Mark Pocan

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Thank you again so much, Representative Edwards. When you talked about the job loss in Maryland, we lost nearly 75,000 manufacturing job through the NAFTA-WTO period in the last 20 years. When I was a legislator in the State of Wisconsin, it was a Buy American law that I got passed with a bipartisan vote in the Wisconsin Legislature. The fact that we are going to give up our sovereignty to have that law and some multinational corporation can sue any local unit of government so that they can contest those laws and we can lose that ability, I think the average person, if they knew that was something even being discussed, would be opposed to that, much less the other 28 chapters in addition to procurement that are included in this Trans- Pacific Partnership. Thank you so much for all the work you have done on this and for making people aware of all the little hidden gems that if we don't have an ability to have a full and fair debate in this House, things that could happen in the biggest and the baddest of the trade deals yet we have seen in this country, so thank you so much. Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Caucus is going to be doing everything we can in the coming months to fight this, to make sure that Congress has a say. We aren't against trade, we want fair trade, but the so- called free trade that is out there right now that is being drafted by corporate CEOs and Wall Street banks doesn't include the public and doesn't include Congress, and it needs to have every single person represented. We are the voices of the American people. We need to be able to have a full debate in this body, and we need to be able to amend any deal that we don't like, the particular deals that have been decided by others, by corporate leaders in this country. The American public has to be included. Before I ever came to this Congress, the last 27 years, I have run a small business, a small specialty printing business. One of the things we do is we source American-made and union-made products for people. I watched, over that 27 years, companies leave this country over and over and over, whether it be the mills that I mentioned from the South that made T-shirts to things as simple as pens. Companies like Parker Pen used to have up to 1,000 jobs in Rock County, Wisconsin, that now have all gone out of this country. Those are the types of jobs that we have seen leave over and over. When you go back into these communities, they have not replaced the same quality paying jobs. That is part of why we have got a problem. While the economy has been coming back, unfortunately, many people are being left behind, and they are not having the same family-supporting wages that they need out there. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is 29 chapters, but only five of those chapters actually relate to trade. So much of what we have talked about has been about the job impacts and your income impacts of a trade deal, but this also covers environmental law, currency law, intellectual property law, food safety, and the ability for procurement, as we just talked about on Buy American laws, and on and on and on. This Congress, I think, can work together, Democrats and Republicans, who have a concern about giving carte blanche authority to simply the U.S. Trade Representative and the White House and leaving the people out, leaving the Congress out of that conversation. We are going to continue to fight this, to talk about this and to make sure that people understand what Fast Track is and what it isn't and to make sure that those myths that may be out there about how to help create jobs may not be true, and there is a lot more ramifications that are out there. Mr. Speaker, we thank you so much for this time this evening. We appreciate the ability to talk about this on the floor of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 555, had I been present, I would have voted ''yes.''

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Centro Hispano of Dane County as it hosts Fiesta Hispana, an annual celebration of the Latino community in Madison, Wisconsin. The festival is an important community event that showcases Latino heritage and culture. Fiesta Hispana offers traditional cuisine and features wonderful dance and music performances as well as fun activities for all family members to enjoy. The impact of Centro Hispano is felt every day throughout the community, not just through today's event. The center engages with the community and connects residents with vital education, career and general support resources. I commend the mission and tireless work of Centro Hispano of Dane County to serve and empower local Latino youth and families. It is an honor to celebrate Fiesta Hispana 2014 as we come together to celebrate the diverse Latino cultures that enrich our community and make it stronger.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Representative Rangel, you have been an outspoken advocate for equality within the draft, making sure that everyone understands that there is an expense when we go into war. As someone who has had several nephews personally get involved and plenty of constituents, those decisions are something that are mighty, and this body has to have that as part of that debate, and that is why we should have that debate. Thank you so much for your time and your efforts. One of the other issues that is extremely important that this body get done before we leave is addressing income inequality and addressing how we can best help those who need help the most, those who are aspiring to be in the middle class and helping the middle class. One of the very best ways and one of the priorities of the Democrats in this House is to give America a raise, to raise the minimum wage, through a bill that we have, to $10.10, to make sure that people have more money in their pockets. When that money is in their pockets, they will spend it in the community, and that will lift the economy and help create more jobs. It is exactly what we need right now. For too long, we have not raised the minimum wage. If the minimum wage were the same and kept up with inflation from 1967, it would be well over $10.60 an hour. And we are not. We are at a much lower rate, and we need to have that. One of my colleagues from California has been an outspoken advocate for raising the minimum wage, and I would love to, on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, yield to my colleague from the great State of California, Mr. Alan Lowenthal.

