors, it is cuts, it is paying more for prescription drugs, and it is putting you at risk through the Medicaid and Medicare program. The Democrats and the Progressive Caucus protect all of those programs that the seniors rely on so very much. Our next group, the vets; they have served our country with distinction. If it weren't for the veterans we have, we wouldn't be able to protect the very liberties and freedoms that we have as a citizenry. What does the Progressive Caucus budget do? We adopt a cost-of-living adjustment that takes into account realistic retiree expenses, and we fully fund veterans programs in advance. We are protecting the programs, so that they have the guarantee to the veterans, the guarantee that they have promised to them, as they have put their time in for this country. We protect those very programs to ensure that they will have those programs in the future. With the Republicans, we hear a lot of lip service about veterans and about protecting veterans, especially around Memorial Day and Veterans' Day, but the proof is in the budget. What do the Republicans do? By 2016, the Republicans actually cut funding for veterans by $1.7 billion. Now, we saw what they did back in the budget in December when they cut the pensions for families who are in the military, but now, in their budget in 2016, there is an additional $1.7 billion cut to veterans. This is the sort of lip service that you get when a holiday comes up and when we show up. The reality is when we vote on it on this floor. Once again, for veterans, they lose money under the Republican budget, and in our budget, we protect programs that veterans deserve. The middle class, what does our budget have for the middle class, and what does the Republican budget have for the middle class? There are a couple of things around taxes. One of the things that we have been very careful to do is to get rid of some of the tax loopholes that benefit special interests. There are tax breaks for Big Oil and Big Gas and tax breaks that go to companies that send jobs overseas, which doesn't even make any sense, yet we incentivize those very companies that send those jobs overseas rather than create jobs in America. We protect middle class taxpayers by going back to the Clinton-era tax rates for households who make more than $250,000, and we add new brackets at $1 million. That allows us to bring in revenues from those who can most afford to, but protecting the very middle class that are the backbone of this economy. By doing that--and protecting health care, seniors, education, investing in infrastructure for the very roads and services that people count on--we are doing everything we can to protect the middle class. This is one area where the distinction could not be more clear. The Republicans have given a lot of lip service about trying to protect the middle class. Once again, the proof is in their budget. The budget shows their real values. What does it do? It lowers the top tax rate down to 25 percent. Do you know what percent of taxpayers are in that top bracket? Less than one-half of 1 percent. So when Chairman Ryan described the budget in the Budget Committee, which I serve on--we spent 10\1/2\ hours last Wednesday debating the budget--he said the budget was a win-win. Well, if he meant it was a win for the top 1 percent and a win for the second percentile, I will agree. The other 98 percent of us pay for those two wins that are out there. By lowering that rate to 25 percent, that gives the average millionaire a $200,000 tax break. Millionaires get big, big tax breaks. How do you pay for that? Well, there is only one way: you are going to have to put the taxes onto the backs of the middle class. It is estimated it would be about $2,000 per middle class family to pay for those wealthiest few in the Nation. So when it comes to the middle class, there is no question our budget does more for the middle class, and the Republican budget is a direct attack on the middle class by what we are able to do by making them pay for the very tax breaks that the wealthiest have put out there. When you look at all this, there is one group that wins at the very bottom. I mentioned millionaires and billionaires. I have to give that edge to the Republican budget. You are going to get a great tax break-- a great big check from Uncle Sam--at the courtesy of the middle class taxpayers in this country. That is the only winner under the Republican budget. Clearly, in every other category, the Progressive Caucus and the Democratic budgets are superior to that budget introduced by the Republicans. You are going to hear how it balances the budget in 10 years. That is the only talking point the Republicans have. They don't want to talk about the specifics because they lose in every single category, but the one thing that they claim they have is that they balance the budget in 10 years. They don't mention it is on the backs of the middle class, but they say they are going to balance the budget in 10 years. Well, I wish their math were only as accurate as their rhetoric because the math simply doesn't add up. Let me tell you why. Let me give you one big glaring example of why the budget doesn't add up. The Republican budget repeals the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, so it repeals all the positive things like the fact that, when you go to get insurance, if you have a preexisting condition, you now can get access. You have got preventive care provided, so we can save long-term health costs. You don't have a lifetime cap on your insurance. Your children can stay on your policy until they are 26. All these benefits were incorporated in the Affordable Care Act, and we just saw the success from the enrollment numbers. Millions of more people have access to health care. It repeals those benefits, but get this: it keeps the revenues and the savings of the Affordable Care Act in order to make the numbers balance out for that allegedly 10-year balancing of the budget. It doesn't take much more than a fourth-grader to understand that doesn't work out. You can't repeal a program, but