[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H859-H868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.RES. 826, EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL OF 
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S HARMFUL ACTIONS TOWARDS MEDICAID; PROVIDING 
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2474, PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE ACT OF 
     2019; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5687, EMERGENCY 
    SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF AND PUERTO RICO 
                     DISASTER TAX RELIEF ACT, 2020

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 833 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 833

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order without intervention of any point of order to 
     consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 826) expressing 
     disapproval of the Trump administration's harmful actions 
     towards Medicaid. The resolution shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2474) to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor 
     Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor-Management 
     Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     Labor. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for

[[Page H860]]

     the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule 
     and shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5687) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI 
     shall not apply during consideration of the bill. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met 
and reported a rule, House Resolution 833, providing for consideration 
of three measures: H. Res. 826, Expressing Disapproval of the Trump 
Administration's Harmful Actions Towards Medicaid; H.R. 5687, the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief and Puerto 
Rico Disaster Tax Relief Act; and, finally, H.R. 2474, the Protecting 
the Right to Organize Act.
  The rule provides for H. Res. 826 to be considered under a closed 
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 2474 under a 
structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor. The rule self-executes the manager's amendment 
from Chairman Scott making in order 16 amendments and provides one 
motion to recommit.
  Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5687 under a 
structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The rule makes in order six amendments and provides one 
motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, before us today, we have three measures that all speak 
to one very, very important topic in America today. That topic is 
inequality.
  Madam Speaker, Justice Louis Brandeis once famously said: In this 
country, we can either have democracy or we can have the concentration 
of wealth in the hands of very few, but we can't have both.
  Unfortunately, right now in this country, we are at historic levels 
of inequality. A handful of families control more wealth than the 
bottom 50 percent of Americans--160 million Americans. Forty percent of 
lower income Americans make $30,000 a year. The top 1 percent in 
income--not wealth, but in income--earn over $7 million a year, while 
the other 99 percent earn on an average of $54,000 a year.
  We cannot have this level of inequality.
  President Abraham Lincoln famously said that labor and capital must 
always be balanced in America to have democracy. And he said:

       If capital ever had the control over labor, democracy would 
     cease to exist.

  From the pearls of wisdom of people like Lincoln and Brandeis, we are 
warned again today that we have to have countervailing institutions, as 
John Galbraith said, between labor and capital. This is in the best 
interests of everyone, including those who are making and reaping 
exorbitant benefits from the current inequality.
  But most importantly--most importantly--as Brandeis said, you cannot 
have democracy with the current situation of inequality.
  Not only is this inequality wrong, but its consequences in our 
everyday lives, like worse health outcomes, diseases of depression, 
behavioral health impacts, and economic insecurity, these public health 
instances are directly correlated to income inequality as demonstrated 
by the landmark work, ``The Spirit Level,'' 10 years ago.
  The first resolution that is part of this rule expresses strong 
disapproval of the Trump administration's recent attempt to turn 
Medicaid into a block grant.
  Medicaid is our Nation's promise to a group left behind by rampant 
inequality that will help provide basic services to protect their 
health and well-being--basic services. The Trump administration 
proposal doubles down on its cruel policies that put cost savings over 
life savings.
  The second bill provides disaster relief to Puerto Rico. This is a 
community that has been devastated repeatedly by disasters, exposing 
the inequality not only in Puerto Rico, but between this 
administration's treatment of a territory versus a State. Puerto Rico 
needs our help. Without it, roads will remain unpassable, schools will 
remain closed, and the poor will become poorer.
  And, finally, we have the Protecting the Right to Organize, the PRO 
Act. President Eisenhower once said that only a fool would attempt to 
block a working man or woman, an American worker, from joining a labor 
union. President Eisenhower said this, a Republican President, much 
admired.
  This was at a time where America had the largest expansion in our 
history, and the world's expansion, growing at over 6 percent of GDP a 
year that everybody benefited from. One year was 13 percent. At that 
time, one in three American workers were in a labor union.
  By the time Ronald Reagan became President, one in four Americans was 
in a labor union. By the time President Reagan left office, 1 in 10 
American workers were in a labor union.
  The balance between labor and capital is the essence of American 
democracy. It is unbalanced and risks our democracy at this moment.
  The ability for American workers to organize and have a voice in the 
outcomes, not just of their work, but of their retirement and the 
benefit to their families and communities, has been attacked since 
President Reagan was in office.

                              {time}  1245

  Evidence is clear that the rise in inequality has coincided with the 
decline

[[Page H861]]

