tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 23, 2018 3:59pm-6:00pm EDT
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 229. the nays are 183. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in house report 115-702 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 115-702 offered by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 408. the nays are one. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 13 printed in house report 115-702 by the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 115-702 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]
tenney on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in house report number 115-702 offered by ms. tenney of noork. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. two minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: the nays are 174 and the nays is 279. the request for recorded vote on amendment number 43 printed in house report 115-702 by mr. engel on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 115-702 offered by mr. engel of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two minute vote.
two minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 50 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been recorded. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. snow [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
he floor will be in order. the floor will be in order, please. please take your conversations off the floor. he floor will be in order. he committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i do move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5515 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5515 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman will suspend. continue. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of h.r. 5515 in the committee of the whole pursuant to house resolution 908, the fourth set of amendments en bloc offered
by myself pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 905 be considered to have been adopted with the modification i placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to the fourth set of amendments en bloc offered by mr. thornberry of texas. strike amendment number 69 printed in house report 115- 698. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendments en bloc are modified. pursuant to house resolution 908 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5515. will the gentleman from kansas, mr. marshall, kindly resume the chair?
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5515 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strength for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 50 printed in house report 115-702 offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, had been disposed of. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 908 i offered amendments en bloc number 2. the clerk: en bloc number 2 consisting of amendments mbered 31, 32, 61, 62, 63,
69, 70, 71, 7, 68, , 73, 74, 75, and 76 printed in house report 115-702 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 905, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. hartzler: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the transportation and infrastructure committee as well as the house judiciary committee for working with me and the armed services committee to include an important amendment in this bill that will expand d.o.d.'s ability to interdict drones that pose a threat to certain military installations.
my amendment adds mobility airlift to the list of mission sets permitted to use counterdrone technology. if a drone were to attack the mobility mission, it could mean a reduction in our ability to provide logistic support globally to joint and coalition war fighters. additionally, a drone attack on our mobility forces could prevent our capacity to conduct global operations by severely limiting our ability to conduct aerial refueling. this is a commonsense proposal necessary to protect a critical aspect of our national defense. i'm delighted it is included in an en bloc package, and i want to thank representatives garamendi, hanabusa, rosen, and austin scott for co-sponsoring this bipartisan amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. wilson.
the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. wilson: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of amendment 73, requiring a report to relevant committees on the missions, operations, and activities of the department of defense in niger and the broader region. i believe that key components of the amendment are necessary to obtain critical, tactical, operational and strategic improvements in u.s.-africa command efforts to achieve stability and security in the region and most importantly, keep our troops safer. as evidence by the tragic deaths of the four soldiers who were ambushed by isis near tongo tongo, niger, last october, improvements throughout the chain of command and military services are necessary and d.o.d. must provide greater transparency
and communication with congress regarding legal, operational, and funding authorities for military operations in africa. the amendment requires d.o.d. to specify its objectives in niger and justify their relevance to u.s. national security. for the safety of our troops, the amendment also requires d.o.d. to identify measures to mitigate operational risk and increase the preparedness of members of the armed forces in niger and the broader region. it will also mandate that d.o.d. assess the command and support relationships of u.s.-africa command with subordinate command like special operations command. is will help to ensure you improved command and control throughout the chain of command and the commander's intent is clear and operational guidance is consistent and concise.
indeed, the tragic death of the ur soldiers killed in action affected me. one was a dear constituent of ine, sergeant johnson of miami gardens. he was 25 years of age. he left behind a lovely extended family, a beautiful wife and three young children. he was a member of the 5,000 role models of excellence and 50 members are visiting us here today. i am hopeful that with actions currently being taken by the d.o.d., along with the printive elements of this -- prescriptive elements of this amendment, our nation will not have to offer another tragic loss like we did last october. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady
yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. newhouse, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman for this opportunity to discuss a matter of great interest and importance to the tricities community in my district. in the 1940's and 1950's, the u.s. army corps of engineers acquired land along the shoreline of the columbia river. the land, 34 miles of the shoreline is currently underutilized. the local communities continue to be saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars of m.n.o. costs annually for upkeep of land of these shoreline properties that they don't even own. . i've been working with the chairman on proposed amendment language to do so. but respect the fact the chairman has let me know there
is still some work to be done. i continue to encourage further community engagement and believe public meetings are necessary to ensure all voices are heard. including that of the local tribes. it is also a requirement that the city governments fully understand the responsibilities and potential costs that could arise from having this land conveyed. there must be further coordination between conveyance proponents, community stakeholders, city governments and the army corps. mr. chairman, you have raised concerns about the language in its current form and have urged further efforts. i'm committed to continuing to work with the local communities to address these concerns. therefore, mr. chairman, i respectfully ask, will you commit to continuing to work with me as the ndaa process moves forward, to try to address concerns with the proposal, while the communities continue to assess their needs? mr. thornberry: if the gentleman will yield.
