Mark Pocan

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, look, I can't tell you specifically what it must be like to have the police called on you at your home or a friend's house or a business simply because of the color of your skin. I can't tell you personally what it must feel like to know that just because of your race, you are significantly more likely to get killed by police simply by encountering them. But all of these mere facts should bring rage to all of us. We must rethink public safety in America. Police shouldn't respond with violence just because they can. And unfortunately, impunity has empowered a militarized police force. The ugly reality is, we have a criminal justice and policing system that disproportionally targets and kills Black people. And when a system isn't performing for the people it is supposed to serve, it is time to fix it. In fact, it is way overdue for that change. Today, we can do more than just give lip service to the words ``Black Lives Matter.'' We can give those words meaning. We do that by passing the Justice in Policing Act today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, I support the bill before us today, but we all know it is not enough. Much more must be done. In the next comprehensive aid package, we must put people first. But something also must be done about the horrific Federal response to testing. FEMA and the Trump administration have been nonexistent in getting States like Wisconsin the test kits, reagents, and PPE we need to reopen. If the President forces us to open too soon, more people will get sick and die, and the economy will suffer, and that will be on the President's hands. This isn't a reality show. American lives are at stake. Get us our supplies now.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I insert in the Record a letter from the AFL- CIO.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, as one of the few union members in Congress, let me tell you that the benefits that workers and families earn from being in a union are significant. Workers in a union make almost $10,000 more per year, and 70 percent of workers in a union have a pension plan compared to just 13 percent of nonunion workers. The problem is there have been decades-long coordinated attacks on workers' rights to join or form a union. It is time to make it easier for workers to have a voice in their workplace, and we have got some work to do. There are laws that make it harder to organize, and employees involved in organizing face barriers, including a one-in-five chance of getting fired. Even when workers do form a union, employers refuse to bargain, and more than half of the unions don't get a collective bargaining agreement within a year. If you vote to form a union, you should have one and get a contract. If you are an employee, you shouldn't be misclassified as an independent contractor. And if an employer violates your labor rights, they shouldn't be let off the hook. I am proud to support workers' rights, and I am proud to support the Protecting the Right to Organize Act.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of Representative Barbara Lee's amendment to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. We cannot allow this President or any President to use an outdated AUMF intended to address Saddam Hussein to wage unauthorized wars against whatever leader they are upset with on any given day. Because of congressional inaction, the U.S. military is operating in at least 76 countries across the world, and we have spent trillions of dollars on military activities since 9/11, largely on unauthorized wars abroad, when we could be helping people at home, expanding Social Security, ensuring healthcare is a human right, and investing in green jobs and renewable energy. Recently, the President threatened this bill with a veto. It only made the case more clear: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority per Article I, Section 8, to declare war. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both Representative Ro Khanna's bill to prohibit funding for war with Iran and Representative Lee's efforts to repeal the 2002 AUMF.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, this July, President Trump blocked $400 million in congressionally approved aid that Ukraine desperately needed to defend itself against Russia because he needed Ukraine to do him a favor first. He asked the President of Ukraine to launch a public investigation into a political rival. Military aid and other benefits would only come after. But this is not about a single call or a single transcript; this is about a perfect storm, months of activity directly ordered by the President to his senior Cabinet and political appointees, an orchestrated plan demanding a foreign power interfere in our democracy. President Trump betrayed his oath of office. He abused the power of his office for personal and political gain and has refused to cooperate with a coequal branch of government. This is a vote for our Constitution, setting the precedent for all future Presidents, Democrat or Republican. Donald Trump must be held accountable for his actions. Today, we send a clear signal to this President and all future Presidents: No one is above the law.