Mr. POCAN. If I could just ask you, gentlemen, one question--and I will go to Mr. Rangel again for a comment. Let me ask you a question. The leadership in this House, the Republican leadership, has refused to schedule a bill to raise the minimum wage, and we have one other device to do that called the discharge petition.

Mr. POCAN. I would like to ask the gentleman if you signed the discharge petition so that we can force a vote in this House to raise the minimum wage in the remaining weeks we have before we finish the session for the year.

Mr. POCAN. And we have done that.

Mr. POCAN. Again, thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. Because that is the problem--we have been told the Speaker won't schedule the vote, but there are other ways. Every single Member of this body can sign a discharge petition, and if we get a majority of us, 218 of us, to sign that, it will come to this body. So there are no excuses not to get this done. I would like to yield to my good friend from New York, Mr. Charlie Rangel.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. And I will be joined by some other members of the Progressive Caucus to talk about issues that are important to this country and issues that are important to have a debate about in public. This is our first week back. After 5 weeks of being in our home districts, we have a lot to get done in this Congress. And so far this week, we have not exactly risen to the occasion. We have important things to do regarding the continuing resolution. We have important things to do regarding situations overseas. We have important legislation that this Congress simply has not gotten done. And, instead, another week has gone by without addressing some of the most important issues of the day. One of those issues that, I think, is front and center in people's minds is what is going on overseas, what is going on with ISIL in Iraq, perhaps in Syria, and what does that mean for the American people. And I am here today asking many of the questions that I get from people in the district. The President is going to address the Nation this evening, and he is going to give us his vision for where he thinks this country should go. And I am asking the President to please come to Congress before military action is taken against ISIL because it is so important that we are a part of this debate. We are the closest to the people in this country, and Congress needs to be involved. And I have some questions that I would like to see Members of Congress debate and the President help us address as we decide this extremely important issue. I want to give props to Rachel Maddow who, last night, I thought did an excellent job on her program in looking at some of the questions that we should be debating in this body to make sure that we are doing the right thing by getting involved and that we have got the thought ahead of time going into it, unlike I think what we have done previously when we have gone into Iraq, as a country. So these are some of the questions that we would like to have answered and we would like to have assistance with. One, why should the President seek congressional authorization and debate for military action against ISIL? Well, for one, it is in the Constitution. The Constitution, article I, section 8: ``The Congress shall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than 2 years.'' Directly in our United States Constitution is the power that this body, Congress, has to be involved if we are going to get involved in what would essentially be seen as war. And I think the debate that we have to have is, what are we looking at as we look at the situation in Iraq and perhaps in Syria. John Nichols from The Nation magazine wrote: ``It is a healthy respect for the complex geopolitics of the region, combined with a regard for the wisdom of the system of checks and balances and the principles of advice and consent outlined in the US Constitution'' that we have a say. Those are the words of John Nichols. This Congress, in July, before we left to go back to our districts, voted 370-40 for H. Con. Res. 105. We don't get many 370-40 votes in this House. It was a bipartisan resolution. It had overwhelming support and said: ``The President shall not deploy or maintain United States Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific statutory authorization.'' That is the resolution that was passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way by this body just weeks ago. We are facing these questions today. And the President is going to present to the Nation this evening exactly what he would like to see us do and hopefully will let the Congress have a say in it because, clearly, the situation has escalated. It needs a debate. The beheadings have certainly caught the attention of the country, but we want to make sure that attention is on our behalf, not the attention of someone who did that to try to provoke a reaction, and that we don't fall into the hands of doing the reaction that some people would hope that we would do to engage in a region that could be very complex. And after this country has had so many unfortunate failures in Iraq-- twice in my adult lifetime we have gone into this region, with very limited success, and we have gone into Afghanistan--we owe it to the American people, to our veterans, our servicemen and -women and their families, those who have gone in and put their lives at risk following 9/11, to have this rigorous debate in this very body before us. This is a complex situation. But given the failures that we have had previously in going into Iraq--whether it be the lack of debate, the lack of buy-in from other nations and other partners specifically in the region and, quite honestly, the faulty intelligence that we had or that were told at the time--it has put us in a bad situation in the past in this region. In fact, one of the reasons we have to have this debate is there are a number of Members who are right now writing authorizations for us to go in. In fact, there is one from the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Frank Wolf, that would essentially be an Authorization for Use of Military Force that could authorize force virtually anywhere, with no expiration date and no specific targets. And I can tell you, when I talk to people across Wisconsin, when I talk to my colleagues in this room and they talk to their constituents, I think people want better answers