mr. newhouse: i would yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i thank the gentleman for raising this issue. as the gentleman and i have discussed, there are significant hurdles to legislating land transfers of the department of defense. among the issues that must be addressed are what and where the property in question is, who are the intended recipients, are there multiple parties who are also interested in acquiring the property, are there ongoing legal proceedings related to the property? are there cleanup costs and liabilities associated with the property? have the interested parties met with the department of defense? and if so, with whom? does the department support conveying the property and do they have a continuing need for it? if supported, why can't the department dispose of the property through its surplus exs process? what are the proposed reuses of the property? are there any earmark issues? no cost conveyances to private entities or for economic development can be subjected to points of order. has the c.b.o. been consulted
for any mandatory scoring implications? and if outside committees have equities, have they been consulted for approval or concerns? i'll be happy to continue working with the gentleman moving forward. but i would ask that he and any other member looking at land transfers take these factors into account and give all relevant committees plenty of time and opportunity to vet their proposals. mr. newhouse: i'd like to thank the chairman and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from delaware, ms. blunt rochester. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. blunt rochester: thank you, mr. chairman. first, let me thank chairman thornberry and ranking member smith for the time. i also want to thank both of them for including my amendment in the en bloc 2 amendment package. my amendment expresses the
body's strong support of the dovegger air force base in delaware -- dover air force base in delaware. it is a pillar of our community in the first state, and a pillar of the air force community at large. the dover air force base is home to the 436th and the 512th airlift wings, representing over 4,000 active duty military and civilians. the 436 was recently recognized with the air force outstanding unit award. the award served as recognition of the exemplary work of the entire unit, led by colonel ethan griffin, who will unfortunately soon be leaving dover. along with supporting the missions of the two airlift wings, dover is also home to the charles c. carson center for mortgage wear affairs and carries out the solemn obligation of carry -- caring for our fallen heroes. mr. chair, it is right and fitting that the united states congress recognizes and acknowledges the incredible,
important work of the dover air force base. i urge my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment package and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the en bloc amendments and support of the underlying bill. passing this defense bill is one of the most important constitutional responsibilities of congress. i commend chairman thornberry for his leadership. and i thank him for his support of the amendments i am discussing. i was pleased to join with my bipartisan colleagues, congressman michael burgess, and congresswoman barbara lee, in offering an amendment auditing the pentagon fully. this has been promised for many years and i am pleased that it is in this bill. and i thank chairman thornberry for including my bipartisan amendment that would officially create the first ever department of defense commendation for military working dogs and their
handlers. nine military working dog handlers from the home state i represent, new jersey, have been killed in action. and one of my constituents from short hills, new jersey, was among these. i think we should be voting on the en bloc amendments favorably and also voting favorably for the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, a member of the armed services committee, mr. carbajal. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carbajal: mr. speaker, i would like to thank chairman thornberry and ranking member smith -- for their bipartisan leadership, the armed services committee and the rules committee for bringing my amendment to the floor. my amendment is simple. it not only urges the department of defense to pursue more inowevative measures to train service members, but also train them in a more cost-effective manner. this amendment urges d.o.d. to transition training manuals,
emergency guidance and other training publications to applications on mobile applications. or mobile telephones. to enable interaction and improve and update the training experience for service members. it provides a cost-efficient mechanism for less printing and less distribution costs, while making the materials more readily accessible. the air force has already started utilizing such applications and my amendment would urge the secretary to utilize such technology throughout all services. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished chair of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, the gentlelady from new york, ms. stefanik. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. stefanik: thank you. i rise to express support for my amendment to create an independent national security commission on artificial intelligence. mr. speaker, this bill that i have introduced will direct a comprehensive and national level review of advances in a.i. and
machine learning, and ensure these align with our national security needs. and it will provide actionable recommendations to the president and the congress to more effectively organize the federal government when it comes to a.i. artificial intelligence is a constantly developing technology that will touch every aspect of our lives. the investments we make and policies we establish provide the foundation of our national security and technological military advantage. but every day we run the risk of that edge being eroded. in order to preserve this, we must increase our research investments in public-private and academic institutions, build an educated and talented work force, embrace the technological advances that a.i. will provide, and lead the international community in establishing the laws and norms societied with implementing -- associated with implementing a.i. i thank my ranking member for co-sponsoring this amendment. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chair. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. cardenas. mr. cardenas: thank you for yielding. i'd like to thank chairman mac thornberry and also ranking member adam smith for their fine work on this and allowing know bring my amendment to the floor. my mindfulness amendment would create a pilot program to train members of the armed forces in mindfulness-based stress reduction techniques, before deploying to combat zones. according to the v.a., mindfulness practice has the potential to benefit individuals with ptsd. mindfulness to strengthen reaction mindfulness to strengt reaction to stress, together with existing empirically supported ptsd treatments, may allow patients to persevere through trauma processing. rather than waiting to apply these treatments after the traumatic event, why not prepare our brave young men and women who are being sent into combat zones ahead of time?