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for all the work that he has done on behalf of his constituents, the people of Chicago, and really the people of the entire country. I know this is the gentleman's second event today alone on behalf of workers, and I thank the gentleman for his outspoken representation on behalf of people who need a voice in Congress. I think we heard earlier tonight there are about 200-plus lawyers in this body. A majority of Congress are millionaires. Not to say that if you are a millionaire, you can't empathize with working people, but it is another thing to come from a background like I do. I had a union specialty printing shop, a small shop for nearly three decades, a member of International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, IUPAT, for nearly three decades. I can tell you the benefits that have happened for my family and the people I work with by having good, union-supporting wages and good, union-supporting benefits and why that matters so much. The problem we have right now in this country and the problem that we have across so many States is an organized effort going after working people by going after their ability to have a voice in their workplaces by having unions. We have watched attacks across the country, including in my home State of Wisconsin, where States have gone to a so-called right-to-work law. What that is often referred to as a ``right-to-work- for-less'' law because when you get these laws often, on average, people lose over 3 percent in pay in States that do this. But we have watched those laws happen across the country. Federally, under the Trump administration, we have watched laws that make it harder for working people who win the legal right to form a union, through a union election. They run into all kinds of stumbling blocks. All too often, there is no legal recourse against an employer who violates the rules or stacks the deck against people and doesn't allow that vote to actually form that union. That is the real problem that we are facing. That is what we are talking about tonight with the PRO Act. That is what we are trying to address in Congress. What I think is so very important to raise is the reason people want to have a union is because it will help not only their family but their communities by lifting up everyone. When you have a union job, you are more likely to get more pay and better benefits than people who are not in union jobs. That is why the public support is so strong right now for unions with 64 percent support for unions, one of the highest percents we have seen in this country. And 67 percent of people 18 to 34, millennials, even more than the population as a whole, see this as a way to have a voice in their workplace. Here are some of the things they support: expanding union rights, banning right-to-work-for-less laws, ensuring a first contract for new unions--if you vote for a union, you should be able to get a contract for your union-- making so-called independent contractors employees, and protections for workers on strike. All of those things I just mentioned are included in the PRO Act. All those things could be possible for workers across the country. We know that when we have had the least amount of income inequality in our country, back in the 1950s, is when we had the greatest representation of people in unions. Now that we have got one of the smallest amounts of people--about 11 percent, nationwide, in public and private employee unions--we have the greatest gap in income that we have had in this country. There is no surprise there is a lot of pushback from not only people on the other side of the aisle, but from the United States Chamber of Commerce, which is not your local business in your chamber of commerce, but it is the big businesses in this country that don't want to take care of their workers. Instead, they want to send all the profits up to their shareholders, so very few get a lot and everyone else gets the crumbs that are left over. Just to give you an idea of some of the actions we see by these companies: 75 percent of private-sector employers hire outside consultants to run antiunion campaigns when workers try to form a union; 63 percent force their employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear antiunion propaganda; and over half of employers threaten workers in these meetings, they threaten their jobs. You have a one-in-five chance, if you are a union organizer, of losing your job because, right now, you can get away with it with this administration and how they enforce our labor laws. But here is the reality. If you don't have a union in your company right now, this is what you get when you have a union: Health insurance: 75 percent of people in a union participate in job- provided health insurance versus about 48 percent nationwide; Pensions: 70 percent of people versus 13 percent nationwide; Paid sick leave: 91 percent of people who are in a union have paid sick leave, and the median weekly earnings are $207 more a week. That is $11,000 a year more if you are a member of a union, in a similar job, than if you are not. That is the real reason we see the attacks on working people trying to have a voice in their workplaces, and that is why we see people not trying to lift this bill. This is so important that, in this Congress, we take this bill up in the House of Representatives and we pass this bill and we give, finally, an edge to help push a little more assistance to workers who want to have a say in the workplace than what employers have had because of this administration, because of States that have passed bad laws, that make it harder, again, to have a say in your workplace. This is an important piece of legislation. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has made this issue a priority. We are going to make sure there will be a vote this session in Congress. We are going to try to make the Senate take this up as well. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Chicago. His help on this and so many issues has been so very important. We are going to do everything we can to get this done this session.