than that. I know a year ago, when we had the debate about whether or not we would get involved in Syria, within 2 weeks in my district, I received 2,200 responses, 97 percent to 3 percent who were leery of us getting involved in Syria. And while the situation is different from a year ago and is even a situation different from a month ago, I think the public still has questions, certainly questions that we need to debate in this body. So we need to have that debate in Congress. What do we want from the President in a new authorization? Well, I think there are three things that should be in that. One is that Congress has a say. Again, we have the ability to have a vote. We are elected and accountable to our districts, and these decisions are not just made behind closed doors without the advice and consent of Congress. We will have a stronger effort if we have that public debate. So that is one. Two, that we have a narrow scope. We simply can't bomb our way into success. And let me just go over a little bit of the timeline just in the very few months since ISIL has been out there. Let me just talk a little bit about that timeline. Back on June 16 of this year, the administration announced it was sending 275 military personnel to protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Three days later, they announced that 300 military advisers would collaborate and train Iraqi forces--3 days later. On June 30, the administration announced the deployment of 200 more troops to Iraq. On August 7, the President authorized airstrikes in Iraq. On the 12th of August, the administration announced 130 additional U.S. military personnel to assess the scope of the humanitarian mission. On the 26th of August, the President authorized surveillance flights over Syria. On September 2, the administration announced the deployment of 350 additional military personnel to Iraq, bringing our total to 1,100 U.S. troops now deployed in Iraq. And in the last month alone, there have been 153 airstrikes in Iraq. Just in the little bit of time that has passed, that is what we have seen happen. And I think we need to be very specific in the limited scope of what that is going to be so we don't have mission creep leading us into perhaps more involvement than we thought was going to happen in the beginning. And third, I think--and others that I talk to think--it is important that we go in with a coalition, that we are not doing this either alone or largely alone and that we are doing this with partners from the region. Right now, there are 10 other countries that I know of that are involved in saying that they will commit to help work with us. But we need to build a moderate Sunni support and buy-in from some of the Arab States specifically to help us in this region because right now, this is a regional situation, and we need to have partners within that region to make sure that we can accomplish any goals. There are many questions that we continue to have, and I think there are many about what that strike would look like, what exactly does it mean to have that involvement. I just mentioned who are some of the allies that we are going to have. But what are some of our short-term goals? What do we expect to accomplish when we decide that we are going in? What would we carry out in military action? It is one thing to say that we are not going to have boots on the ground, but clearly, we are having pilots in the sky. Right now, we are using U.S. attack aircraft, fighter aircraft, and drone aircraft to do attacks within that region. So you already have a presence that--I don't like the term ``boots on the ground,'' because these are people with families, sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, brothers and sisters that we have who are overseas, and we need to know exactly what that means. There has been potentially a request to aid some of the moderate Syrian rebels that may come out of the conversations. And, once again, I think there are questions that this body has to have a debate on. Steven Sotloff, the journalist, who was the second person that was beheaded, that we have followed very closely, as an American citizen, his family recently said that it was moderate Syrian rebels who essentially sold access to ISIL to get Steve Sotloff. And who is it that we are going to provide assistance to? And what does that assistance mean? And who are the people that we can potentially be doing that for? What is our long-term commitment to military action? Now, if we would have asked this question years ago when we first looked at Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think anyone would have expected to hear a 13-year commitment to Afghanistan. More than 2,000 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan and more than 4,000 in Iraq. The cost has been estimated to be 4 to $6 trillion in that region just since that last action was called years ago. And, as I mentioned, there have been 153 airstrikes just in the last month. How many more airstrikes will it take to say that that is enough? So we need to have more meat put onto this to have an idea of what that involvement is if we are going to be authorizing something. And finally, the question I would ask is: How do we define mission accomplished? What is the end goal that we are going to have? And where does that end happen? I certainly hope the end goal is not flying in military gear on an aircraft carrier with a banner behind it that says ``Mission Accomplished.'' Because we all know, there was no mission accomplished at that time. We need to have clear and definite goals of what it means to defeat ISIL and to make sure that that region can have some stability after the instability of so long that it has had. So, in conclusion, the President has a constitutional obligation, I feel, to work with Congress before engaging in extended military operations. The public is still very war-weary. And while right now, polls may say people think we should get involved in Iraq and Syria with limited airstrikes, we have to have that much longer debate. Clearly, the public beheadings of two American citizens has raised the ire of the American people and I think many in Congress. It is a different situation than it was a year ago. It is a different situation than it was a month ago. But at the same time, we have got to be sure that we are not falling into doing something that could be counterproductive because, clearly, ISIL did