in union membership. By most estimates, declining unionization 
accounted for about a third of the increase in inequality of which I 
speak in the 1980s and 1990s.
  To address inequality, you have to include working people. You have 
to include the right to organize. Labor unions are universally 
recognized as providing major boosts to employees' wages and benefits. 
Sadly, the best evidence we have on this trend is by comparing union 
States like the one I am proud to represent, California, to right-to-
work States.
  In 1979, States with historically high levels of union membership, 
like in the Northeast and the Rust Belt, saw relatively low rates of 
income inequality. Just the opposite held true for right-to-work 
States. If you watched data over the years since the 1970s as States 
move as a group toward less union coverage, those same States have much 
worse inequality and poor performing GDP.
  Unions not only raise wages for workers they represent, but they also 
have been shown to moderate compensation for executives. On top of all 
the obvious benefits you think of that are associated with labor unions 
like higher wages and safer workplaces, some of the others that come 
along with union membership also help address the inequities in our 
society.
  Union workers are more likely to receive paid leave, are up to 28 
percent more likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance and are 
up to 54 percent more likely to be enrolled in employer-sponsored 
pensions.
  Not only do workers have better access to pensions, but their 
employers contribute an average of 28 percent more toward those 
pensions than nonunion employers.
  The PRO Act simply updates labor laws, labor laws that have been 
attacked for 30 years, to ensure that workers in today's economy are 
able to create and join labor unions to receive the same kinds of 
protections they see in other sectors. Nothing more.
  Madam Speaker, I suspect we will hear a lot of misinformation--
especially about the PRO Act--from our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. Make no mistake about it, Madam Speaker, these three bills 
will help restore power to the people, which the administration 
repeatedly has tried to strip power from.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of three 
unrelated measure, each of which have little chance of passing the 
Senate or becoming law. The one is a nonbinding messaging resolution, 
another one a partisan labor bill, and the third provides billions of 
dollars in Federal aid for disaster recovery from recent earthquakes in 
Puerto Rico, but actually can be distributed to meet unmet needs in 
other States.
  Let's talk first about the resolution expressing disapproval for the 
Trump administration's Healthy Adult Opportunity demonstration project 
that was just announced on January 30.
  A letter provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
to State Medicaid directors detailed an option for States to apply for 
increased flexibility under the section 1115 for Medicaid waivers.
  The Healthy Adult Opportunity demonstration provides States with a 
choice as to how they would like to receive their funding for adults 
under the age of 65 who are covered by a Medicaid expansion population.
  This does not include children. This does not include pregnant women. 
It does not include individuals with disabilities, or the elderly.
  This only applies to healthy adults who are not covered as part of 
the traditional Affordable Care Act population, and if, and only if, 
the States decide to pursue the Healthy Adult Opportunity.
  H. Res. 862 is a political statement made to diminish the efforts of 
the Trump administration. It is unreasonable and unrealistic for 
Democrats to declare this demonstration an attack on Medicaid after 
only a few days since the release of the plan.
  Do we have a full understanding of the opportunity grants? So I 
strongly suggest Members on both sides of the aisle speak with their 
Governors and their counterparts in State legislatures to ask about 
this option.
  My office did indeed speak with our Texas Governor this week. The 
State is still unpacking everything that the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services may provide, and this may not be an option Texas will 
take, but it is up to them. They are currently running internal 
analyses to come to a conclusion, a process that does take some time.
  Recognizing this, there is little chance that the Senate will agree 
to this messaging resolution. A far better approach would have been for 
us to have, perhaps, a hearing and a markup in our committee of 
jurisdiction.
  Unfortunately, not everyone agreed with that.
  H.R. 2474, the PRO Act, has a similarly low chance of being 
considered by the Senate. The bill is nothing more than a requirement 
that workers become members of labor unions. Republicans support the 
right of employees to form a labor union, but it should be a choice for 
every individual worker.
  There is a card-check system included in this bill. Employees will no 
longer enjoy the privacy of a secret ballot election. Organizers will 
be able to collect authorization cards covering 50 percent of the 
bargaining unit and form a union without holding a secret election.
  In effect, employees are not protected from potential political 
intimidation and not protected from coercive behavior by organizers in 
an effort to obtain the required number of cards.
  That is not free and voluntary choice.
  Against a recent National Labor Relations Board decision, the bill 
reinstates what are called micro unions, allowing bargaining units 
smaller than a workplace if there is a community of interest.
  The joint employer standard is expanded, creating liability for 
franchise owners, franchise owners who may have no direct relationship 
with the franchisee employee. This is not only unreasonable, it is 
impractical, and certainly will weaken or damage the franchise model of 
business.
  In addition, the bill preempts State right-to-work laws. My State is 
a right-to-work State. Does the Federal Government know Texas citizens 
better than the State of Texas? This disregards the rights of 27 States 
by overturning their right-to-work laws.
  Even more concerning, employers will be required to provide union 
organizers with an employee's personal information without the 
employee's consent.
  In the Energy and Commerce Committee we are in the middle of 
negotiating both sides: What are the parameters, or what should be the 
parameters of a Federal privacy law? This provision in this bill flies 
in the face of protecting individuals' privacy, and it is odd because 
in the committee, the other side seemed so eager to defend privacy in 
any other forum.
  Along with these partisan measures, we are also considering emergency 
disaster funding for Puerto Rico. The supplemental appropriation 
provides over $4 billion for cyber and energy security, electricity 
restoration, education assistance, the Federal Highway Administration, 
and the Community Development Block Grant.
  In recent years, Puerto Rico has faced multiple natural disasters, 
including Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, and a series of 
earthquakes in January of this year. There is no doubt that Puerto Rico 
is facing a long road to recovery, but compounding the national 
disasters is a mismanagement of aid.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, a warehouse was discovered full of 
emergency supplies. Some of them had been there since 2017. Citizens 
were outraged. They broke into the warehouse and took it upon 
themselves to distribute the aid.
  President Trump released nearly $16 billion in aid funding in January 
but did place restrictions on usage to help prevent any squandering of 
Federal resources. This bill provides additional billions in aid 
without any accountability measures. Existing disaster aid should be 
expended before appropriating billions of taxpayer dollars. And then 
here is the kicker: It may not go towards its intended recipients.

[[Page H862]]

  Only a small portion of these funds are specifically directed to 
Puerto Rico. The rest may be applied to unmet needs of disasters in 
recent years. Yes, including Puerto Rico, but including many other 
States.
  FEMA has yet to complete its damage assessment, and initial 
assessments indicate $40 million in Federal costs, a much smaller 
amount than appropriated in this bill.
  No one wants to deny any Americans support when they are in need, but 
this appropriation is premature. We could and should take the time to 
evaluate the best path for recovery for Puerto Rico, and we have the 
ability because there is existing disaster aid that has been released 
to meet those immediate needs.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, just a couple of points to my friend from Texas' 
comments.
  I include in the Record a February 2 Washington Post article 
entitled: ``You'd think Trump would stop threatening insurance coverage 
by now. Think again.''

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 2, 2020]

  You'd Think Trump Would Stop Threatening Insurance Coverage by Now. 
                              Think Again.

                (By the Washington Post Editorial Board)