a prior study with the marines suggested mindfulness training was beneficial for attention working memory, as well as mood. my amendment would expand this training to all branches of the armed forces, including the coast guard. it would require a report on the success of this training, with stress management and preventing ptsd. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, at this point i have no further speakers on this en bloc package and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, ranking member on the house foreign affairs committee, mr. engel. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: i thank my friend for yielding to me, mr. chairman. i rise in support of an amendment i join with ranking member smith to offer on niger. last october four american service members were killed in an ambush in niger. we still don't full ynd what happened and for some -- fully
understand what happened and for some reason the zeal for oversight seems to have dried up. american personnel were in niger for an accompanied mission. but sometime after these four heroes lost their lives, the administration said, well, no, they actually fought under the 2001 war authorization. that's the post-9/11 aumf. so four americans are dead and it turns out we've been fighting the war on terror in one country after another. there is seemingly no limits and we have a responsibility to do better. so this is a scandal screaming out for congressional oversight. not just in this case, but in so many of the far-flung places where our military is engaged overseas. we need to stay focused on fighting terrorist organizations . but the law says congress decides when and where we fight wars. and the administration appears to be losing track of what authorities -- of what authority it has and where it is using them. so i'm glad to join ranking member smith in offering this amendment that hopefully will shed light on our mission in the
region. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schneider: i thank my colleague, mr. smith, and i rise today in support of my amendment, formally codify the boots to business program. i want to thank my friend from iowa, congressman blum, for his work on this amendment and on our bill, the veterans' entrepreneurship training act. as transitioning service members enter civilian life, they bring adaptability and experience to excel as entrepreneurs. however, they often lack business-specific skills or experience that can help bring their ideas to reality. the boots to business program seeks to fill these gaps and help prepare transitioning service members, their spouses and also veterans for the challenge of starting their own small business. participants take a two-day in-person course on business
ownership, followed by an in depth eight-week online course that teaches them day to day skills they will need to run a successful small bills. such as the fundamentals of developing a business plan, or how to acquire financing. i am grateful my amendment is included in the ndaa and i am hopeful we can continue to expand the boots to business so that more service members and veterans can start and grow their own small business. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. we have no further speakers. i urge adoption of the en bloc amendment and i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i also yield the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to.
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 908, i offer amendments en bloc number 3. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 3 consisting of amendments numbered 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 89, 90, 5, 86, 87, 88, 91 and 92 printed in house report 115-702 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas and the gentleman from washington each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. i have no speakers on this set of en bloc amendments. i urge its adoption and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i too have no speakers on this amendment. urge adoption of the en bloc and yield back the balance of my
time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5515 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5515 and has come to no resolution thereon.
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor of house resolution 774. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain speeches for one minute. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the passing of the
right to try act. mr. lamalfa: better late than never, right? after months jumping through parliamentary hoops we passed this out of the house and senate. we're able to put the right to try act on the president's desk. this bill will allow very sick or terminally ill patients to get treatment that have yet to be approved by the f.d.a. 40 states have adopted right to try laws but unable to enforce them. this bill changes that. while giving terminally ill patients the right to try, experimental medicine won't be successful but it will give patients one final avenue of help. for all those that have exhausted conventional treatment, they deserve to unturned one left and for the industry to learn from their experience. i'm disappointed some of the senate chose to delay this time-sensitive bill, but i'm proud the president can make right to try the law of the
land. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to celebrate and commemorate jose francisco gomez on the 20th anniversary of his passing. from espaillat: dr. gomez will be recorded in history as a civil rights icon to the marginally after row latino community and advocate for the afro latino community and advocate for the community. served as the mayor of santo domingo, part of the socialist party of the western hemisphere, twice nominated for the presidency of the dominican republic. dr. pena gomez was a fierce proponent of free speech, denounced unfair election practices in the dominican republic and around the globe.