that to provoke a reaction, and I think that needs to be a part of the debate we have. After being entangled in a global conflict for 13 years, we owe it to the American people and to the servicemen and -women and their families and the veterans who have already made tremendous sacrifices and the support of our country that we have a transparent and thorough debate on any action that would happen with ISIL in Syria or Iraq. So those are my hopes. Those are my questions. I am looking forward to hearing the President tonight, and I am hoping that this body will be able to have that full debate so we know everything that we can possibly have for information prior to continuing and perhaps enhancing any actions there. Now, I am very proud to be joined by other members of the Progressive Caucus. We have one of the most senior Members of this body, who has become a mentor and a friend to me, and I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. POCAN. Again, thank you, Mr. Rangel. One of the things I look at--it is pretty simple math to someone like me, coming from America's heartland, when productivity is going up and wages are flat, the money is going somewhere. In 1988, the average CEO made 40 times the lowest-paid employee. Now, it is 354 times the lowest-paid employee. Now, if you put extra money in the pockets through raising the minimum wage of someone who is in the middle class or aspiring to be in the middle class, it is going to go back into the economy. If they can afford a long weekend vacation to the Wisconsin Dells in my area, that helps boost the economy, helps create jobs--but you know what? That CEO can't take 354 vacations to make up for it. Clearly, when the money goes into the pockets of those who need it the most, it is going to go instantly into the economy, help create jobs, and help do everything that we need to, to stimulate the economy to the point that we can be as great as we possibly can be. To me, it is a no-brainer. I think to many of the constituents I talk to it is a no-brainer. You are very articulate in talking about the troubles that people go through in trying to just get by. It is another thing this body simply has to take up before we leave. If we don't take this up before November, quite honestly, those who didn't try to take it up shouldn't come back because we need people who will take it up because it is the will of the people. Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans are looking at this as an issue that is important and has to happen. Again, thank you so much for all your work on this for so many years. Alan Lowenthal and I are freshman here. We are the newbies. We are taking up the fight, but you have been doing it for so many years and been a mentor to so many of us. Again, thank you, Mr. Rangel, and thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Lowenthal went through all the numbers for the State of California. It has the same effect in my State of Wisconsin. When you look at it, if you raise that minimum wage to $10.10, as the bill from Senator Harkin does and the one that Representative George Miller from California has introduced in this body, not only is it 28 million people in this country that will get a raise, but it is half a million people just in my home State of Wisconsin, a half million people. One of the things that I have heard sometimes when you talk to people, they say, ``If you raise the minimum wage, all you are doing is giving extra pocket money to teenagers who are living with their parents.'' Well, that is one of the great myths that is out there because here is the reality: the average age of a minimum wage worker is 35 years old. When you look at the exact breakout of who it is, 90 percent are over 20 years old, and more than half of them are older than 25 years old. You are not talking about a teenager living at home. You are talking about people who are living independently in the community, trying to get by on $7.35 an hour or close to $15,000 a year, in a job that often has no benefits--health benefits, pension, et cetera. Fifty-five percent of the people on minimum wage are working full time. Forty-four percent have some type of college education, an associate degree or bachelor's degree or other higher education. That is the reality of the minimum wage worker in this country. It is not the myth of a teenager living at home, looking for some pocket money. These are hardworking people trying to get by, often on two or three jobs, without the benefits. Without that ability, if they miss their rent, they get evicted, and then they are homeless. As Mr. Rangel said, these are some of the same people that then show up on our health plans that States provide for being low-income. So you know who then is subsidizing their salaries? We all are. Every single individual who is a taxpayer pays into those programs. While that employer may not offer a wage that they can live on, we all subsidize it, so that they can actually get something as basic as health care. So there is a real need to pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act that is proposed. We have tried and tried in this body to get a vote on it. We have signed a discharge petition. Virtually every Democrat in the House of Representatives has signed that. We need those Republicans, especially those Republicans who are on record supporting a minimum wage, to also sign that, so we can get a vote before we leave in a few weeks, before the November elections, before the end of the year--because I think a question that I would want to ask my Representative when I see them in the community in the coming weeks before the election is: What have they done to help make the middle class stronger? What have they done to help people who are aspiring to be in the minimum class? What have we got done in Congress? There was a Congress in 1948 that was called the do-nothing Congress because they got so little done. The first year of that session, they passed 350 bills. Last year, this body passed 88. Here we are sitting another week back in Congress, and we haven't raised the minimum wage, we haven't passed equal pay for equal work so that women make just as much as men do, and we haven't done anything about the affordability of higher education, allowing students to refinance their loans. These are simple issues that aren't partisan issues. They are not Democratic/Republican. They are not liberal/conservative. They are