       Notwithstanding the progress under Obamacare, the United 
     States still does not provide health insurance to all of its 
     population. About 27.5 million people, or 8.5 percent of the 
     population, lacked coverage throughout 2018, according to the 
     most recent Census Bureau report published in September. The 
     country has moved in the wrong direction since President 
     Trump took office: The 2018 uninsured numbers were up over 
     2017.
       You might think, given this history, that the Trump 
     administration would cease proposing policy that threatens 
     coverage; well, think again.
       Mr. Trump's Department of Health and Human Services has 
     unveiled a proposal that would allow states to receive 
     federal Medicaid funding as a block grant, annually 
     adjustable for inflation, while implementing cost-cutting 
     measures such as work requirements, asset tests, co-payments 
     and prescription drug limitations. (As a sweetener, states 
     would be allowed to pocket some of the budgetary savings.) 
     Existing rules essentially require states to provide a set of 
     services to all those who meet federally established 
     criteria, and fund them on an open-ended basis.
       To be sure, the administration's proposal would not affect 
     traditional Medicaid populations such as low-income pregnant 
     women and people with disabilities. It targets only the so-
     called expansion population--the 17 million low-income adults 
     who got Medicaid through Obamacare. And even then, it's 
     unlikely it will be adopted in blue states with large 
     Medicaid populations, such as California, or in red states 
     that never expanded Medicaid in the first place and probably 
     won't no matter how federal aid is structured, such as Texas.
       Where it might make a difference is in red states that 
     reluctantly expanded Medicaid but are looking for ways scale 
     it back, or in those 14 states that have not yet expanded but 
     still want to do so in a limited way. An example of the 
     latter category is Oklahoma, which is having a referendum on 
     Medicaid expansion in November. That state's Republican Gov. 
     Kevin Stitt, who opposes the referendum, jumped at the 
     administration's offer. The proposal invokes--probably 
     incorrectly--HHS's statutory authority to adjust Medicaid's 
     core requirements, so its ultimate fate may depend on the 
     courts. A federal judge in Washington blocked previous 
     attempts by the agency to let New Hampshire, Kentucky and 
     Arkansas set work requirements for Medicaid, which cost 
     18,000 people in the latter state their coverage, though the 
     administration has appealed. (Kentucky has withdrawn its work 
     requirements, which never took effect.)
       Whatever its short-term practical impact, the 
     administration's latest block-grant proposal could be 
     significant in the long run. The ultimate goal is to 
     legitimize block-granting and the coverage reductions the 
     approach almost certainly entails. Reduced coverage, it 
     should be mentioned, was partly why Congress previously, and 
     repeatedly, rejected Republican plans to block-grant 
     Medicaid. The United States badly needs a system of universal 
     coverage that delivers services more efficiently than the 
     existing hodgepodge. In its determination to chip away at 
     Obamacare's compromise solution--Medicaid expansion--the 
     Trump administration has revealed that it has other 
     priorities.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, on the Medicaid block grants, I would 
just say, from my experience, as someone who was very involved in the 
adoption of the ACA in the California State Senate, both chairing the 
committee of jurisdiction and being involved in what we look back on as 
a very successful rollout, doing the block grants sets the threshold 
lower than is necessary. Remember that the Federal thresholds are only 
a base level. States can put more contributions from the State and 
local level in, which we have done in California. It has been 
successful at getting millions of Californians into insurance, as 
opposed to being in indigent care.
  On the organizing aspect, this has come up in the Rules Committee, 
the secret ballot and privacy. A reminder, as Chairman Scott said last 
night: Secret ballot is still sacrosanct. It only comes up that it will 
not be if the National Labor Relations Board sanctions the employer for 
violating organizing rules.
  Our research shows that 45 percent of employers threaten workers in 
meetings, threaten them if they are trying to organize. Seventy-five 
percent of employers hire consultants to run antiunion campaigns, and 
one in five employees who try to organize their fellow workers get 
fired or threatened with termination.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. DeSaulnier for his 
leadership. I rise in very strong support of the PRO Act because it 
will restore the constitutional and civil rights of American citizens 
seeking to organize a union.
  We have to remember that the right to organize is rooted in the First 
Amendment of the Constitution which protects the right of the people to 
speak, to assemble, and to petition for a redress of grievances.
  All of these rights have been under severe attack over the last 
several decades of union busting and interference with the right of the 
people to organize into unions.
  There are three specific provisions I want to mention that will 
restore the constitutional rights of the people to organize.
  The first treats the violation of the right to organize like a 
violation of any other civil right in America. If your civil rights are 
violated based on race or based on gender, you have a right to go to 
court to sue for enforcement of your rights and for compensation for 
violation of those rights.
  This PRO Act will give the same right to workers to go to court to 
enforce their labor organizing rights. Right now, they have got to go 
through the National Labor Relations Board which has been stifled with 
bureaucracy and red tape. And right now, under the PRO Act, if it 
passes, you will have the right to go to court as well as to go to the 
NLRB in order to enforce your right to organize.

                              {time}  1300

  Secondly, the PRO Act will end so-called captive audience speeches. 
Those are already illegal right now. Employers cannot herd all the 
workers into a big room and tell them why they have to vote for Donald 
Trump for President at the risk of perhaps earning the disfavor of the 
employer, being fired or demoted or whatever. But they can herd you 
into the room to tell you why unions are bad and why unions are a bad 
choice and predicting that the company will have to leave or lay off 
people if a union is voted in by the workers.
  This ends captive audience speeches. The union doesn't have the right 
to herd all the workers into a room to propagandize them for the union; 
the employers should not have the right to herd all of them into a 
conference room to propagandize them against a union.
  Finally, the PRO Act will restore the First Amendment rights of 
workers organizing a union or in a union to support boycotts, strikes, 
and other labor actions by workers in other places.
  Amazingly, under the Taft-Hartley provisions and the way the labor 
law has grown up now, it is against the law for workers in a union to 
engage in secondary support and secondary boycotts and so on. This is a 
naked violation of the First Amendment rights of workers. Unionized 
workers should have every same right to support boycotts and strikes of 
their fellow workers as anyone else.
  Madam Speaker, I do strongly support the PRO Act.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H863]]