-- the largest airport in santo domingo bears his name and welcomes people from all over the world. it's my great -- for those who finally remember his motto and standard. hank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of rules of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kihuen: today i rise to
remember the life of cameron robinson. cameron attended the route 91 festival in las vegas on october 1. cameron found his perfect balance in his boyfriend bobby. they loved each other immensely and cameron loved bobby's children as if they were his own. bobby describes cameron as a man who never did anything halfway. while it was cooking fancy meals or working in the las vegas city attorney's office, he put his all in everything he did. cameron loved people without judgment and without condition. he's a man who's remembered as being spontaneous fun. i would like to extend my condolences to cameron's family and friends. please know that the city of las vegas, the state of nevada, and the whole country grieve with you. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minute speeches? the chair lays before the house he following personal request.
the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. donovan of new york for today, mr. lewis of georgia for today and tomorrow, and mr. zeldin of new york for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from california, mr. khanna, is recognized for 60 members as designee of the my in order leader. mr. khanna: thank you. i want to speak about the janice vs. ask me supreme court case, economic inequality. the issue of our time is economic inequality and a
challenge of the middle class being left behind. we know that 81%, 81% of american households between 2005 to 2015 have not had a raise. they have actually either had their wages stagnate or their wages decline. this is an issue that goes to the core principles of our nation. as every american knows, in 1968, dr. king marched with nitation workers in memphis, with local 1733. and the march was not just about racial justice. the march was about economic justice. the march was about the freedom of sanitation workers to earn what dr. king called a decent living. about the dignity of
work. it was about the right to join a union. they fought against so-called right to work legislation. they fought for collective bargaining so that people who work hard, who rode on trucks and picked up the trash and did hard labor earned a decent wage. nd dr. king talked about the importance of economic justice much as he talked about the importance of racial justice. here are the facts that we know. unionized african-american women earn about $21.90 an hour. that's not a bad wage. nonunion african-american women earn almost $4 less on average. $4 per hour is the difference between unionized and nonunionized work for african-american women. 72% of african-american women in unions have health insurance. guess what, less than 50% of
nonunion african-american women have health insurance. some of us have read the horrific studies about how pregnant african-american women still face huge issues with infant mortality and problems with child labor. part of it is because they lack health insurance. well, if they have health insurance through a union, that is not as much of an issue. latinos that join a union will see their weekly income increase by almost 38%. they're 41% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance. and caucasian, working class families have seen a raise of nearly 20% when they are in union jobs compared to nonunion jobs. unions are more important now than ever because the question is when 81% of this country
hasn't had a raise for the past 15 years, do we need to have more policies favoring corporations and executives, or do we need to figure out how to give americans a raise? the one institution that gives americans a raise are unions. now, we didn't invent this. we know collective bargaining works in other nations. we know that cooks in germany make almost $25 an hour. i was the danish ambassador was visiting me and i said, how much would someone make at starbucks in denmark? he said, almost $20 to $22 an hour. my jaw dropped. i said, how is that possible? is it government prescribed? said, no. it's unions, strong union movements across other countries. it's not they discourage entrepreneurship or innovation. it's that they believe that working families should have the dignity to earn an honest living, that they can afford
rent, that they can afford food, that they can afford health care, that they can afford a job. this is what f.d.r. talked about with the rights to have a job and health care and housing, that the positive rights were necessary to truly have freedom in american democracy. collective action raises the standard of living for everyone. and guess what, henry ford knew it and it led to economic growth. that's why he paid workers more. because he said someone's got to earn a living to buy the cars. if we don't have a middle class that can earn, then who's going to buy the iphones? who's going to buy the new cars and the teslas? who's going to buy and have the money to set up new bank accounts? our economic growth is dependent on the middle class. that's what america has gotten and china has never understood. china doesn't care about their middle class. they care about the elites.