still keep the revenue and the savings from that program, but the Republicans are trying to pass that off. They are trying to sell you a bill of goods. Do you know how much that bill of goods is, that fuzzy math? Two trillion dollars is the amount that they are using in fuzzy math to try to claim their budget balances in 10 years. It doesn't take a lot to poke the holes in the fact that their budget doesn't balance out. If their budget doesn't balance out, it doesn't benefit the middle class, and it only benefits the wealthiest, we have a really bad budget that this House will be voting on tomorrow. We are going to do everything we can to make sure that that budget doesn't pass. I think one really important note that people have to realize from all that we describe that is in that budget is, even if it doesn't become the law of the land--thankfully, we have the Senate and the President still--it is the roadmap that the Republicans have if they were to take control. If they were to keep the House of Representatives, if they were to take the U.S. Senate, if they were to take the Presidency, this is the fourth year in a row they have laid out this essential roadmap--this roadmap that benefits the top 1 or 2 percent and that every other person--every other American has to pay to subsidize those people. We lose those important programs in health care and education, for veterans and for the unemployed and those struggling to get by in our society. There is a very clear distinction between what the Democrats and the Progressive Caucus have put out as our budget that we have put forth to the American people and what the Republicans are actually offering. They have warmed over austerity. Again, cuts, cuts, cuts will somehow make the economy work, and that is simply impossible to happen. What I would like to do, at this time, is introduce another Member of the Progressive Caucus who has been a very hard worker on behalf of the middle class, not just in his district in the State of Pennsylvania, but across the country. I yield to Representative Matt Cartwright from the great State of Pennsylvania.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, again, Mr. Cartwright. The work you have done on behalf of the people not just of Scranton--I have heard you mention Scranton many times on the floor--but for all of Pennsylvania and the entire country, thank you for all your efforts. I really appreciate that. In closing, for this part of the Progressive Caucus Special Order hour, I just want to hit the main point again when it comes to the budget. We all know that the top three issues facing this country are jobs, jobs, jobs. There is such a difference between what the Democrats and the Progressives have proposed and what the Republicans have proposed. Again, the Better Off Budget for the Progressive Caucus shows an 8.8 million increase in the number of jobs in this country. We invest in our infrastructure. We invest in our schools. We invest in job training. We create 8.8 million jobs. The Republican budget, according to the Economic Policy Institute, would cost this country 3.1 million jobs. Those 3.1 million jobs are as many people as we have working in the entire State of Wisconsin. Think about firing every single person in the State of Wisconsin. That is the job loss that would come out of the Republican budget. So it is an honor tonight to talk on behalf of the Progressive Caucus and our budget and to highlight the many problems that we are going to have tomorrow when this body votes on the Republican budget. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus Special Order hour. We are going to be talking about the budget. Everyone is talking about the budget, the Paul Ryan Republican budget, the Democratic budget, the Progressive Caucus budget, and other budgets that we have had before us. We have our own version of a budget. The Progressive Caucus has the Better Off Budget. It is a budget that invests in the economy, creates 8.8 million jobs, and does a tremendous job of dealing with issues that are at the forefront of what America needs to deal with. But we have a huge contrast in the budget that we have in this body before us that the Republicans have introduced that we will be voting on this week, tomorrow, in this very body. Tonight we would like to have a little talk about that. As you look at the Better Off Budget in blue versus the GOP budget, the Better Off Budget creates 8.8 million jobs by investing in infrastructure, investing in our schools, and investing in energy, and a number of programs across the country. On the contrast, the Republican budget actually costs the economy 3.1 million jobs. That is as many people as the entire workforce of the State of Wisconsin getting fired in a simple budget. One of the biggest issues about the budget is what we are doing about jobs and the economy. We have been told by the Congressional Budget Office that the number one issue this year, the number one thing that causes our deficit, three-quarters of the deficit in 2014, is caused by economic weakness, in other words, unemployment and underemployment. Our budget directly addresses that, and the GOP budget does just the opposite. It is an austerity budget. I would like to yield some time to one of my colleagues, a strong member of the Progressive Caucus, an outstanding Member of our California delegation. I would like to yield some time to Mr. Alan Lowenthal.