Kentucky (Mr. Comer), who is a valued member of the Education and Labor 
Committee.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I have heard from business owners throughout my 
district about the investments they are making in their businesses and 
hardworking employees thanks to the strong economy ushered in by 
President Trump. We have seen companies establish education programs, 
provide bonuses to their employees, and reinvest in their communities 
as a result of our booming economic climate. Unfortunately, the bill we 
are considering today would quickly erode this progress.
  As was made clear during the Committee on Education and Labor hearing 
and subsequent markup, the PRO Act would not serve the interests of 
individual workers. By overriding States' choices to enact right-to-
work laws meant to curtail forced unionization, codifying harmful 
rulemakings from the previous administration regarding the definition 
and classification of employees, and increasing the prevalence of 
worker intimidation and privacy infringement, the PRO Act is a maze of 
misguided and costly antiworker policies.
  To correct one of the countless issues with this legislation, I 
submitted an amendment to strike the provisions that would legalize 
secondary boycotts. Unions should not be empowered to target and 
economically harm suppliers or business partners of a workplace they 
are seeking to organize.
  Unfortunately, this and many other commonsense amendments were 
rejected by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle during markup 
and again at the Rules Committee yesterday.
  Notably, the PRO Act federalizes California's ABC test limiting 
flexibility and opportunity for entrepreneurs in our modern economy and 
codifies the previous administration's joint employer standard that 
would disrupt and fatally damage the franchise model, harming thousands 
of small business owners across the Nation.
  I recognize a business's greatest asset is its workers. For this 
reason, I am solidly proworker and probusiness and want to continue our 
strong economic growth while also protecting the freedoms of 
hardworking Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. COMER. Thankfully, this Democratic dream will meet a rude 
awakening in the Senate, where it will not see the light of day, and 
President Trump has signaled he would veto.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume before I introduce our next speaker.
  I am a former small business owner who met a payroll for hundreds of 
people in the restaurant business in California. Our economy is the 
fifth largest economy in the world. There is lots of evidence showing 
that helping the employer and helping the consumer so they have more 
disposable income actually helps everyone.
  As far as the dual employer rule, all we are doing is trying to 
protect what has been in effect for decades and not have it diminished, 
so there should be no impact on franchisees.
  Lastly, the distinction I think that needs to be reiterated over and 
over again in light of the administration's assertions about the 
economy is, yes, the GDP is growing, not as large as the President had 
promised, but it is not being spread out.
  As I mentioned in my opening comments, 50 percent--150 million, 160 
million people--live on $30,000 a year. They don't see the big benefit 
in what Wall Street gets. The average income is for the bottom 90 
percent of Americans. It has increased just 1 percent from 1980 to 
2017, while all their other costs have gone up, most notably healthcare 
and education. Average incomes, on the other hand, for the wealthiest 1 
percent have increased by 184 percent.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the 
Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act.
  I am the daughter of a garment worker, so the fight for workers' 
rights has always had a special place in my heart. My mother toiled 
every day in the sweatshops in New Haven, Connecticut, sewing shirt 
collars and dresses. And she was a pieceworker, which meant she got 
pennies on the dollar. As chair of the Appropriations 
Committee's Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee, I work every day to ensure that her early 
struggles were not in vain.

  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the PRO Act introduced by 
the chair of the committee, Congressman  Bobby Scott. It strengthens 
the rights of working people to come together in union to secure better 
wages and better working conditions.
  The single biggest economic challenge of our times is that people's 
pay doesn't keep up with their rising costs of healthcare, education, 
and childcare. From 1980 to 2017, average incomes for the bottom 90 
percent of households stagnated to a 1.1 percent increase while 
skyrocketing more than 180 percent for the wealthiest 1 percent in this 
country. It is no coincidence that, at the same time, union membership 
fell to a record low of 10 percent.
  Economists at Princeton found that the alarming rise of income 
inequality since the 1970s can be at least partially attributed to the 
decline in union membership.
  The PRO Act is about leveling the playing field for working people. 
It penalizes predatory corporations that violate workers' rights and 
streamlines procedures at the National Labor Relations Board to more 
effectively deal with violations. It protects workers from being 
misclassified as independent contractors. It helps working people 
secure a winning agreement as part of a union. It protects union 
elections against interference. And it empowers unions and employers to 
negotiate agreements that collect fair share fees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. It establishes a mediation and arbitration process to 
help ensure corporations and newly formed unions reach a first 
contract.
  As Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has said: Inequality is 
not inevitable. It is about the public policy choices we make.
  Madam Speaker, it is not globalization, and it is not technology. We 
have the opportunity today to choose a public policy that, in fact, 
will defend and protect working people in this country.
  Madam Speaker, pass the PRO Act.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to immediately consider a resolution reinforcing 
policies that are part of the ``best is yet to come'' blueprint, which 
was outlined by President Trump in this very Chamber on Tuesday night 
in his historic and optimistic State of the Union Address.
  His address highlighted the increase in wages for American workers, 
the decrease in unemployment, the reduction in the number of those 
receiving nutrition assistance, and the strength of our Armed Forces. 
He went on to detail the ongoing efforts to decrease healthcare costs 
and to improve access to broadband and the continuing defense of our 
borders, among other priorities.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Riggleman) to speak on his amendment.
  Mr. RIGGLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in an America with a booming economy, 
strong military, and optimistic future. On Tuesday, President Trump 
outlined

[[Page H864]]