we believed in the middle class from f.d.r. to dwight eisenhower. we believe every person in this country is extraordinary, that our success is based on ordinary americans earning enough to buy things, that every american matters, not just in our democracy, but to our economy. it's what makes us different from the chinese model. and it's why unions matter so much, because unions are what allow ordinary americans to get the wages they deserve. union workers are more likely to have health care and retirement benefits. and we know that the decline of the middle class is directly correlated to a decline in union membership. let me give you this staggering statistic. it used to be in our g.d.p. that 90% of g.d.p. went to income of our g.d.p. that statistic has fallen to
the high 50's or low 60's. loss now goes to capital, to automation, to machinery. and here's the irony. corporations, instead -- you think they would invest in human capital. you think they'd invest more in the work force, but their incentives aren't to do that. the tax code incentivizes research and development if they want to open up plants or have automation, but they don't incentivize the investment in actual human capital so that workers and human beings get more of the g.d.p. and not less. and this decline of income is correlated polarity with automation, but also with the decline of union membership. guess what, the unions are the only -- one of the only institutions in this country that is investing in workinger training, that is in-- worker training, that is investing in improving human capital. i know so many apprenticeship
programs in my own district. you can go in with just a high school degree, no test, no fees required, and become an apprentice, to become an electrician, to become a drywaller. a glazer. a painter. these are tough jobs. they're not easy jobs. but once you do the apprenticeship, you don't -- it doesn't cost you anything. it comes out of the fees of journeymen. and other union members. and you go and you develop the skills and the unions invest in you. and when you talk to these apprenticeships, they're so proud of the work they're doing. proud of the investment that the unions are making in them and they're extraordinary people, extraordinary work ethic. and that is the investment that the unions are make -- making in our work force. don't just think it's about them making sure the people get the wages they deservement they're making sure that we have the -- deserve. they're making sure that we have the workers we need in this country to be productive.
they're the ones who are investing in the human capital in our society. and are the ones who are looking at the investments needed for the future. union apprenticeships are what closed the skills gap. they're the ones who are teaching folks about 3-d printing. they're the ones who are teaching folks the tech zhails are needed as -- the tech skills that are needed as auto repair mechanics. they're teaching folks the basic ways that you now need to operate machines and robots. high-quality training in our unions is why american workers are the most productive in the world. six times more productive than china. six times more productive than india. 1 1/2 times more productive than germany. 1 1/2 times more productive than japan. that's partly because of our union efforts and training and because of the grit of the american people. ere's what this case is about.
the case is about corporate special interesting saying you'ves shouldn't have the work in -- unions shouldn't have work in collective bargaining. every person can go fend for themselves. really? we tried that. before the new deal. during the era where every person had to go fend for themselves. it was the time that f. scott fitzgerald wrote about if ygs e great gas -- in "the great gatsby." the gilded age. it led to the greatest stock market crash. it led to the great depression. it led to huge economic instability in the united states and around the world. and then we said, this system doesn't work. and f.d.r. andujarry truman and dwight eyes -- and harry truman and dwight eisenhower said, let's build an american middle class with unions, which ordinary americans can go get a higher education. they can go and get a wage where
they can afford a house. d they can afford food and they can afford to have a decent quality of life. unions are what provided that. collective bargaining is what allowed for that. it balances the corporate interests. and it said, people who do work should be rewarded. that's what unions have done. and so i know there are all these complex phrases, fee sharing and right to work and all of that. but cut through all the noise and here's the basic question. do you think collective bargaining has a role in american society? if you think it does, if you think people should have the right to organize and bargain and there should be some counterweight to corporate power, then you should be for the union in the supreme court case. if you think workers are doing fine, working families are doing fine, the painters and the firefighters and the mechanics and the teachers and the nurses,
that they're all doing great, and the real people we need to be worried about are the corporate executives, and the investors and the wall street bankers, well, if you have that theory, then i suppose you'd be for janice. you'd say, let's not have collective bargaining. the question is, what is your theory of the case? are you for workers having a greater say and greater wages in this country? or are you for corporations having even greater power? that is what this case is about. i know that our progressive caucus stands so firmly in the belief that we need to be on the side of the workers. if the supreme court decides against collective bargaining, it will be one of the worst decisions in american recent history. a catastrophe for this court to strike a blow to working families across america.
