Bonnie Watson Coleman

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Before the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) begins, I really think I want to share something that I think is very germane to where the gentleman may be going. Both of us live on and travel the Northeast corridor on the train back and forth to New Jersey, and we depend upon an efficient and a safe train ride to get us back to our homes and to get us back down here to do the people's business. I did mention that I lost a constituent because that train was on its way to Trenton, and it was letting off people in my district, and that train would have ultimately gone on up to Newark and then on to New York. I know that the Congressman has been tremendously impacted by the tragedy that took place, and knowing how important it is for us to be able to move back and forth efficiently, effectively, and safely in the Northeast corridor. And I just wanted to sort of preface the introduction of your coming to the microphone with sort of remembering that this is really close to home for you and me. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne.)

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida, as we discuss an issue of great importance to my district and, quite frankly, to every Member of Congress: transportation infrastructure. Last week our Nation endured a terrible tragedy as Amtrak Northeast Regional train 188 derailed in Philadelphia on its way to Trenton en route to New York. That accident killed eight Americans, including one of my constituents, injured more than 200, and disrupted service on the busiest rail corridor in the Nation for nearly a week. In the days since the accident, investigators have indicated that high speeds may have played a significant role in the derailment, speeds that were more than double the limit in that stretch of the track. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have used those details to deflect attention away from discussing our Nation's investments, or the lack thereof, in rail and all of our other surface transportation infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, burying our heads in the sand and waiting until an accident indisputably caused by lack of funding or maintenance to discuss that funding is dangerous, irresponsible, and, frankly, unacceptable: dangerous because millions of Americans every day are driving across dilapidated bridges, riding on outdated trains, and stuck in endless traffic when traveling to work, to school, and medical care; irresponsible because news coverage and the looming highway trust fund depletion have made transportation infrastructure a national focus; unacceptable because transportation infrastructure has traditionally been a bipartisan issue that affects how every single one of our constituents gets where they need to go. Still we stand here today waiting for the House majority to bring forth a good-faith, comprehensive surface transportation reauthorization that makes investments to give us the transportation system--rail, car, air, and sea--that we need. Transportation infrastructure is critical for the businesses and employers in our district that ship goods to consumers across the globe. Transportation infrastructure creates good-paying jobs here, jobs that can't be outsourced, and jobs that will actually give working Americans a chance to climb into the middle class and beyond. But like I mentioned earlier, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather have us wait until an accident that we can attribute to infrastructure decay to invest in our roads, our bridges, and our railways. In fact, a Los Angeles Times report recently noted that the last time Congress significantly increased Amtrak funding was 2008, following the 2008 Union Pacific-Metrolink crash in California that killed 25 people. This year, the day following the Philadelphia crash, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to cut Amtrak funding by one-fifth. That is wrong; it is just plain wrong. It is insane, and it is out of touch. Earlier this year, my Congressional Progressive Caucus colleagues and I introduced the People's Budget, a budget that would fix our economy so that it will once again provide opportunity for everyday working class Americans. A key provision in the People's Budget was an investment of $820 billion to close our Nation's infrastructure gap, funded by raising the gas tax by just 15 cents for the first time in more than two decades so that we can maintain and improve our Nation's infrastructure. Unfortunately, instead of the People's Budget, Congress passed a far more dangerous Republican budget; and unfortunately, our infrastructure continues to crumble. Our roads are frequently congested, limiting productivity for millions of American workers; our airports appear run down compared to their competitors in Europe and Asia; and rail speeds around the world have long eclipsed even Amtrak's fastest trains. Our bridges continue to deteriorate and present real safety hazards, and our ports are in terrible disrepair, having negative economic impact. In fact, a report last week in The New York Times noted that while the train that derailed was traveling well above the speed limit, at 106 miles per hour, its speed was about half of the average speed of a French train from Paris to Marseille. Federal and State investments in infrastructure have plunged in recent years, even as economists have repeated over and over and over again that infrastructure spending would bring massive economic benefits and overhaul our transportation networks. This has to change before it is too late, Mr. Speaker. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is here on the floor today to implore our colleagues to put transportation spending front and center. I know that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) agrees with me. I want to thank her for her leadership as a member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who shares our passion about the importance of funding a comprehensive transportation bill.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for everything that she has brought before us this evening. I thank my colleagues for raising the issues regarding the significance, the importance of, and the economic benefits, as well as the safety and security needs, of an efficient, effective, and safe transportation system. I want to also thank the gentlewoman for reminding us that we are having our Memorial Day holiday, and it gives us an opportunity to thank those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe and to keep the freedoms that we hold so dear. And at the end of this, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to simply remind us that the transportation needs of our community both represent safety and security that we hold very sacred in our communities, but it also provides an economic benefit that we all can benefit from. Irrespective of Republican or Democrat, rural, urban, or suburban, there is a benefit to a transportation system that moves people, goods, and supplies where they are needed. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 231 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of H.R. 1732, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, when I was sworn into this Congress, there was quite a bit of fanfare about how many women now serve in this body. But even with all of these women, this body is still 80 percent male. Men are running the show, and the sideshow that they have used to distract us from the real reasons each of us was elected has been a persistent, absurd, arrogant, and ignorant effort to impede upon a woman's right to make her own choices about her health. We have wasted--absolutely wasted--taxpayer dollars and valuable time here on the floor of the House again and again and again trying to legislate away something our highest Court confirmed years ago. We could have spent that time talking about the recent rash of police brutality cases that have long plagued communities of color, an issue that has now caught fire in the streets of Baltimore, just a few miles north of us. We could have discussed the lack of job training programs preparing workers for careers in technology and health, the fastest-growing professions in an economy doing nothing for the long-term unemployed. We could have used this time to work on protecting our seniors by expanding Social Security, keeping even more older Americans out of poverty. We could have debated any issue that would offer better opportunities for our constituents, which is what each of us was elected to do. Instead, we put Members of Congress one place we have no right to be; and that is, in a woman's uterus. Women are the only ones who have the right to make the inherently private health choices that they are faced with. Mr. Speaker, when the legislation we are preparing to debate came before the House Oversight Committee, I was particularly disturbed. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle gave us a slew of well- meaning arguments about why we so desperately needed to violate the self-rule of the District of Columbia. One of these men, a former minister, explained employers, who are moved by faith to judge and persecute their employees, should be free to do so. He went on to say that employers should have every right to freely exercise their faiths and that the District's effort to ensure employees don't lose their jobs because of in vitro fertilization or birth control or any other reproductive healthcare choice was part of a ``continued attack'' on religion. One thing that is particularly wonderful about this great Nation is that we offer everyone a right to have an opinion. As a mother, a grandmother, and a devoted woman of God, I couldn't help wondering how men, who are so very adamant about forcing mothers to have these babies, could refuse to ensure they have access to care. The same folks calling for bills like this one have called for cuts to programs across the spectrum that will give their children and their mothers access to education, access to healthy meals, and all kinds of tools to assure they are not stuck in the cycle of poverty. So once they have funneled women into the path that brings a child into the world, my colleagues would prefer to say, ``God bless you,'' and walk away. Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule would force us to consider is absolutely wrong. It violates the will of the District's voters; it violates the privacy and the rights of women; and most relevant to this point of order, it violates rules of this body for interference in State and local governments. It is now my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), someone who recognizes just how awful this legislation is and the only Member whose constituents will have to deal with the outcome.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health care.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, in just a few months in Washington, I have learned that there is always something going on, and this week is no exception to that rule. In the coming days, two very important actions may change life for many of my constituents and Americans across the country. Last week, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan, introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, legislation that would allow the President to negotiate and to sign trade agreements with limited congressional oversight. The Committee on Ways and Means has reported that legislation out, and I imagine we will be considering it on the floor in short order. Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, which is a case that has the potential to decide once and for all whether every American, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the right to marry and should have access to all of the legal rights and benefits we afford married couples. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I plan to address both of these important issues on the floor of the people's House this afternoon. I want to start by talking about the legislation that was reported out by the Ways and Means Committee this week. If Congress authorizes TPA's fast-track authority, this President and every President elected after him will have the unprecedented authority to negotiate and sign sweeping trade agreements with little opportunity for Congress to intercede on behalf of the many Americans those deals inevitably impact. In the past, those agreements haven't turned out great for American workers here at home, which is all the more important reason that Congress should be able to retain the ability to fight for what is in the best interests of our constituents. After 6 years of secretive negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, we haven't been given much motivation to release any of this oversight. Offering fast-track authority for the TPP means that we press fast- forward on policies that put American families' health at risk on policies that are challenging our chemical safeguards, on policies allowing unregulated and potentially contaminated food products into the United States. We lose our chance to question policies that would allow foreign corporations to skirt our courts and demand taxpayer compensation when they feel they have been violated by U.S. laws. Our constituents are relying on us to stand up for their interests on TPP and on every future trade agreement to come down the line. We cannot pass the buck on this, and I know that our first speaker today agrees with me. I want to talk a little bit about the State of New Jersey because the State of New Jersey has seen what can happen when trade deals go bad: factories close, employees are laid off, and cities that have previously made things that have been bought by consumers around the world are suddenly faced with stunted economies and surges in unemployment. My capital district--``Trenton makes, the World Takes''--is an illustration of what was a great economy in that locale. That is why it is so important that this body ensures we only sign these agreements when we are sure they will help, not hurt, working families. I yield now to another Member who is deeply familiar with the issues in New Jersey, my friend and my fellow freshman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you very much to the gentleman from California. I have to tell you that I am very happy to be able to work with you on this issue. As a State legislator, this was important to us in the State of New Jersey. And as we grappled with all kinds of configurations of equality in relationships, we recognized that everything but absolute marriage equality was giving individuals stumbling blocks over very important things like simply being able to visit your loved one in the hospital and making medical decisions for them, or being able to enjoy the financial rights that a heterosexual couple can enjoy. Any area in which there is inequality is a threatened area to every one of us who at one point has been discriminated against or has been identified as part of a protected class. So I thank you for the work that you are doing here, and I am your partner in this effort. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our leader in our Caucus on this and so many other issues, a person who stands up each and every day for the rights of the citizens of this great country.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, and I appreciate the passions with which you have taken on this issue of right and wrong and equality, as you have taken on other issues. Thank you for you leadership. Mr. Speaker, I know that these may seem to have been very diverse issues to bring before the floor at the same time, but they are connected in so many different ways, particularly because our constituents care deeply about both of these issues. If we allow the fast-track authority to move forward, we risk signing up for a trade deal that risks our environment, the health of American families, while excusing the reprehensible conduct of many of the governments who would become our new partners, all while putting in the same compromise for future agreements. Meanwhile, if the Supreme Court upholds the tenets of justice and equality that our Nation has always valued, LGBT couples across the country will gain the access to the same rights and protections that heterosexual couples expect and enjoy, and the children of those couples will have the confidence and the security of their family's relationship. I look forward to continuing my work with that. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentlelady for having taken this issue and just gone forward with it and having been such an educator of us, of the ones that are new and the ones that have been here and that have taken the time to really speak to the constituents about the impact of this trade agreement and the potential that it has a negative impact on our economy, our safety, our security, our worker protections. I thank you very much. I think it is quite illuminating for people to understand that no one is opposed to trade. We are just opposed to unequal trade. No one is opposed to exporting or importing. We are opposed to not knowing what is in this trade agreement. We are opposed to not having a say in this trade agreement, and we are opposed to anything that creates greater unequal opportunities for the workers of this country to have decent jobs and good wages that are being paid. So I thank you very much. The notion of giving this President, whom we love, and any President that we are going to love in the future the authority to do that without our involvement is not what was expected by creating these three coequal branches of government. As I said to you in the beginning, there are two very important issues that our constituents are concerned about, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to speak out today because they are occupying the minds of many of our colleagues over the next few weeks. It is not only this major issue that will be on the minds of American people, but next week, just next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case that has the potential to fulfill the principles of equality and justice that this country stands for. When the court hears arguments in this case, they will have the opportunity to ensure that every American, regardless of whom they love, has access to the legal rights and benefits we give on the Federal and State level to married couples. More than 60 percent of Americans already agree that same-sex couples deserve the same recognition that we give heterosexual couples; and just as public opposition has crumbled, so have many of the arguments we have made against giving these couples the same protections we give their heterosexual peers. I am proud to be a member of the LGBT Caucus and to join my colleagues today on the floor this evening as we urge the court to rule in support of equal rights and in favor of marriage equality. It is my pleasure now to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a leader in the fight for marriage equality and equality in general for all people. I now ask Mr. Takano from the great State of California to share his remarks with us.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, our constituents are really relying upon us here to stand up for their interests on TPP because every future trade agreement that comes down the line has an impact on our quality of life and on our opportunities. I know that the speaker that we are getting ready to hear from knows very well how this trade agreement and how these negotiations are going to impact the communities and the economy of our United States of America. It is my honor to yield to someone who has been fighting furiously for her constituents, who has been adamant about giving a voice to the voiceless, and who has been educating our Caucus on a routine basis. I yield now to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentleman for the fine points that he has made. I can speak from a personal perspective. I am one of four siblings, and my father was the bread earner and my mother was the woman who was taking care of our family. And he, indeed, did provide a good and wholesome living for his family. Madam Speaker, right now, tens of thousands of American workers in fast food and child care and home care and airport services, and even in professional positions in higher education, are not being paid enough to survive. And what that means, and I believe that my colleague did mention it, it becomes a drag on the economy. Our economy does rely on consumers buying products. They want not just products that they need. Spending is what gives companies, big and small, the revenue to expand and hire more workers. Ideally, it is also what gives companies the revenue to increase wages. But if you ask the workers who are fighting for $15 an hour, they will tell you that a wage increase has been nowhere in sight. Madam Speaker, I yield to my colleague from the great State of California, Congresswoman Lee.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on something that my colleague had alluded to, and that is the impact of low wages and the government's need to subsidize. I think that he sort of spoke to it in a generalized way, but I would like to just share with you what I think happens with an individual and a family that has a $15,000 income. Since it is not enough to keep food on the table, those Americans have to turn to food stamps. Since the jobs don't come with health care, we have got to rely on Medicaid. Because $15,000 a year doesn't pay for the rent in most cities, those Americans rely on low-income housing or subsidized housing through Section 8 vouchers, or they are homeless and living in shelters. These workers' children are enrolled in children's health insurance programs, and these families are getting support through Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the TANF program. Fifty-two percent of fast-food workers rely on public assistance programs; 46 percent of childcare workers rely on public assistance; 48 percent of home care workers rely on public assistance; and, Mr. Speaker, 25 percent of part-time college faculty--highly educated adjunct professors--rely on public assistance. According to a Berkeley report, the Federal Government spent $127.8 billion on working families in these programs. California spent almost $3.7 billion because of low-wage workers; New York, $3.3 billion; Texas, $2.1 billion; and Illinois and Florida both spent a little more than a billion. This isn't funding for Americans that are uncharacteristically down on their luck or temporarily out of work or in some other moment of crisis. This money is spent on full-time, hard-working Americans who simply are working for corporations who maximize the CEO's benefits at the expense of the workers' salaries. Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues are so adamant about reducing government spending, shouldn't we be worried about why these folks are trying to work full-time but still need food stamps to make ends meet? We have also spent a lot of time in this Congress debating tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations. In fact, earlier this afternoon, we argued about whether or not the 5,000 or so wealthiest families in this country, the only people who have enough money in their estates to qualify for the estate tax, should get a $2.5 million tax break. Every year, we let corporations deduct unlimited amounts of bonus pay for executives, regardless of whether or not the companies' workers get pay raises or not, unlike that one special CEO who sees life differently and believes that to whom much is given much is required. Corporations have written off $66 billion between 2007 and 2010 while letting the low-wage workers who make up the rank and file of their companies struggle. My colleague, Chris Van Hollen, has a solution for this, requiring companies to raise wages for their workers if they want to keep qualifying for that tax break. It is a simple solution that wouldn't mean companies suddenly have to raise pay for their workers; they just need to stop expecting the government to cover the exorbitant salaries of their executives if they can't pay the rest of their employees a liveable wage. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I stand with the millions of workers fighting for 15. Lifting pay for low-wage workers will boost their purchasing power, pumping more money into our economy and giving businesses the revenue to create more jobs. Lifting pay for low-wage workers will reduce government spending. Lifting pay for low-wage workers will open the doors to the American Dream for the millions who have already demonstrated that they are ready and willing to work and to work hard for it. By standing together and fighting for the $15, these workers have already made their voices heard in the living rooms, the boardrooms, and the statehouses all across this country. It is time for D.C. to lend an ear as well. It is my privilege and my honor to stand with those who are simply seeking a fair wage for the work that they do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Congressman, it has been an honor to share this moment with you in this Special Order hour. It has been a blessing to me. Texas is very, very lucky and very fortunate to have you as a Representative. Florida must be very proud because you were born there. Thank you, and God bless you.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentlewoman from California for sharing her insights with us and the very important points that have been made. As I stated a moment ago, our economy relies upon consumers buying products that they want, not just products that they need. But $15 an hour is what we are trying to fight for, and even with that, that will barely provide the needs of these families. They can barely cover their rent or keep food on the table. They can't buy new cars and support the American auto industry. They can't afford new clothes, supporting American retailers, and they can't buy computers or smart phones, supporting Silicon Valley. Six out of the ten largest corporations with median wages of less than $15 also rank among the most occupations projected to add the most jobs in the coming years. And as the low-wage workforce grows, the declining purchasing power of Americans means that there is less demand for goods and services in the economy. If we want to grow our economy, if we are focused on creating jobs, we need to support the people that do just that. I would like now to yield to my colleague from the great State of Texas, who stands up for working-class families every single solitary day and has even introduced legislation to secure a living wage for the families in our country.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Today, low-wage workers across the country rallied in small towns and big cities. Their request is very simple: a livable wage and the right to organize. This isn't rocket science. These folks turn on the news and see reports on stock market gains on Wall Street. They see companies reporting record profits. They see the prices for bread and a carton of milk rising every month. Then they open their paychecks and see the same amount that they have seen for the past 10 years. This is a crisis that my colleagues across the aisle keep trying to brush under a political rug. That may have worked in the past, but it is just getting too big to be hidden. According to UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, the Nation's 100 richest families have as much wealth as the 80 million families that make up the bottom 50 percent in wealth. Meanwhile, Republicans keep trying to peddle the same, tired ``work hard and get ahead'' rhetoric. Madam Speaker, American workers are doing just that. They are stringing together 40-hour weeks whenever they can. In many cases, they are not given the opportunity to even do that, but they are being paid wages that cobble together to just over $15,000 a year. Even when McDonald's raises wages for the fraction of its workers behind the counters of their corporate stores, they will only get a raise of $5,000. $5,000 will make a huge difference for those families, but at $20,000, they have gone from drowning to just barely keeping their heads above water. That is not enough to pay for a college education or to buy a home. That is not enough to save for retirement. That is not enough to pay for medical bills. Madam Speaker, that is not enough to achieve the American Dream. My Progressive Caucus colleagues and I are here on the floor tonight to stand with workers in the fight for $15, that is $15 an hour and the right to form unions. It is time to support working families, and it is time to make it possible to work hard and get ahead. It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), one of the chairs of our caucus.