the ``best is yet to come'' blueprint during the State of the Union 
Address.
  This agenda is an optimistic plan to continue the record-setting 
economic growth we are seeing and provide solutions to problems that 
ail American citizens. It is imperative that Congress step forward and 
support this agenda as I do.
  It is an agenda that dramatically lowers prescription drug prices and 
raises wages for hardworking Americans, an agenda that will build an 
inclusive society and make sure every young American has the 
opportunity to achieve the American Dream, and an agenda that will 
ensure every citizen can have access to high-speed internet, including 
in rural areas.
  With a national unemployment rate of 3.5 percent and a Virginia 
unemployment rate of 2.6 percent, it is clear the economic policies the 
President has implemented are working. The ``best is yet to come'' 
blueprint will continue this growth and build upon it.
  The American economy is stronger than ever, and we should work to 
continue this growth.
  I have a district that is 10,000 square miles large, bigger than the 
State of New Jersey. Seeing the optimism and excitement in Virginia and 
Virginia's Fifth District is something to behold. We have built an 
inclusive economy where the least well-off are making some of the 
fastest gains and unemployment is at an all-time low.
  There is no doubt that we are in the midst of a blue-collar boom in 
this country. Those who support the previous question are opposing the 
economic boom. That is why I will be voting against the previous 
question.
  A vote against the previous question is a vote for lowering the 
number of impoverished Americans on food stamps. A vote against the 
previous question is a vote to continue the booming economic growth we 
have experienced. A vote against the previous question is a vote for 
enacting all these policies into law and furthering President Trump's 
agenda.
  Madam Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question so that we can 
consider my resolution and support the policies outlined in the ``best 
is yet to come'' policy blueprint.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from California 
for his leadership, especially in bringing before us the Protecting the 
Right to Organize Act of 2019.
  Right now, in my home State, the Virginia General Assembly is engaged 
in a big debate about whether to repeal the right-to-work laws that 
have dominated our State for so many years, a repeal I have long 
supported.
  That is why, today, I am proud to stand with my good friend and 
fellow Virginian, Chairman  Bobby Scott, in supporting this bill, the 
Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
  Unions have been the backbone of a just and equitable economy. Their 
hard work gave us the 5-day workweek. Their hard work gave us safer 
working conditions. Their hard work helps deliver fair wages and better 
access to healthcare. But this isn't just an economic issue. It is also 
a question of civil rights. Society itself is freer when workers are 
empowered to band together and negotiate for better pay, benefits, and 
working conditions.
  I might say, even in those States that are not right-to-work States, 
it is hard to organize, but when you impose a right-to-work law, then 
you have really stacked the odds in the ability of working men and 
women to organize themselves.
  This is Black History Month, and I am reminded of these words from 
Dr. Martin Luther King: ``In our glorious fight for civil rights, we 
must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as `right-to-
work.' . . . Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job 
opportunities are fewer, and there are no civil rights. We do not 
intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our 
weapon is our vote.''
  Dr. King was right. Our weapon is our vote, and today, we are going 
to exercise that weapon and strike a blow for working men and women and 
for restoring the constitutional right of working men and women to 
organize freely and benefit this economy and benefit the quality of 
lives for people in communities all across this great land.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from California for giving me the 
time. I urge passage of the bill, and I support the rule underlying it.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 16 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, one of the underlying bills here, H. Res. 826, is 
really nothing more than a political exercise, and I really am 
disappointed at how we have come to discuss the healthier adult 
opportunity demonstration, in the manner that it is.
  If we were to have a legitimate debate on an optional policy, we 
should do so in a hearing in the committee of jurisdiction. That is why 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Republican leader Walden and me 
sent a letter to Chairman Pallone to request such a hearing.
  We should be asking questions of agencies and States that are 
deciding whether or not they would like to utilize this option to 
deploy the new section 1115 waiver for this very specific population.
  Should a State choose to apply for this Healthy Adult Opportunity 
demonstration, it will only be allowed to address the adults that are 
under 65 that fall into the expansion population. This optional 
demonstration changes nothing for children. It changes nothing for 
seniors, changes nothing for individuals with disabilities. All 
essential health benefit requirements remain in place.
  Most importantly, States do not have to take this option because it 
is an option. States can maintain the status quo and continue to 
operate their Medicaid programs as they were before this opportunity 
was presented to them. Some States may find this demonstration provides 
the necessary increased flexibility for them to handle the limited 
healthy adult population that is now covered under Medicaid expansion.
  In fact, under one of the financing mechanisms, if a State does not 
spend all of its Federal allotment under the Healthy Adult Opportunity 
demonstration, it can keep 25 to 50 percent of the savings not to 
transfer over to the road and bridge fund, but to reinvest in Medicaid. 
In the States that might be ravished by an opioid epidemic, that could 
mean getting more individuals with opioid use disorder into treatment.
  It could allow States additional flexibility to help their most 
vulnerable populations. And we heard very compelling testimony in the 
Rules Committee last night from the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. 
Rodgers) about the unconscionably long waiting list for individuals 
with disabilities to get coverage under Medicaid.
  Madam Speaker, 700,000 people across the country are on that waiting 
list. These shared savings could go in to reducing that case backlog 
for those individuals.
  Look, this may not be an opportunity that every State wants to take. 
That is why it is optional. That is what optional means. My State, the 
State of Texas, is working through whether or not this would be 
beneficial, a beneficial demonstration opportunity for them. There is a 
lot to look at in the rule that was produced by the Department of 
Health and Human Services. After all, it was just a week ago that this 
was received, and people are looking into whether or not it makes sense 
for them.
  But we, in this body, should take the time to understand this, rather 
than simply jump to a conclusion with an action that is ultimately 
going to be meaningless because it goes nowhere.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California's Eleventh District. I also thank, if I may, the persons who 
are associated with the Rules Committee who worked

[[Page H865]]

tirelessly to get these bills to the floor. And I also thank the House 
leadership for allowing the bills to come to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I am honored today to say that I traveled to Puerto 
Rico after one of the hurricanes hit, Hurricane Maria. I was there with 
the Honorable Bennie Thompson. This was a Homeland Security codel. And 
while I was there, I had the opportunity to meet with various and 
sundry NGOs, met with some of the emergency responders, the Corps of 
Engineers, the National Guard.
  I had a firsthand opportunity to see the devastation that Puerto Rico 
suffered from. And this was prior to the 6.7 earthquake that hit on 
January 7.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that it is time for us to act. I believe 
this legislation provides the means by which we can act appropriately 
and efficaciously. I believe that this bill, with what it contains from 
my bill, H.R. 3702, which was the CDBG-DR, disaster recovery bill, this 
legislation contains language from that, my bill, and I would like to 
just share some of the things that are important.
  The bill includes the rigorous timelines for allocation action plan 
approval and grant agreement execution that was contained in the bill. 
It contains language that HUD will be required to allocate funds no 
later than 60 days after enactment of the supplemental. HUD would be 
required to review and approve or disapprove an action plan within 60 
days of its submission to the Department, and HUD will be required to 
allocate funds no later than 60 days after the date of approval of a 
grantee's plan.
  Madam Speaker, I think we have reached a point now where an emergency 
has become something that we must act upon immediately, if not sooner. 
The sooner would be today, but unfortunately, we will have the rule 
today. Immediately will be the vote tomorrow. I beg that all would 
support the bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Texas yielding to me.
  I rise in opposition to this rule. And I have a whole stack of things 
that I will raise, but in the time that is available, I will say this: 
We watched as the Medicaid program was opened up more and more under 
President Obama. And when that happened, it caused a significant amount 
of turmoil in my State and many States across the country.

  And so President Trump has stepped in and decided that he is going to 
offer an opportunity to have the equivalent of block grants going back 
to the States and let them make the decision, let them write the 
regulations because the States know best.
  This great experiment in Federalism that we have, where the closer to 
the people that the decision can be made, the more effective that 
decision is and the more effective the resources of our taxpayers are. 
That is the attempt and the endeavor on the part of President Trump, 
and I regret that so much politics have been churned into this, we have 
a hard time focusing on the policy.
  When I see what happened at the prayer breakfast, and when I listened 
to the statement that has been made by the Speaker publicly in a 
conference a little earlier today, it spills forth upon this. Some of 
her words essentially show up in this document.
  Madam Speaker, it is time for us to take a deep breath. Impeachment 
is over. Let's focus on policy.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the PRO 
Act. This much-needed legislation rebalances the economic playing field 
to give workers a fair shake, and it is long overdue.
  Two nights ago, the President stood here and talked about how great 
the economy is doing, how the stock market is soaring, and unemployment 
is falling. But the truth on the ground is that people in the middle 
class and below are not being lifted by this tide. The cost of housing, 
childcare, education, and other basic essentials are rising at rates 
not matched by stagnant wages.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report by the Foundation for 
Delaware County and Philadelphia Citizens For Children and Youth.