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, during the 5th annual National Apprenticeship Week, I recognize the success of the Registered Apprenticeship system, which has been the model workforce development policy in the United States for over eight decades. Over the next decade, 45 percent of all jobs will require more than a high school diploma, but won't necessitate a bachelor's degree. Registered Apprenticeship programs hold the key to preparing a new wave of working people for these jobs and ensuring all people have the adequate resources for economic stability. The Registered Apprenticeship program model has proven success in skilled trades and service industries for both workers and employers, with every dollar invested in a craft apprenticeship yielding up to $3 in return for employers. My state of Wisconsin has been a leader in Apprenticeship training since 1911, when we established the nation's first apprenticeship law. That first year, Wisconsin had 625 apprentices, and its state law became a model for the National Apprenticeship Act in 1937--the first federal apprenticeship law. Building on a century of success, Wisconsin now has over 11,000 active apprentices and 2,500 employers in construction, industrial trades, utilities, healthcare, service trades, and IT. Congress should continue to build on the Registered Apprenticeship system to extend workforce training opportunities to more workers-- especially women, people of color, and those from disadvantaged communities. Congress should also seek to integrate apprenticeship readiness programs, secondary and post-secondary education systems, and support services to ensure that more workers and employers can participate successfully in Registered Apprenticeships. Most importantly, Congress must uphold the strong standards for Registered Apprenticeship so that apprentices have confidence that they will have their rights protected and receive transferable, nationally recognized credentials.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, on July 10, 2018, a natural gas leak in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin resulted in an explosion that killed Fire Captain Cory James Barr. Captain Barr was a first responder on the scene of the explosion and gave his life while working to save more than one hundred people. Captain Barr was a beloved member of the Sun Prairie community for 30 years. He was born on February 28, 1984 to parents Jack and Janet Barr, and was a brother to siblings Kim and Chad. He is survived by his wife, Abby, and twin daughters, Hailey and Aubrey. Captain Barr first volunteered with the Sun Prairie Fire Department at age 18, earning him the distinction of the youngest firefighter in the department's history. In addition to his contributions to the fire department, Captain Barr owned The Barr House in downtown Sun Prairie and worked as a realtor. He is remembered as an outgoing, dedicated man who touched the lives of all his fellow community members. Hundreds of first responders attended a memorial service in July 2018 to celebrate Captain Barr's life. Sun Prairie Fire Chief Christopher Garrison spoke to his commitment to the department and the community: ``If Cory could say something right now he would do everything the same way all over again. No resistance. No stepping back. He would face the danger and do it all over again.'' Other speakers echoed Chief Garrison's sentiments and added that Captain Barr was a loving husband and father to his wife and daughters. The Sun Prairie Education Foundation has honored Captain Barr with the Cory Barr Education Memorial Fund. His classmates from the Sun Prairie High School Class of 2002 created the Cory Barr Fire Academy Fund to support the county's firefighter training program for high school students. Captain Barr's service to his community has now earned recognition from Congress by dedicating the Sun Prairie Post Office in his memory. Captain Barr's legacy will live on as an inspiration to young firefighters in Sun Prairie and across Wisconsin.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Ms. Jayapal, for yielding me some time. I want to thank my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) for his supportive words. I appreciate that. I am happy that we here today to pass H.R. 2134, the Helen Keller National Center Reauthorization Act of 2019, which I am glad to author and introduce with my colleagues, Representatives Tom Suozzi and Tom Cole. Without their support, as well as the support of Representatives Rosa DeLauro, Pete King, and Chairman Bobby Scott, this legislation would not be on the floor today. The Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults was first authorized by Congress in 1967 to assist the deaf-blind community in America. To this day, it is the only comprehensive national program that provides information, referrals, support, and training exclusively to Americans who have combined vision and hearing loss, while also supporting families and professionals who work with the deaf-blind community. Unfortunately, the center's authorization has lapsed, but through our actions today, we will be able to reauthorize it through 2023 and continue to advocate on its behalf during the annual appropriations process. In my home State of Wisconsin, the Helen Keller National Center has partnered with the Wisconsin Division of Vocational Rehabilitation through a formal agreement to provide job preparation and job placement services, independent living, and communication skills, training, and self-advocacy training. Additionally, it co-led the Midwest Deaf-Blind Transition Institute this past July, where deaf-blind youths from across Wisconsin and their family members explored post-high school options and met with peer mentors. The center has also recently provided training to 55 professionals in Wisconsin on haptics, a system of providing tactual signs to deaf-blind persons to relay information, which can increase independence and engagement in daily life. Clearly, the work the Helen Keller National Center performs is vital and life-changing. That is why I am proud to stand here on the floor of the House of Representatives in support of the center and its work. The Helen Keller National Center is worthy of all of our support. I thank Sue Ruzenski at the Helen Keller National Center for bringing its work and the needs of the deaf-blind community to my attention. I thank Jacque Mosely of the House Education and Labor Committee, who has been invaluable. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand in support of the American deaf-blind community and vote in favor of this bipartisan legislation before us.