to strike a blow to the heart and soul of the union movement. we need to strengthen working families and unions, not weaken them. before i turn it over to one of the strongest champions for working families, i want to hank the leadership, president saunders, scott fray, who have done so much to help not just member, not just honor the tradition of dr. king, but to help the fight for unions. and i want to thank dr. david madeline and kevin fox on my team for their research about the role of unions. the leaders the leaders of n.e and mark. i now would like to recognize my good friend -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gallery please respect the speaker. we ask the gallery to remain
silent while they're in the chambers. thank you. the speaker may continue. mr. khanna: thank you, mr. speaker. i now would like to recognize my good friend, ms. jayapal, representative jayapal. before she was even elected to the state senate, she's been a tireless advocate for unions, for working families. she understands the working families and unions have helped not just minority communities, not just women, but all americans. she's our vice chair of the progressive caucus. she's one of the strongest progressive voices in our nation. she's on the front lines, the picket lines, and has traveled across the country standing in solidarity with union members. it's a real honor now to yield as much time as she would like to my friend and colleague, representative jayapal. ms. jayapal: thank you so much, representative khanna. it has been a great honor to be
able to come into congress with you and to see the years of work that you have done before you came to congress now turning into critical legislation around yemen, around workers' rights, around progressive issues, around health care for all. and how proud i am that i get to serve with you in this congress. and how proud i am of our progressive caucus, which is the largest values-based caucus in the house. we are 78 members strong. and i believe we're going to hopefully have more members added on. but i think the reality of what we're talking about is that the ideas that we're putting forward are not really progressive ideas. they are ideas that serve the interests of working families. and labor unions are at the core of that. i'm proud to come from washington state. we are one of the most dense, labor-dense states in the country. we have one of the highest minimum wages in the country. thanks to the labor movement, we have minimum wage that is tied
to inflation. we've had that for many years. it's part of the reason our minimum wage has been able to rise in washington state, and, yes, we are the place where $15 minimum wage, which i was proud to be on that committee to pass the $15 minimum wage in seattle, we are able to show that these policies, like higher minimum wages, like paid safe and sick days, we have some of the best paid family leave policies in the country, all of that has been brought forward by labor unions representing workers. and so when we talk about collective bargaining, what is that? for the average person that may not be as familiar with terminology, really all that means is that you get to take it the power that comes from having more than one individual together to bargain for things that are really going to help your life. that is what collective bargaining is about. bringing the power of many to the policies and putting policies forward that really help us.
and the idea -- you spoke so eloquently about the -- i think you said the ambassador, the danish ambassador visiting you, there's a great talk out there, the title of it is something like, where in the world is it easiest to get rich? and it's a fantastic talk that really puts bullets in the theory that somehow in social democracies, where you provide health care, where you have strong labor movements, where you provide free education, that somehow you don't have the opportunity to do well in those countries. in fact, what the statistics show are that specifically because of a strong labor movement in scandinavian countries, because of the investment in education, those two factors combined mean that everybody does well. it's a really simple theory that we're all better off when we're all better off. and that's what labor unions have provided to us.
i'm proud to be from a strong labor family. my husband was actually -- started off his career as an apprentice -- apprentice as a brick layer. he worked his way, working up labor unions. he was elected by 140,000 workers across our county. and was instrumental in helping us to win on many of these important issues. and that is, i think, what we're talking about today. so when we look at the janice decision, this is a critical issue. an issue of critical importance for all americans. the supreme court's decision on this case is going to help determine whether or not we really have opportunity for all workers, whether or not labor unions are able to do the work that they need to do to collectively bargain and bring the voices of many workers to bear. because what happens in
particularly these workplaces, giant corporations, you know that if there is a wrong done to one, it is difficult to bring it forward. just as one. if you have collective bargaining, you have a structure thin, where those issues can come forward. what scombrans i is looking at is -- what janice is looking at is bloo the american workers have the -- is whether or not the american workers have the freedom and the right to bargain. which means fighting back against those corporations who are expanding income inequality and decimating the middle class that frankly built this country. let me be clear that i stand strong with labor unions in opposing corporate efforts to drag working people to the bottom. unions made our country strong. unions made our country strong. and janice has the potential to make it harder for working people to join a union. union members are us. they are our teachers, iron workers, nurses, government
workers, brick layers, firefighters, machinists. they are the backbone of our communities. and our communities only thrive when we help workers to thrive. janice would do the opposite. and i want to share a statistic with you. my friend just gave you some incredible statistics. let me repeat one. which is workers on average in 1973 earned $16.74 per hour, adjusted for inflation. since then, our economy has doubled. so we can assume that worker salaries have kept up with the pace, right? not so fast. wrong. workers today make $17.86 per hour, which is nowhere near enough to keep pace with growing income inequality and the rising cost of living. here's another statistic that has captured my attention, that i now use in every speech. and that is that across this
americans do not even have $1,000 in their bank account to deal with an emergency. 67%. it is a remarkable statistic. that means that you have a leak in your roof, your car breaks down, your kid has an emergency illness and you have to take off from work for a couple of weeks, and you don't have paid family leave like we do in washington state, thanks to the labor movement, all of those things mean that families are no longer thinking about thriving, they're thinking about surviving. and that decline is directly tied, if you look at the research, to the decline in the labor movement. and the decline in collective bargaining. so now we are facing an administration that despite lofty campaign promises is putting corporations and agreed first, and workers second. just look at the tax bill that
the republicans just passed. the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the united states going straight to corporations and the 1%. that is the reality of all of the research. is that the majority of those tax breaks went to the largest corporations, the top 1%, was used for stock buybacks and not for any kinds of increases, permanent increases for workers. . so unions have been fighting back and that's why we need to make sure unions remain in fighting shape because they're fighting for us. janice is nothing more than a political attack underwritten by corporations and it will not make our economy stronger. it further rigs the economy against workers, and it's frankly a disgrace and a slap in the face to the union legacy that has helped our country grow. we need to be working to make it easier and not harder for
workers to join unions, to collectively bargain for fair wages, safe working conditions, and health care. and before i yield back, mr. speaker, i want to thank my friends in labor, the brothers and sisters who have been fighting for working americans, winning worker safety protections, sick leave, the 40-hour workweek. don't forget the 40-hour workweek brought to you by labor unions, throughout our country's history. it's not hyperbole to say we simply won't be where we are without suneons. and instead of trying to tear -- without unions. and instead of trying to tear them apart pushing so-called right to work laws -- i don't like the phrase. it isn't right to work. the reality is we should have the right to have workers collectively bargain and organize. but by filing these harmful lawsuits like janice, we are hurting workers across the country.