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. I thank Representative Moore for that. Your poetry is always much appreciated not only on this floor, but also in our State of Wisconsin. Thank you for sharing today. Before I get to fracking, I want to talk about one part of global warming that recently got a little attention back home but serves as a debate when we talk on the floor of Congress. When I spoke before on the floor of Congress about the need to address global warming, one of the things I said, and this is about 6 weeks ago, was that in Wisconsin, ice fishermen are already noticing fewer days they can be out on our ice-covered lakes. Now, the conservative right in Wisconsin, they decided to have a field day. There was a shock jock in Milwaukee who decided to play up on this. He said, can you imagine in Wisconsin, where this winter we had days that were minus 22 degrees, real temperature, minus 40 and 50 degrees with wind chill, how can we possibly be talking about fewer days of ice coverage. Based on that cold experience, clearly there is no global warming. Now I know that is not a scientist's statement, that is a shock jock, but they went with it and let it roll. Here is the reality. We are a planet that is warming. And that statement, despite the polar vortex that we experienced in Wisconsin and other parts of the country that gave us some really cold weather, that is exactly what we are talking about, these intense swings in the weather that can produce that. What was so interesting was when the conservative movement went so hard to say clearly there is no global warming--they are all climate change deniers that were out doing this attack--they decided to approach a group called PolitiFact. Now PolitiFact often takes things that politicians say and decides where the truth is. Sometimes it is in a TV commercial, sometimes it is in a speech. Specifically, they were asked to address that statement that I made, which was, ice fishermen are already noticing fewer days they can be out on our ice-covered lakes. Here is what they said. First of all, they rated that statement as true, and here is why. They said it is not just about this winter; it is about what has happened over all in winters in Wisconsin. There is a site called climatewisconsin.org that is done by a number of professors and other professionals in the field in Wisconsin. They have been tracking ice coverage on the lakes in Madison, Lake Mendota, and Lake Monona, going back 150 years. And you know what they found? Overall, the average number of days of ice cover on the Madison lakes has decreased by around 29 to 35 days over the past 150 years. Not my words; these are scientists with knowledge, people who work specifically in the field who are measuring our lakes. So when people talk about climate change and they want to deny the facts, the science, that over 95 percent of scientists who work in this field clearly have said we have a climate that is changing because we have global warming because of human activity, well, this is just one example where a simple 1-minute speech on the floor talking about climate change became a shock jock's material for weeks to talk about why doesn't Congressman Pocan come home and see the weather. Well, I get home every chance I can. Every single weekend, I am home in Wisconsin. When we are not here, I am in Wisconsin. Trust me, I would prefer to spend my time in the district talking to the people of the district that I represent. I get back there. Yes, we had cold days. But to determine everything based on a few cold days, that is not science, that is just rhetoric. And that is exactly what PolitiFact found. That their charges were rhetoric, and we are seeing a serious climate change. And when you actually test 150 years of ice coverage in the State of Wisconsin, we now have 29 to 35 fewer days because of global warming. So before we start talking about fracturing, I wanted to put that out there because it is all a part of why we are talking about this subject today. At this point, I would yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the cochair of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. POCAN. Again, thank you, Representative Ellison, for all of the work you do with the Progressive Caucus. This was a Special Order hour tonight to talk about why we need to have safer practices around hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in this country. For the 15.3 million people who live within a mile of the wells, for everyone who has to eventually suffer the effects of the environment and the health pollutants that are put out by this, there are bills that are introduced in this body that can make sure that we regulate this better, that can make sure they are not exempt from clean air and clean water protections, and that disclose the toxins that are used so that we can make sure that this process is safer, healthier, and better for everyone. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add as a reminder to everyone, which is also important, that March 31 is the deadline for signing up for the Affordable Care Act. There are extensions. If you have tried to do it and if you can't get it done, there is a little bit of an extension at this time, but you need to do it by March 31. I think we have got some of my colleagues who are going to be talking about that in just a little bit, but I would like to encourage everyone to take advantage of that while they have time in the remaining week. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Ellison. It is not just members of the Progressive Caucus, Democrats, or concerned citizens who live near these wells who are talking about this. There actually was a recent investigation that was done by The Weather Channel, the Center for Public Integrity, and InsideClimate News that found numerous violations on current sites. At one, they found, for example, that the State of Texas, that they know ``almost nothing'' about the pollution that one of these shale drilling wells causes. They said that thousands of Texas oil and gas facilities are allowed to self-audit their emissions, meaning they don't have to report them to the State. They go on to talk about pollution complaints. They also said in another study in the U.K. and Pennsylvania that they looked at multiple data sets of wells in Pennsylvania to determine the rate of well failures, and they found that one-third of a data set of 3,500 wells were reported for environmental violations between 2008 and 2011. So, while we have special exemptions in clean water and in clean air laws for this process, we are finding severe violations by groups like The Weather Channel--hardly someone who is biased--who actually look at these facilities. Then when you actually look