         Underwater: What's Sinking Families in Delaware County

     [From PCCY, Public Citizens for Children and Youth, Mar. 2019]

       The American Dream is eroding in Delaware County. Incomes 
     that used to provide a comfortable middle class life are no 
     longer enough to even cover the basics. Four in ten families 
     are likely to be underwater if they're raising children. 
     Their financial outlook is bleak--a far cry from the 
     prosperity that their parents enjoyed. And if things continue 
     down this road, their children face a future of continued 
     decline.
       Hard-working families earning $50,000, for instance, are 
     likely to be more than $3,000 in debt between child care, 
     health care, housing, utilities, transportation, food, and 
     taxes. And that's with the help of crucial child care and 
     health insurance benefits. Even if these families have no 
     child care needs, they will have less than $7,000 left over 
     after paying for the other essentials. That's under $7,000 
     for things like clothes, sports teams, birthday presents, 
     summer camps, class trips--just to name a few. Nearly a 
     quarter of families earn this much or less in Delaware 
     County.
       Even families who are near the median income--an income 
     that should solidify their middle class status--are drowning. 
     Families making $75,000 a year, for example, are likely to be 
     saddled with over $2,000 in debt after paying for the basics, 
     since they do not receive subsidies for child care and health 
     care. If these families are free from the burden of child 
     care, they would have around $15,000 left after the major 
     basic costs, but this is still hardly enough to cover the 
     additional everyday costs for the children and parents. On 
     top of that, these families have little money, if any, to 
     save for things like retirement or college for their 
     children, not to mention any emergency costs that may spring 
     up. Nearly 40% of families in Delaware County make this much 
     or less.
       The parents in these struggling families bank on the hope 
     that their children can move up the economic ladder, becoming 
     more prosperous as adults than they, the parents, were. The 
     surest way for children to achieve that upward mobility is to 
     get a good education. Unfortunately, many Delaware County 
     schools are in a similar boat as many families, struggling to 
     find the resources to provide students with the skills they 
     need to be upwardly mobile.
       The mandated costs of pensions, special education and 
     charter school payments are skyrocketing, growing by $223 
     million in Delaware County school districts since 2010. 
     Meanwhile State funding for these districts has grown by just 
     $107 million, forcing districts to make up the difference 
     through local property tax increases. Even with these tax 
     increases, most districts are unable to get more money in the 
     classroom.
       The funding challenges translate to academic struggle. The 
     majority of students in the county--58%--fail the math PSSA, 
     and 39% fail in reading. These figures are even worse in the 
     districts with high shares of low income students, where 75% 
     of students fail the math exam and 52% fail in reading.
       The bleak situation facing Delaware County families will 
     only change with large-scale action. History teaches us that 
     bold policies can overcome massive problems facing society 
     and lead to huge gains in the quality of life for all. As 
     Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Romer notes in discussing 
     these types of policy changes, ``[If we have a] sense of 
     `we've got to do the right thing' . . . everything can turn 
     out better for everybody. But if you just are complacent, say 
     `it'll work itself out,' you are not going to be happy with 
     the outcome.'' Delaware County families cannot afford 
     complacency. The following policies must be implemented, or 
     the cycle of financial stress will never end. The children in 
     these struggling families will become the next generation of 
     struggling families. The American Dream will become the 
     American Drain.
       To boost families' incomes:
       Create a workforce development strategy to help people move 
     into higher paying jobs.
       Increase the State government's payments to agencies that 
     employ low-wage, government-funded professionals, such as 
     Direct Support Professionals and child care workers, so that 
     wages are at least $15 an hour and ideally $18 an hour, to 
     increase the ability of these professionals to stay above 
     water while supporting a family.
       To reduce the child care and early education cost burden:
       Increase funding for Child Care Works, Pre-K Counts and 
     Head Start.
       Expand eligibility for Child Care Works.
       Implement full day kindergarten in all school districts.
       To reduce the health care cost burden:
       Expand eligibility for free and subsidized Children's 
     Health Insurance Program.
       Preserve the Affordable Care Act.
       To reduce the cost burden of other living expenses:
       Create more affordable transportation through mobility 
     planning at the County level.
       Create affordable housing strategies at the County level.
       To reduce the tax burden on financially struggling 
     families:

[[Page H866]]

       Expand Pennsylvania's Tax Forgiveness program to incomes of 
     at least $75,000.
       Offset property taxes by increasing State funding for 
     public schools.
       To improve the financial outlook of public schools:
       Increase State K-12 basic education and special education 
     funding.
       Restore the State's charter school reimbursement to school 
     districts.