about whether or not you are fighting for the middle class and those who aspire to be in the middle class or whether you are here trying to help out the special interests and the lobbyists who represent the special interests. It is really that simple. So we need to pass a raise for the American people. That means you pass an increase in the minimum wage. As other Members have said, it will lift so many people out of poverty and give a raise to so many people to help stimulate the economy. So the Progressive Caucus is fighting each and every single day while we are here for a variety of issues: raising the minimum wage, trying to stop wage theft in this country, trying to extend unemployment insurance so that everyone who is out of work can still get some benefits while they are looking for work so that they can get that job. We all know the best social program is a job, and we want to make sure that everyone can get that job. We need to continue to do the things that Congress needs to get done and we have not gotten done. So the minimum wage is one issue that we wanted to talk about today. As we have the President speaking to us this evening, we want to make sure that this body has a very full and rich debate. As we passed in a bipartisan way, 370-40, we need to have a real debate and have real questions answered before we get involved, so that we never again have what happened the last time we got involved in Iraq because we are back again. There was no ``mission accomplished.'' A banner and a fly-in in military gear is not a successful end to an involvement. We need to make sure whatever we do this time is thoughtful, done with consultation of Congress, with narrow scope, and with a partnership with other nations specifically in the region to make sure that we are doing this not alone or not largely alone. With that, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Caucus appreciates this time this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Wisconsin Institute for Public Policy and Service, at the University of Wisconsin--Marathon, on the opening of their newest facility named after one our state's most dedicated public servants, former Congressman Dave Obey. The David R. Obey Civic Resource Center will provide opportunities to educate and encourage young people to become active participants in a healthy democratic society. Many lessons can be learned from Dave Obey's leadership and service in this House. While, Dave Obey remains a fierce champion of progressive causes, the Obey Center will embody his bipartisan approach and will encourage our citizens to explore the facts and ideas on both sides of any debate. Dave's impact is still felt within the Wisconsin delegation today as we continue his tradition of working together, regardless of party, to serve the citizens of our state. I applaud the opening of the Obey Center--a place that will ensure future generations of Wisconsinites become the leaders we need.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be here today on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, along with other members of the Progressive Caucus. We have long fought for the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class. Today, specifically, we want to address Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to help alleviate poverty in this Nation. Needless to say, we were excited to find out a Republican wanted to talk about poverty, given the votes that we have had this session in this body. Whether it be the draconian cuts that appeared in the House Republican budget, the slashing of food stamps and assistance to the most needy in this country, to see a Republican finally stand up and talk about poverty, we were excited. And we want to have that conversation this evening. So just what is in Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to help alleviate poverty? I am sure it must be something about raising the minimum wage to $10.10 in the next 3 years so that we can help lift people who are making $15,000 a year out of poverty. I am sure it addresses equal pay for equal work so that men and women are paid for doing the same work. But it doesn't appear that is part of Paul Ryan's plan. I am sure it addresses some educational issues. I am sure it helps people pay back their loans at lower rates and makes sure we have expanded Pell grants available so that no one should be denied a higher education simply because they can't afford it. No, that is not part of the Ryan plan either. I am sure there is an investment in early childhood education, because every person in this room must surely know that if we help invest at those earliest years, you can have a lifetime of experiences and opportunities for someone. That is not in the plan either. Surely, it must address investments in infrastructure. We have crumbling roads and bridges. We have bridges and roads that are old enough that they are eligible for Medicare in this country. Surely, putting people back to work at a time like this and investing in our infrastructure would make sense. It is also not in the Ryan plan. Let me try one more thing. It has got to be here. We must provide incentives to create good-paying jobs here in America rather than overseas. Clearly, the 21st century Make It In America Act must not be in the plan either. All those things that I just mentioned--raising the minimum wage, making sure we have equal pay for equal work, expanding opportunity through expanded Pell grants and helping people refinance their student loans, helping people get access to early education and investing in our infrastructure and jobs here at home--are part of the House Democratic Middle Class Jumpstart program. They are what we would do in our first 100 days if we were to take over the majority after this fall. But surely there must be something we could talk about today in Paul Ryan's plan. There has got to be something equally bold and, hopefully, not just old, a bunch of old ideas warmed over, brought back to us in versions of block grants and not really providing any real assistance that the most needy in this country need. I am joined by a number of my colleagues today who are going to address exactly what is in Paul Ryan's plan and perhaps how we can offer a little different perspective to help the most needy in our country. I would like to start out with a very esteemed and respected colleague from Illinois, Representative Danny Davis.