at the list of chemicals, at some of the known 600 chemicals that go into these mixes, and when you look at the actual effects--the colors--that are on here, you have got chemicals that lead to skin, eye, and sensory organ problems, problems with respiratory, in gastrointestinal, in the brain and nervous systems, the immune systems, with the kidney, cardiovascular and blood, with carcinogens, mutagens, developmental, reproductive, and endocrine disrupters. These are the types of effects that can happen from the chemicals that we are not even allowed to know that are happening. I think one of the most telling parts of this is that 15.3 million people in this country live within a mile of one of these wells that have been drilled since the year 2000. That is more than the entire State of Michigan. These are people who live near a well who don't have the public information that they need to know for their families' safety. Members of this caucus, the Progressive Caucus, have worked on five bills that have been kind of called the ``frac pack,'' which address specific concerns that we have on the regulation of this. We are not saying that you are going to stop this completely, but we should know what we are doing, not proceed until you know what you are doing and make sure we provide the clean air, the clean water and the notification requirements so that we actually know what we are doing before we proceed. I would like to go over those bills if I could. I would like to just give you a little idea of some of the bills that are out there. One bill by Representative Diana DeGette, from the State of Colorado, is called the FRAC Act. That bill would close the so-called ``Halliburton loophole.'' That loophole protects the special sauce recipe of chemicals that they use for this fracturing process. It also protects the companies that drill for natural gas from disclosing those chemicals involved in the fracking operations, which would normally be required by our clean water laws that we have at the Federal level. It has three major provisions: One, it repeals the exemptions granted to oil, gas, and geothermal fracking operations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Let's make sure our water is safe as the Safe Drinking Water Act says; Second, it would make sure that all fracking operations would be required to disclose to the State as well as the public the fracking chemical cocktail intended for use prior to the commencement of any operations--not after your water is set on fire, not after your cows are sick, not after your family has problems, but prior to the use of those chemicals; Finally, if a medical emergency should arise, any fracking operation would be required to disclose the exact chemical formula of any compounds utilized. It is a pretty basic set of ideas that would make sure that you have at least information to know. There are four other bills. Another bill that is part of the frac pack is the BREATHE Act, introduced by Representative Cartwright from Pennsylvania and Representative Polis from Colorado. It would close the loopholes of the Clean Air Act that currently exempt the oil and gas industry from essential protections from toxic air pollution, as those studies have been proven from the wells they tested in Pennsylvania. The bill would also require that toxic emissions of multiple related smelt sources be aggregated to determine total emissions, just like other industries have to, so they are not exempted in other ways, and it makes sure, with all fracking operations that release pollutants, including benzene, that we have protections in these areas. Another bill is the CLEANER Act, which has been introduced, again, by Representative Cartwright from Pennsylvania and Representative Jared Huffman from California. This bill would specifically protect the environment and the public health by closing a loophole in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which currently prevents adequate, consistent regulation of harmful waste associated with oil and natural gas production and, particularly, with fracking, and it has a few other compounds specifically related to that. The next bill is the FRESHER Act, introduced, again, by Representative Cartwright from Pennsylvania. This would close the loophole in the Clean Water Act, and it would require oil and gas producers to obtain the standard permits necessary for activities that increase storm water runoff and risk water pollution. Treat them like everybody else so that we know what is going on in the process. It also makes oil and gas companies play by the exact same rules that apply to other industries, and it conducts a basic study to further make sure that we understand what they are using. The final bill that is part of the frac pack is a bill called the SHARED Act, introduced by Jan Schakowsky from the State of Illinois. This bill would provide further protection for public health by requiring water testing before fracking begins, and it would help document any drinking water contamination within a mile's radius of a site operation. Now, none of these are crazy ideas, saying we are absolutely closing down every operation because we don't like it. It is saying let's make sure they follow the law like any other industry would follow the law when it comes to our clean water and our clean air and that we know what toxic compounds are being put into the groundwater since we know so much of it is left there, especially when you live nearby, like 15.3 million Americans do. Those are simple bills that we have put out there that we are hoping this body will take up, because it is important that we provide those safeguards for the people across the country.