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following Proclamation. Whereas, Investments today that improve the quality of life for African American Women and their families will ensure that Dane County becomes the healthiest county in the state, and that Wisconsin becomes the healthiest state in the U.S. for all of its citizens as well as the health care leader of the world; and Whereas, the Foundation for Black Women's Wellness was established for the purpose of empowering women and girls of African descent to live healthy, balanced, thriving lives by promoting mind-body-spirit wellness as a core quality for being productive members and leaders of their families, communities and society; and Whereas, the Foundation for Black Women's Wellness works to eliminate health disparities impacting black women and their communities by partnering with the community to provide educational outreach programs, conferences and seminars including the Annual Black Women's Wellness Day to inform, inspire and empower Black Women and Girls to build and sustain healthy, wellness-centered lives; now, therefore, I hereby proclaim September 21st, 2019 as the 11th annual Black Women's Wellness Day and urge all citizens to support this worthy and life sustaining endeavor by celebrating this day with pride and distinction, and recognizing its organizers as advocates and ambassadors of health and healing in our community.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, today we will be taking up a resolution to denounce the BDS movement, the boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. This region is not unfamiliar to me, as I have been there twice, in both Israel and Palestine. I do not support the BDS movement. When I was last in Palestine, I asked multiple people with whom I met if they supported the movement, and the response was that they did not, as they were afraid of the economic effect on Palestine, where many are already struggling. However, I also do not support the resolution today, as it goes too far, in my opinion, in telling people what they can or should think or say about the situation in Israel. Israel the country and the Israeli people are good friends of the United States. They are a strong democracy and a close ally of our country. I have supported the Iron Dome as a way to deescalate the tensions that occur when a rocket is sent into Israel from inside Gaza, for example. It is better to take out that missile before there is any damage or death rather than returning a volley of rockets back in response, injuring or killing people of both countries. But I also think it is okay to be critical of the Netanyahu administration, or government, and their policies. Look, if a dear friend does something that jeopardizes themselves or their family's lives or livelihoods, I have a moral obligation to say something because I respect my friend. It should be no different with our response to Israel. People have a right to be concerned about a number of actions by the Israeli Government. We have a right to question how continuing to create illegal settlements into the West Bank will make it harder to broker a two- state solution, the best path forward toward peace in the region, given the additional difficulty of the land swaps. We have a right to question why it is okay to take Palestinian children, or any child, into a military court for detention by Israel. We have a right to ask if sectioning off 2 million people in Gaza, with over a million people needing food assistance and 95 percent not having access to clean water, will ever lead to peace, or why not allowing Members of Congress to go into Gaza from Israel is smart. What don't they want us to see by not allowing us in? We have a right to ask how demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem or the West Bank or crops in Gaza serves to further peace in the region. We have a right to ask why it makes sense to have a major highway with a giant wall in the middle of it with one side for Palestinians and the other for Israelis, as it looks like something we have judged poorly previously in history. We have a right to ask if a bullet directed at a child is an equivalent response to a thrown rock. I am not saying that Hamas, the organization that has been recognized by the United States as a terrorist organization, is innocent or pure-- anything but. But, obviously, not all Palestinians are Hamas by any stretch of the imagination. If we really want peace in the region, where we will never have to send young men and women from our country to risk their lives, then we need a government in Israel that respects human rights more and works more aggressively towards peace. I was told a resolution advocating for a two-state solution would be up today as well, a resolution I support; but apparently it is not, and that is a mistake. Instead, only this resolution opposing BDS is up. And while I do not support BDS, I cannot support this resolution as worded. My hope is that we will have real peace in the region someday, that we will have a two-state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians will live in peace, both internally and with each other. But this resolution won't do that. Madam Speaker, I just wish real efforts toward peace were what we were debating today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Scott for yielding. I do find it interesting to sit and listen to a debate today where people who make $174,000 a year and half of which are millionaires are telling people they should be satisfied trying to exist on $15,000 a year, which is the very reason we are here today: to try to raise the wage for 33 million people, a quarter of the workforce in this country. No family in the United States can live on $7.25 an hour and make ends meet. In my home State of Wisconsin, you would have to work 93 hours a week at minimum wage in order to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment, and there is not a single county in the country where a worker earning the minimum wage for 40 hours a week can afford