we should be working to educate and to engage a new generation of union workers and leaders. if history is any indication, our country will be better off when we're all better off. we're all better off when we have unions that represent the voices of working people and can actually build that power, organize together to take on that corporate power which frankly has a lot of money behind it but isn't looking out for the best interests of our workers. and with that i yield back and i thank you, again, for your tremendous leadership. mr. khanna: thank you, representative pie gentlelady. thank you for infusing -- representative jayapal. thank you for infusing the progressive caucus, making it the strongest caucus in congress, and sharing some of those facts. i didn't know that 67% of americans live on just $1,000 -- can't afford $1,000
emergency expenditure. so i think talking about these facts and what this case means to real americans is important. thank you for being here. it's now my real honor to give the floor to someone who really built the progressive caucus. you know, the progressive caucus used to be a social club where people chatted before keith ellison took over and said, you know, we got to do more than just talk. we got to actually act on our values. and if you talk to anyone in this congress, they will tell you that he took a group of 15, 20 members. used to get together. has turned that caucus through his leadership into the largest caucus on the democratic side, the most effective caucus and one that has a bold agenda. and this is something keith has been an organizer his whole life. he understands the importance of working families and
believes in these issues from his heart and he's been a truly effective leader for our caucus in the house. so it's my honor now to yield as much time as he would like to representative keith ellison. mr. ellison: well, thank you, thank you. i want to thank the gentleman, mr. ro khanna, for organizing us today and holding this particular special order about janice vs. ask me but actually the larger question of what kind of shape will america be in if the supreme court makes the wrong decision. we envision in the progressive caucus an america which parents can dream about their kids being able to go to college. we believe that you ought to be able to put food on the table. you ought to be able too -- to get a good job and have a decent pay. you ought to be able to turn on the water faucet and drink the water. you ought to be able to drive
down the road. you ought to have safe affordable transit to get to where you need to go. we don't think this is too much to ask. this is something countries in the world have. we think you ought to be able to go to a doctor if you're sick. the guarantor for all these years is people coming together and organizing themselves into a group that argued and negotiated with their employer for a fair wage. they negotiated with their employer and they said, look, you know, you want us to supply labor. we'll do it. you got to pay us right. you got to make sure the benefit package is right. you got to make sure this thing is making sense, not just for you but for us too. and for many years, employers didn't want to see strikes and didn't want to see labor shutdowns and wanted to stop the turnover you would see and wanted to make sure there was
labor peace, came to an agreement that, ok, we'll work with you. and from the -- between after -- between world war ii and right up until 1970, even a little beyond, that bargain helped create the world's greatest middle class. it wasn't easy to get a cohesive union movement. in fact, there was a time in american history where being in a union was a criminal offense. they'd call the pinkertons in. they'd beat you down. there is a lot of labor blood that's been spilled in this ountry to get a labor country to get a labor movement but we got one. in 1957, a year that had racism and segregation, sexism and homophobia, had one thing going and that was about 35% of all americans were in a union. and about 35% more were paid as if they were. so the unions were setting the wage scale and they helped create an american middle class
is something we think of when we think america at its best economically. the labor movement didn't stop -- union movement didn't stop at labor issues. it went further than that. it was the u.a.w. that helped fund the march on washington. the march for jobs and justice was funded by organized labor. it was labor that stood with those sanitation workers in memphis, tennessee, when they were on strike, and martin luther king came down to march with them. was ask me, ask me, the american federation of state and local employees who got the back of those workers in memphis. and when we lost the great martin luther king just about 50 years ago, they were by the side of those workers and those workers literally won that strike and many of them are still around to talk about it today.