Mr. POCAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Davis, so much for all of your advocacy on behalf of those who are struggling to be in the middle class and for making sure we can try to reduce poverty. Representative Davis is right. There are a couple of nuggets that are in the Ryan proposal that make sense. I think there could be bipartisan support for criminal sentencing reform. There should be, and it is long past due, and it is good to see that proposed in the plan. As Representative Gwen Moore from Milwaukee so eloquently put forth, expanding tax credits for childless workers is something through the earned income tax credit we would support except that, perhaps, the Ryan proposal doesn't quite fund it in a way that makes sense. So there are a few nuggets in there, but there is an awful lot that really doesn't do much about reducing poverty and, in fact, would probably, very likely, increase poverty in the near term. I would like to yield to another colleague of mine, to someone who has been this body's, really, most outspoken person in talking about poverty. She is leading a task force for the Democratic Caucus that specifically addresses poverty. I would like to yield to my great colleague from the State of California, Representative Barbara Lee.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Lee. Representative Lee and I and Representative Moore all serve on the Budget Committee, and we have had a lot of time to see the Paul Ryan Republican budget. When you talk about the SNAP program, I will just give one example. I remember, in this body, we had a debate as to whether we were going to cut $20 billion or eventually $39 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Yet we knew, when the Ryan budget was proposed--the Republican budget that was voted on in this body--the cuts to the SNAP program were $135 billion. Either there has been a rebirth in how we look at poverty from the other side of the aisle or, perhaps, there is just a little different packaging of some of the same bad ideas that just sound a little better, and I really appreciate your bringing those out.

Mr. POCAN. Representative Lee, if you would yield to one more question since we are talking about the bad math that we all too often see from the other side of the aisle: Didn't we also, during the budget, see some incredibly bad math when it came to the budget's repealing the benefits of the Affordable Care Act but its somehow trying to keep the revenue in savings? Wasn't that bad math something like $2 trillion worth of bad math, and now we are supposed to accept this $300 billion, allegedly, ``no cuts'' to the program? What were those numbers?

Mr. POCAN. Again, thank you, Representative Lee. I appreciate it. Your final comments about how hard it is to actually be able to eat a block grant, perhaps, is part of the problem of why we don't quite trust what we see in that it will work as presented. Thank you so much for your time. I would like to yield to another colleague of mine who is also from the State of California. He is one of my fellow freshman colleagues, Representative Mark Takano.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Takano, for all the work you are doing. Mr. Speaker, next I would like to yield to a colleague of mine from the great State of Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a great friend of mine going back to the days in the State legislature, not only a great friend, but a great mentor to me.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Moore. You have been an advocate your entire life for those who are most needy, those trying to aspire to be in the middle class. Thank you for all that you do, and so articulately explaining the problems with Paul Ryan's proposal. Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to another colleague of mine, a colleague from the great State of Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the chair of our very important policy and steering committee, and a good friend and colleague of mine in the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. POCAN. Again, thank you so much, Representative DeLauro, for your many years of service to this body and to the people of the country and fighting for those who need help the most. I now would like to yield to another colleague of mine, but I am not going to say ``Representative Ryan'' because that might be confusing, given the conversation we are having, but let's say maybe the Budget Committee's other Representative Ryan, the Democratic Representative Ryan from the State of Ohio. So I yield to another Budget Committee member, Representative Tim Ryan.

Mr. POCAN. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Ryan, for all you have done in your relentless fight on behalf of the workers in your district, and thank you so much, again, for being here today. Finally, I would like to yield to a colleague of mine--another freshman colleague of mine from the great State of New York, Representative Hakeem Jeffries.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Jeffries. I, too, am skeptical. Having served on the Budget Committee with you, we have seen two different Paul Ryans. We are hoping that maybe this is a reformed Paul Ryan, but we are also fearful this is just a repackaged Paul Ryan. So thank you so much. Finally, I would like to yield to a colleague from the Progressive Caucus from the great State of Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Jackson Lee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.