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Ellison, for all your leadership and your cochairing the Progressive Caucus. One other thing that is in that budget, in addition to growing us out of the economic problems we have had in this country that we have slowly been rebounding out of, we also take away the subsidies to oil and gas companies, which save this country money that we can invest in creating jobs, but also deals directly with the issue at hand, which is the issue of fracking. What is fracking? It is hydraulic fracturing, or it is called fracking. Is a process of drilling by injecting a fluid, which is a chemical water-sand mix, into the ground, at a very high pressure, in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas inside. That is the basic concept behind fracking. There are about a half a million active natural gas wells in the United States right now. Here is what is involved in the process that I think people don't really realize: Every single gas well requires an average of 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to the site. It takes 1 to 8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job. To run all the active wells in the U.S., that would be 72 trillion-- trillion with a t-r--trillion gallons of water and 360 billion gallons of chemicals that are used in this process. The water is brought in, it is mixed with sand in a chemical mix to create a fracturing fluid. Now, one of the things I think that people don't realize is we don't know what is in that fracturing fluid because the companies say that it is proprietary. If they gave up that information, it is a secret sauce that they put together that allows them to do this; and if they disclose that, somehow, a competitor could find out what it is. The problem is that also means you and I don't know what those toxic chemicals are. We have an idea, in some cases, what is used, but the exact mix, you don't know in any specific well. So you have 40,000 gallons of chemicals used per fracturing, with up to 600 chemicals in any fracking fluid, which has known carcinogens and toxins. This fracking fluid has been pressure injected into the ground through a drilled pipeline about 10,000 feet deep. The mixture reaches the end of the well, where the high pressure causes the nearby shale rock to crack, creating fissures where the natural gas can flow into the wells. Only about 30 or 50 percent of the fracturing fluid is ever recovered. The rest of the toxic mix is left in the ground, and it is not biodegradable. Also, during this process, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out of the system and contaminate our nearby groundwater. Methane concentrations are 17 times higher in drinking water wells near fracturing sites than normal wells. You may remember--I believe Time magazine had it, and I have seen it on TV--where people in Pennsylvania, in some cases, near wells, have turned on their drinking water and a match and lit the drinking water on fire from what has been released into the groundwater from fracking wells. This contaminated well water is then used for drinking water, like I explained, in these nearby communities, and there have been over a thousand documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling, as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water. In the end, the hydraulic fracking produces about 300,000 barrels of natural gas a day, but the price is numerous environmental, safety, and health hazards that we have to deal with. I yield time to Mr. Ellison.

Mr. POCAN. Whether it be the fact that we have discharge petitions now on rasing the minimum wage, so that people can be lifted out of poverty who are working hard every single day, playing by the rules, and just trying to get by; by extending unemployment benefits to the millions of people in the country who have lost those extended benefits--including a gentleman from Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, who was my guest right here in this Chamber for the State of the Union. He was my guest. He had lost his benefits at the end of December. He was a steamfitter, worked hard all of his life, played by the rules, and because of not extending the emergency benefits, they are in dire financial straits. His wife wrote me an email. This is how we found out about them. Their daughter wanted to bring a friend over for dinner, and they said: I don't know if we can afford another plate at the table. They have their home up for sale because they don't want to be foreclosed on. This is the reality of Congress not acting. Today, we now have a discharge petition on immigration reform, something that will effect millions and millions of people across this country. This Congress is not acting. What we are going to talk about in just a little bit are 5 bills that effect fracking--fracturing--to make sure that everyone can have cleaner air, cleaner water and that people can actually know what toxins are going in the ground when so many people live so close to these wells across the country. There is more of an agenda that the Progressive Caucus is working on and that we are trying to put out there. Again, I think, gentlemen, we would be remiss if we didn't talk about, just very briefly, the Progressive Caucus' budget, the better-off budget, to make sure people are better actually investing in infrastructure, to actually invest in research and development, to actually invest in education, and to get people back to work now.

Mr. POCAN. Absolutely.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ellison. I share your concern. I came to Congress as a new Member, thinking that we are going to get some important work done for the country. I remember, in history class, I believe it was the Congress of 1948 that got so little done that they were dubbed the do-nothing Congress-- well, because they did nothing, right? So they get the label. That do- nothing Congress passed 350 bills. That is it. Our Congress last year passed 62 bills.