  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, according to that report released in 
October, families in my district in Pennsylvania are being left 
underwater due to the high cost of living and debt they are forced to 
incur in order to make ends meet in this economy. A family making the 
median income of $75,000 is likely to be $2,000 under water at year's 
end.
  The middle class is shrinking, and it is clear to see why. The 
economic divide in the United States has reached unprecedented levels, 
wealth is concentrated at the very top, and it is not trickling down. 
Workers have seen their rights stripped, their wages cut, and their 
dignity taken away.
  Over the past three decades the average income for the bottom 90 
percent of families, increased by 1.1 percent. During this same period, 
the average income for the wealthiest 1 percent nearly doubled.
  Put simply, workers responsible for wealth creation in this country 
are not seeing their fair share. Over that same 30-year period, we have 
seen the percentage of American workers in unions steadily decline, not 
because people don't want to join unions and take part in the higher 
average salaries and better benefit structure they are likely to 
receive. No, it is a direct result of relentless coordinating and well-
funded antiunion attacks from corporations and special interests.
  Cynically misnamed right-to-work laws have harmed workers and their 
families. No one in this country is forced to join a union, but the 
fact is, states with higher numbers of union membership also have 
higher average salaries for all workers.
  This bill would weaken antilabor State laws and close other loopholes 
that corporations use to exploit workers. The PRO Act will restore some 
fairness to the American economy and give workers a seat at the 
bargaining table they rightly deserve. It will introduce meaningful and 
forceable penalties for companies that violate workers' rights. No 
longer will companies be able to exploit employees' labor, betting that 
a toothless NLRB will only give them a slap on the wrist.
  This bill would ensure that employees have the right to collectively 
bargain with companies that control the terms and conditions of their 
employment. One of the misleading arguments being made against this 
bill is that it will affect privacy. That is not true.
  Madam Speaker, I proudly support this rule and the underlying bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in support.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to highlight a few things.
  The gentleman from Virginia came and spoke about an amendment that 
will be offered if we defeat the previous question.
  As a consequence of that defeat of the previous question is the 
consideration of the amendment offered by Mr. Riggleman. And some of 
the things that people need to understand is that, well, they will be 
voting against these things if they vote to approve the previous 
question:
  The acknowledgment that jobs and investment are coming into this 
country at a rate that has previously not been known. America is now 
energy-independent and energy jobs, like so many elements of our 
country, are at a record high.
  We are building an inclusive society that is making sure that every 
young American gets a great education and the opportunity to achieve 
the American Dream. That Congress wants to support our students and 
back the plan to offer vocational and technical education to every 
single high school in America.
  In addition, the commitment to access to high speed internet, 
including rural America, and the defense of religious liberty.
  Many of us worked the prayer breakfast this morning and heard this an 
additional time, but including the constitutional right to pray in 
public schools. I just want people to be aware that if they defeat the 
previous question, this is where we will be engaging.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, as usual, Trump says one thing here and 
does another. He continues his assault on healthcare--no protection for 
preexisting conditions, nothing done to lower prescription price-
gouging, and even considering potential cuts to what they call 
``entitlements'' and we call Medicare.
  Trump supports only junk insurance and junk ideas, like this crazy 
idea to block-grant Medicaid, which is a truly block-headed approach 
that will jeopardize insurance coverage for 1 in 5 Americans.
  In Texas, Medicaid is a safety net with more holes than net through 
which many needy Texans regularly fall. Much of the available 
assistance is critical to our seniors. Already slashed to the bone, 
Texas Medicaid does not have any more room for the kind of cuts that 
Trump is urging. Hospitals are struggling to stay afloat in many parts 
of the State. Healthcare providers, some of them go out of business. 
And to the disgrace of the Lone Star State, we have almost 1 million 
children, more than in any other State in the Union, who lack any 
insurance access.
  Indeed, it is the Affordable Care Act that actually slowed Medicaid 
spending, but Republicans will have none of that. This landmark 
legislation tried to patch the holes in the safety net, but even when 
Texas was offered 100 cents on the dollar from the Federal Government 
to extend Medicaid to some of its citizens, Texas refused to do that, 
and has continued to do so.
  Now this Trump block-headed approach would widen the coverage gap for 
5 million people with disabilities and millions of children who suffer 
when their parents cannot get care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield another 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. One of the advantages of the Medicaid program is if more 
people require coverage during an economic downturn, or if costs go up 
because of a public health emergency, like coronavirus or an opioid 
epidemic, the Federal funding automatically increases. If you have a 
stingy State Republican government that caps it, that coverage will go 
down instead of up. What is out of control in America today is not 
Medicaid spending, but this unhinged President's attempts to undermine 
healthcare access for as many Americans as he can do.
  Madam Speaker, let's oppose it.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As I have stated many times over, the rule proposed by the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services is an option for States. It does in 
no way affect or impact the mandatory safety net populations that are 
required to be covered under Medicaid.
  The population that was included in Medicaid expansion, in States 
that underwent expansion, this is where the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services would provide those State Governors, those State 
legislatures, an option to consider a block grant if they desired. It 
is also written in the proposed rule that they could opt for a per-
beneficiary allotment, which might even impart additional flexibility.
  But one of the provisions of the rule, as has been proposed, is that, 
if there is a significant change--the State undergoes a natural 
disaster or emergency--the block grant number can be adjusted. It is 
not something that is immobile.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers. So, if the 
gentleman from Texas would like to close, I am prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I do want to share and introduce into the Record an 
article published by the Brookings Institution--Brookings, of all 
places--published in September of 2018 that analyzes global poverty 
levels, finding that

[[Page H867]]

over 50 percent of the world's population can now be considered middle 
class or above. That means, for the first time, a majority of the 
world's population is above the poverty line.
  According to this article from Brookings, worldwide, one person 
escapes extreme poverty every second, and five people are entering the 
middle class per second.
  In the United States, the strength of our economy is partly based on 
pro-growth and pro-business policies, including those policies included 
in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  Madam Speaker, I include the Brookings article in the Record.

                    [From Brookings, Sept. 27, 2018]

A Global Tipping Point: Half the World Is Now Middle Class or Wealthier

                  (By Homi Kharas and Kristofer Hamel)