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remind my colleagues that we have not yet succeeded in bringing back the 219 Nigerian girls abducted by Boko Haram on this day last year. For a moment, the plight of those young schoolgirls captured the attention of the world, spurred by millions of tweets and a hashtag that demanded justice, but as is so often the case with faces of color, their disappearance quickly left the headlines. We can neither forget nor give up on these girls. Their abduction was a violent challenge to peace, to freedom, and to the right of every girl to choose to better herself through education. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in calling for a renewed effort to bring back those girls and to bring justice to those responsible.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you very much to my esteemed colleague from New York. I am new to Congress, and I have had quite a few occasions to come to the floor and talk about issues that are very pressing to my community and to me. I stand here as an African American woman who represents the State of New Jersey, but I stand here as a wife, a mother, a sister, an aunt, and a cousin to African American men. In that capacity, each and every day that one of them leaves our presence and leaves their home, I wonder if they will come back safely. I know they mean no one any harm, but I don't know that the police that they might encounter would see that in them as I do. My community has cried out for a long period of time that there has been injustice and there has been harm and danger and needless deaths facing our young men and even some of our young women. As a matter of fact, Mr. Clyburn mentioned the issue of data collection as being such an important element here in helping us to find our way. I noted that The Washington Post said that, out of thousands of fatal interactions between the police and citizens, only 54 officers have been charged, and of those, most were cleared and acquitted. We need better data collection; we need greater accountability, and we, obviously, need greater justice because, in those instances, the majority of these officers are going back into the streets, patrolling these communities, and those people who are in charge of them are still in charge of them and are still performing what should be a public service. I understand that not every case that we are encountering is as clear-cut as the one we just encountered with Officer Slager. I understand that there are other cases that have resulted in other findings. I do not understand how some of these findings could have occurred given the things that we have actually seen. I stand here recognizing that this Congress can, indeed, help these local police departments with things such as body cameras. In the cost- benefit analysis, is a life worth enough to invest in them for the police departments? I say ``yes,'' but there are other things that, I think, Congress should be considering and on which, I think, we should be leading the way in the discussion. One of those is that there are consequences that should not only be felt by the officer who was actively engaged in the misfortune, such as in the Slager case or even in the Brown case in Ferguson; but what about those individuals who knowingly participated in the policies that ended up creating this disparity in our society, this injustice in our society? They are given the opportunity to walk away. They are given the opportunity to retire. They are given the opportunity to resign. They are given the opportunity to move on with their lives and to benefit from the pensions and other benefits that have been accrued by the number of years they have been working as public servants, even though it is clearly demonstrated that their service was not to the public. There need to be consequences that need to be addressed with regard to that also. There is a lot that needs to be done. We can see it, but we can no longer be silent on it. Congress does have a role here. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the laws of this country are protecting all of our citizens. We need to do things like invest in body cameras, not just to catch those who are doing these things which are harmful to our community but to protect the good policemen who are sometimes the subject of complaints that aren't verified. I honestly believe that those who don the blue uniform do so with the expectation and the desire to protect, preserve, and to serve, but those who do not and those who allow those who do not to continue to do what they are doing need to be accountable. I look forward to working with my esteemed colleague who is in charge of this Special Order hour and with all of those who are working to ensure that there is justice, safety, and security and that, as a mother, I don't have to worry, that, as a wife, I don't have to worry, that, as a sister, as an aunt, as a cousin, and as a friend, I don't have to worry every time a Black man who is associated with me leaves my home.