ese folks made it so that in 1968 you had a rate of poverty that was much lower than it is today. you had c.e.o.'s that made about 20 times more than their average worker. today that's 339-1. and that's just the median. in fact, you have companies like mattel that make almost 5,000 times -- the c.e.o. makes 5,000 times the average workers. mcdonald's, the c.e.o. makes ,100 times the average worker. khol's, the c.e.o. makes 1,200 imes the average worker. we had an emerging civil rights unit, we had a middle wage that was in the neighborhood -- as been mentioned, that was livable at the time.
if you compare to inflakes. you have people in poverty that was a lower rate of poverty. you had a c.e.o. ratio that was rational. something happened in the 1970's. there crame an -- there came an attack on labor and labor -- people will tell you that in 1980 after ronald reagan was elected, he went out on the campaign trail saying that he was for working people but shortly after he got in office, he dismissed the air traffic he broke s and when that strike and those workers, it sent the people on a trajectory to where we are now which is stagnating wages for literally three, four decades. the c.e.o.'s have done great. if you ask donald trump, he will tell you, oh, yeah, you know, the stock market is booming out of control.
we're doing fine. but you know, in this america, our america, this largess is not shared by most people. jayapal, ue pramila mentioned earlier about 67% of americans would not know what to do if they were hit with $1,000 bill. they don't have it. there are other statistics that as jarring, as actually upsetting. other statistics would show just how difficult it is for americans to pay their bills. now, i know we're talking about janice today. i'm getting there. i want to share a story and i will submit it for the record. the title is, more than 40% of americans can't pay their bills. that's the name of the story. it says, donald trump thinks the economy is doing great, way, way better under obama.
actually obama created more jobs on his way out the door than trump so far. but that's beside the point. the story says, based on this research, the conclusion of the research, 43% of us struggle to pay our bills and 34% are suffering material hardships, including running out of food, not being able to afford a place to live, or lacking money to seek medical treatment. the truth is, mr. speaker, is that we live in a nation that is lurching toward plutocracy. we're living in a nation that's lurching toward oligarchs. the people who make the hamburgers, they don't benefit in the profits of the company. the c.e.o. does that. the people that make the clothes and work their job, they don't benefit. they just get survival wages and the executives take it all home for themselves. and part of the reason is, a
conservative philosophy which says that companies should not have to pay any taxes, they shouldn't have to abide by any regulations, they should be allowed to slam labor costs to the ground if they can and then they should be able -- the c.e.o. should be able to walk away with all the money and then the theory goes that they'll use that money to invest in plant and equipment and then everybody will be better off. but that never happens. that republican philosophy, the conservative philosophy is absolutely and utterly bankrupt. it doesn't work. it's not true. and yet we keep on doing it over and over again. but part of this philosophy is the union busting. and they have been on a 40-year trajectory of trying to break the union. i mentioned pat cole a little while ago when reagan did that. that was a shock wave that reverb vated into a moment -- reverberated into a moment we are now.
let me tell you, they've been trolling for a worker, a public employee to try to break public employees for years. a few years ago right before the supreme court justice antonin scalia passed, there was a case before the supreme court called the frederic case. in that case, it's exactly like the janice case. why are they similar? because right-wing law firms trolling the country looking for any public employee to try to attack the union and attack fair share. that's what they've been doing. they've been going around, well, will you take the case? can we represent you? can we represent you? they finally found a guy named janice and he makes the outrageous claim that he who benefits from collective bargaining and who the union expends money to make sure he has a decent contract, he's saying, oh, this is unfair. my free speech rights are going nto this union and i don't
want that to happen. well, they're not, tuelingly. all they're doing is assessing a reasonable fee that is associated with the cost of arguing, negotiating on his behalf to have a better wage. but he says, no. i want to be able to benefit from the work that the union does but i don't want to pay anything. it's quite ridiculous. but that's the case that's in the supreme court right now. you know, you want to know what's in the first amendment? the right to freedom of assembly. the right to freedom of assembly is in the constitution. if some workers want to assemble together and negotiate for better wages and better benefits with their employee, i believe they have a constitutional right to do so. what i don't think you have a constitutional right to do is to be a freeloader, which is what janus is arguing. he's saying, i want to be able to benefit from what the union negotiates omy