a two-bedroom apartment. I come to Congress with 3 decades as a small businessowner. Small business owners know our workers are our customers, our neighbors, and our community members. When workers have more money in their pockets, they have more money to spend to care for their families and stimulate our economy. This is especially true in rural areas, where workers have only a handful of employment options. If the primary employer in a rural town is a multibillion-dollar corporation like Walmart, they can afford to pay their workers $15 an hour instead of holding down wages for the entire community. Congress recently set a new record for the longest stretch in U.S. history without a hike in the minimum wage: 10 years. It is long past due that we show workers respect by putting more money in their pockets and support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of Amendment No. 439 which is based upon legislation that I have introduced every Congress since I was elected in 2012, the ``Restore Honor to Service Members Act''. This amendment will require the Department of Defense to correct the military records of service members discharged solely because of their sexual orientation. Importantly, amending service members' discharge characterizations to an honorable discharge will enable impacted individuals to access the benefits they earned and to which they would otherwise be entitled. It is a significant moment for the more than 100,000 Americans estimated to have been discharged from the military since World War II due to their sexual orientation. I thank Chairman Smith for his strong support of this amendment, Paul Arcangeli--Staff Director of the House Armed Services Committee--for his assistance, and Leslie Zelenko of my staff who has worked tirelessly to ensure the success of the amendment before us today. Additionally, I would like to extend my deep gratitude to the Human Rights Campaign, the Modem Military Association of America, and VoteVets, for supporting this amendment, and Representatives Katie Hill, Chris Pappas, Mark Takano, Seth Moulton, Jamie Raskin, Chuy Garcia, Alan Lowenthal, Barbara Lee, Bill Foster, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Sean Patrick Maloney, Brian Higgins, Ed Case, Paul Tonko, Denny Heck, Jan Schakowsky, Veronica Escobar, Robin Kelly, Julia Brownley, Kurt Schrader, Steve Cohen, Ilhan Omar, Sheila Jackson Lee, Suzan DelBene, Anthony Brown, Joe Kennedy, Donna Shalala, Suzanne Bonamici, and Katie Porter for cosponsoring. I would also like to recognize Senator Brian Schatz and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for championing this legislation in the Senate. Without this outpouring of support, today would not have been possible. Again, I thank them. Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Restore Honor amendment, and I urge a yes vote in favor of the en bloc amendment into which it has been packaged.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative for the time. The current field of Presidential candidates looks more like American society than ever before, and we are closer than ever to the possibility that a woman or LGBT person could hold the country's highest office. We have decades of activism by women and the LGBT community to thank for this fact, and the least Congress can do is to ensure the law recognizes the progress our country has made. We have come a long way from 1872 when Victoria Woodhull became the first woman to seek the Presidency, decades before women won the right to vote. Today, six women, more than ever before, are running for President. Almost 100 years after the passage of the 19th Amendment, and thanks to trailblazers like Victoria Woodhull, Shirley Chisholm, and Hillary Clinton, we are closer than ever before to having a woman in the Oval Office. In 2012, Fred Karger, a Republican, was the first openly LGBT candidate for President, and the 2020 Democratic Presidential field includes one openly LGBT candidate. The landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision making gay marriage legal in all 50 States means that a future President may have a spouse of the same sex. Unfortunately, current Federal law is outdated and does not reflect the reality that we could have a female or gay President as soon as 2021. Today's bill updates Federal law to reflect the possibility of a female or LGBT President by replacing gendered terms like ``wife'' and ``widow'' with ``spouse.'' It also replaces gender-specific pronouns when referring to the President and their spouse with gender-neutral terms. Without this change, the law that makes it a crime to threaten to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon the President or the President's family would fail to include a future female or gay President. The words we use matter, and it is critically important that the law recognizes that soon we will have a President who is not a straight man. I thank the chairman, the ranking member, and all the members of the committee for their support of this important bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 21st Century President Act.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment that would stop the Federal Communications Commission from implementing a proposed agency rule that would kneecap our Nation's efforts to achieve universal phone and broadband service. I would like to thank Representatives Clyburn, Butterfield, and Bustos for their work on this important amendment. According to the FCC data, 21.3 million people lack broadband access. Other estimates are much higher and show as many as 162.8 million people may not have broadband speed internet. That is why Congress required the FCC to work towards universal phone and broadband service. To that end, the FCC established the Universal Service Fund and its four component programs: the Connect America Fund; the low-income support program, also known as Lifeline; the Rural Healthcare Support program; and the Schools and Libraries program. The proposed FCC rule, which this amendment seeks to block, would mean cutting available funding for broadband build-out, broadband in schools and hospitals, and other critical programs. We cannot allow that to happen. The rule also proposes to combine the caps of the Schools and Libraries program and the Rural Healthcare Support program. Combining these programs would cap, effectively, schools and rural hospitals, pitting them against each other for Universal Service Fund money, while doing nothing to advance the goal of universal service. We cannot allow the FCC to move forward with this rulemaking. We must ensure that low-income and rural Americans have access to broadband at home, that rural hospitals have reliable broadband, and that students can use broadband at school. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I actually live in a rural town of about 830 people, and last year we got internet. I was paying, up to that point--I got a half-price sale--$300 a month for 80 measured gigs of internet. And often in winter, I would call my husband at the end of a month and say: Quit watching Netflix. We can't afford $15 a gig in order to watch them. So my neighbors across the street couldn't do their homework because they didn't have broadband. Health facilities in our area have problems. I don't know if studying this is going to solve it. I think having funds available seems to be the issue, so I think this is important. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I am one of the founders of the Rural Broadband Caucus. We have three Democrats, three Republicans--a lot of members. This is not an issue people want us to have reports or studies on. They want broadband because, in my district, you can't track your cows if you don't have broadband these days and you certainly can't do your homework. Healthcare and schools need this, not to have to be competing for the funds. Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POCAN. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to offer an amendment that ensures the Trump administration cannot block critical groundbreaking research solely because it utilizes human fetal tissue. I believe this new policy announced by HHS just last week is shortsighted and that Congress should make its voice heard on the issue. This amendment prohibits any funds in the bill being used to establish a sham ethics advisory board with regard to research products that use human fetal tissue. The June 5, HHS announcement bars NIH scientists from conducting any research using fetal tissue unless an additional ethics advisory board review of NIH grant applications for fetal tissue research occurs. This decision by President Trump is unnecessary since these grant applications are already subject to rigorous ethical review requirements. Currently, any federally funded research that uses fetal tissue must comply with oversight pursuant to the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, which was enacted on a bipartisan basis. This framework requires informed consent and declarations pertaining to fetal tissue from all donors, physicians, and researchers involved. Let's be clear. The Trump administration's decision is not about science or ethics. It is about politics. Fetal tissue research is not new. It has been supported by the NIH since the 1950s, and fetal tissue has been used to develop vaccines that have saved and improved the lives of billions of people around the world. Vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, whooping cough, tetanus, hepatitis A, and rabies were all created using fetal cell cultures. Researchers today are using fetal cells to develop vaccines against diseases that include Ebola, HIV, and dengue fever. Studies at UW-Madison in my district involving fetal tissue are trying to develop treatments for conditions that include blindness, Zika, developmental disorders, and diabetes. This is exactly the type of research that the Federal Government should be supporting, not defunding. I encourage my colleagues to ensure that we all continue to fund critical research on behalf of the American people and that we block last week's decision that threatens Federal funding of fetal tissue research. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is an amazing colleague.

Mr. POCAN. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. POCAN. Apparently, Madam Chair, the other side of the aisle would like to debate political science rather than medical science today. I understand that. It is always great to make your base happy rather than healthy. But there is a big difference when it comes to the issue of fetal tissue. We have had this debate before in committee. This isn't new. What is new are the cures that are coming out of the use of fetal tissue not just at UW-Madison but across the country. The President's action shows how far removed not just the debate is that we just heard, which is more about politics than science, but over half the people who are on this new board don't even have to be scientists, when we already have the proper oversight in place to make sure that this is ethical research. I get it. You have to make your base happy, especially in the era of Donald Trump. But the bottom line is, you are hurting your constituents by trying to place politics over medical science. That is just a really bad idea. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. POCAN. Which I was doing, Madam Chair, and I appreciate that. So, again, if you want to be a scientist who doesn't believe in science, that is fine. That means you are a politician. I would like to think that those of us who are going to deal with those areas that involve science, even if we are politicians, focus on the science aspects, and I am going to do just that. That is why this amendment is important to make sure we have lifesaving research. Madam Chair, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from the floor on Monday, June 3rd. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 232, YEA on Roll Call No. 233, and YEA on Roll Call No. 234.