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and we are here today to talk about the issue of fracturing, also known as fracking, and the need to have more regulation on fracking to protect our environment, our groundwater, our air, and the families who live around the over half-million wells that are across the country, and also talk a little bit about global warming. The Progressive Caucus has been at the forefront of talking about issues that are important to our environment. We have so much to do to stop the effects of global warming that are happening. Climate change is real. It is one of the greatest threats that we have to our country and to our planet. There are increasing CO2 levels in our atmosphere, and if we continue to leave that unchecked, they carry very dire consequences for the future of the planet. Rising sea levels, unpredictable and dangerous weather patterns, and drought are all examples of the consequences of failing to take action to address this threat. For generations, those who have come before us have held the ideal that they should leave their descendants with a better life. This is an integral part of our American story. I joined the Safe Climate Caucus because I believe in leaving a safer environment for future generations of Americans. Stewardship of our environment, of the air we breathe and the water we drink, is essential to this commitment. That is why I am here today to voice my support for commonsense legislation that will end unnecessary exemptions that protect the oil and gas industry from basic regulations and instead extend protections for our families and communities in all areas that effect global warming. But specifically tonight, we want to talk a little bit about fracturing. I would like to first yield to a colleague, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a great poet. I think we are going to be entertained and informed through that entertainment.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Thank you so much, Representative Jeffries, for your always eloquent fight on behalf of the working people across the State of New York and the need for the benefits. I am glad you debunked some of the myths that are out there because I remember, during the debate we had on food stamps, there was discussion of a surfer dude from California who talked about gaming the system. We were basically cutting $39 billion from food stamps because there was a surfer who abused the system from the State of California. Rather than governing by analysis, they govern by anecdote, and it is something that we need to get done and this body needs to get done. Let me just share one final story, if I can, of someone from the State of California, again, from The Huffington Post article. This is Ricki Ward of Rancho Cucamonga, California, and I will read from the article. Ward, who told The Huff Post Tuesday that she expects to be evicted next month, said she has worked all her life from paycheck to paycheck and raised two kids as a single mother. For the past 5 years, Ward worked in offices, retail stores, and fast food before being laid off from a customer service job for a cable provider in March 2013. Ward said she suspects she is having difficulty finding work because of her age. ``I took the year that I graduated from high school off of my resume, and I started getting calls,'' Ward said. ``Yet once they saw me, I wasn't what they wanted for their front counter. I'm 59 years old, but I'm a very young 59 years old. I keep myself in good shape. I'm nowhere near ready to stop working.'' She said her landlord has been fair with her and that she has received some help from family and friends, but she keeps falling further behind. ``It's so humiliating to have to have everybody else try to take care of you,'' Ward said. ``It's just not what I'm used to. I've worked all my life.'' These are the stories that we have talked about during this past hour from people across the country who, again, have played by the rules, worked hard and, because of a turn in the economy a few years ago, have lost work. The commitment that we have to those people is that if they are working hard. We need to do everything we can to make sure that they have the help that they have paid into: unemployment benefits. We need to, in a time like this, pass those emergency benefits. I would like to yield my final time to a Representative from Ohio who has done an absolutely amazing job for a number of years representing her constituents and is a great University of Wisconsin alumni. I have to say that, being from Wisconsin, but she is a great colleague, Representative Marcy Kaptur from the great State of Ohio.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus today for the Progressive Caucus Special Order hour. We want to talk about the need to extend unemployment benefits in this country. Since the end of December, millions of Americans have lost their extended unemployment benefits and are struggling just to get by in this economy. We have had two really positive developments this week. One, the House Democrats have an initiative, led by Representative Brad Schneider of Illinois, to do a discharge petition, which is a procedural motion to force the leadership of this body to let us vote on extending unemployment benefits, which it refuses to do. We have to get 218 signatures--a majority of the House--to sign the discharge petition. If that happens, we can force a vote and make sure that people who have lost their benefits since the end of December get their benefits. That is the first important thing that has happened. The second important thing is, today, just this afternoon, it was announced there is a bipartisan agreement in the Senate by several senators to make sure that we can extend benefits through the month of May of this year. We need to do everything possible not only to make sure that the Senate passes that, but to make sure that this House takes up that action. Because if we don't, millions of people--and many more every single week--will not get access to unemployment benefits. So the Progressive Caucus is here today to highlight this issue and to raise awareness and explain why it is so important that we pass these benefits--and we pass them now--on behalf of the millions of people in this country that need those. I am joined by several of my colleagues here today. I would like to make sure that they have a chance to talk about the unique situations in their area and why this is so important. I would first like to yield to my colleague from the great State of Oregon, Representative Suzanne Bonamici.