       Something of enormous global significance is happening 
     almost without notice. For the first time since agriculture-
     based civilization began 10,000 years ago, the majority of 
     humankind is no longer poor or vulnerable to falling into 
     poverty. By our calculations, as of this month, just over 50 
     percent of the world's population, or some 3.8 billion 
     people, live in households with enough discretionary 
     expenditure to be considered ``middle class'' or ``rich.'' 
     About the same number of people are living in households that 
     are poor or vulnerable to poverty. So September 2018 marks a 
     global tipping point. After this, for the first time ever, 
     the poor and vulnerable will no longer be a majority in the 
     world. Barring some unfortunate global economic setback, this 
     marks the start of a new era of a middle-class majority.
       We make these claims based on a classification of 
     households into those in extreme poverty (households spending 
     below $1.90 per person per day) and those in the middle class 
     (households spending $11-110 per day per person in 2011 
     purchasing power parity, or PPP). Two other groups round out 
     our classification: vulnerable households fall between those 
     in poverty and the middle class; and those who are at the top 
     of the distribution who are classified as ``rich.''
       Our ``middle class'' classification was first developed in 
     2010 and has been used by many researchers. While 
     acknowledging that the middle class does not have a precise 
     definition that can be globally applied, the threshold we use 
     in this work has the following characteristics: those in the 
     middle class have some discretionary income that can be used 
     to buy consumer durables like motorcycles, refrigerators, or 
     washing machines. They can afford to go to movies or indulge 
     in other forms of entertainment. They may take vacations. And 
     they are reasonably confident that they and their family can 
     weather an economic shock--like illness or a spell of 
     unemployment--without falling back into extreme poverty.
       By classifying all households in the world into one of 
     these four groups, using income and expenditure surveys from 
     188 countries, we are able to derive measures of the global 
     distribution of income. Our social enterprise World Data 
     Lab--the maker of World Poverty Clock--has refined these 
     estimates and created a new interactive data model to 
     estimate all income brackets for almost every country for 
     every point in time until 2030 by combining demographic and 
     economic data.
       A lot has been written about the world's progress in 
     reducing the number of people living in extreme poverty, as 
     highlighted in the recent Goalkeepers report put out by the 
     Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We believe that another 
     story relates to the rapid emergence of the global middle 
     class. This middle class story is probably bigger in terms of 
     the number of people affected. In the world today, about one 
     person escapes extreme poverty every second; but five people 
     a second are entering the middle class. The rich are growing 
     too, but at a far smaller rate (1 person every 2 seconds).
       Why does it matter that a middle-class tipping point has 
     been reached and that the middle class is the most rapidly 
     growing segment of the global income distribution? Because 
     the middle class drive demand in the global economy and 
     because the middle class are far more demanding of their 
     governments.
       Consider the structure of global economic demand. Private 
     household consumption accounts for about half of global 
     demand (the other half is evenly split between investment and 
     government consumption). Two-thirds of household consumption 
     comes from the middle class. The rich spend more per person, 
     but are too few in number to drive the global economy. The 
     poor and vulnerable are numerous, but have too little income 
     to spend. For most businesses, the sweet spot to target is 
     the middle class. This has long been true in individual 
     advanced economies; it is now true on a global scale.
       Targeting the global middle class is not easy. The middle 
     class like differentiated products, and their tastes will 
     vary from country to country. The new middle class is 
     predominantly Asian--almost nine in 10 of the next billion 
     middle-class consumers will be Asian--but they are spread out 
     in China, India, and South and South East Asia. It's no 
     accident that the latest Hollywood hit is Crazy Rich Asians 
     or that Asian multinationals are emerging that have built a 
     domestic brand and now look to compete abroad.
       The middle class is already the largest segment of demand 
     in the global economy. What makes it interesting for business 
     is that it is also the most rapidly growing segment, 
     projected to reach some 4 billion people by end 2020 and 5.3 
     billion people by 2030. Compared to today, the middle class 
     in 2030 will have 1. 7 billion more people, while the 
     vulnerable group will have 900 million fewer people. Trends 
     for the poor and the rich and more modest, at -150 million 
     people and +100 million, respectively.
       By our calculations, the middle-class markets in China and 
     India in 2030 will account for $14.1 trillion and $12.3 
     trillion, respectively, comparable in size to a U.S. middle-
     class market at that time of $15.9 trillion.
       In most countries, there is a clear relationship between 
     the fate of the middle class and the happiness of the 
     population. According to the Gallup World Poll, new entrants 
     into the middle class are noticeably happier than those stuck 
     in poverty or in vulnerable households. Conversely, 
     individuals in countries where the middle class is shrinking 
     report greater degrees of personal stress. The middle class 
     also puts pressure on governments to perform better. They 
     look to their governments to provide affordable housing, 
     education, and universal health care. They rely on public 
     safety nets to help them in sickness, unemployment or old 
     age. But they resist efforts of governments to impose taxes 
     to pay the bills. This complicates the politics of middle-
     class societies, so they range from autocratic to liberal 
     democracies. Many advanced and middle-income countries today 
     are struggling to find a set of politics that can satisfy a 
     broad middle-class majority.
       The tipping point in the world today offers opportunities 
     for business but complications for policymakers.

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, labor unions were initially created to 
ensure fair wages and fair working conditions for employees. Today, 
Americans are more prosperous than ever.
  While I support the freedom of an individual to join a labor union, 
the necessity that required labor unions is waning as wages increase 
and, subsequently, union membership decreases.
  Why would we now pass a bill that is diametrically in opposition to 
the benefits that have been enjoyed by this country?
  And, again, I would like to emphasize that State participation in the 
Healthy Adult Opportunity demonstration is optional. If this 
demonstration project does not fit the needs or the goals of a State 
Medicaid program, they do not have to participate.
  As the Republican leader of the Energy and Commerce Health 
Subcommittee, I believe conversations like this are best to occur at 
the committee level first, where Members can call witnesses and have a 
serious discussion.
  Do you know what? Regular order can be your friend. It doesn't appear 
that Democrats are taking this seriously.
  Finally, Republicans remain committed to helping all Americans in 
need, including those in Puerto Rico, but a thorough evaluation of best 
and most accountable allocation of resources is needed. We support our 
fellow Americans in Puerto Rico and will continue to find ways to 
ensure their recovery.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' 
on the rule, ``no'' on the underlying measures, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I just want to thank everyone who came down and spoke on this 
important issue. In my view, there is nothing more important.
  You don't have to read the 600 pages in Thomas Piketty to know that 
the level of inequality in this country right now. And I acknowledge 
some of the improvements that globalism has given to people who earn $1 
a day and are now up to the astronomical level of $2 a day, but that 
has not benefited the American worker.
  As I said in my opening comments, 40 percent of American households 
live on $30,000 a year. That is not helping everybody. Most of the 
benefits of the last 50 years went to the top 1 percent, people, as I 
said before, who earn--not own, earn--$7 million a year as opposed to 
the 99 percent below them who earn $54,000 a year.
  We have to fix this. This is not democracy, as Brandeis and Lincoln 
said. As Eisenhower said, when the economy was growing at historic 
records, as I mentioned in my opening statements.
  And this is how times have changed, particularly as a former 
Republican, former small business owner, former teamster, and former 
hotel and restaurant union member. Those jobs, that protection, gave me 
the money to

[[Page H868]]

 save enough money to go into business for myself and treat my 
employees as I would want to be treated, which helped my customers.
  Eisenhower said:

       Only a handful of reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of 
     breaking unions and depriving working men and women of the 
     right to join the union of their choice.

  President Eisenhower said:

       I have no use for those, regardless of their political 
     party, who hold some vain and foolish dream of spinning the 
     clock back to days when organized labor was a huddled, almost 
     helpless mass.

  Eisenhower said:

       Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of 
     the right to join the union of their choice.

  Lincoln said:

       All that harms labor is treason to America.

  Madam Speaker, for decades, tax breaks, rollbacks on regulations that 
benefited the ultrawealthy and powerful corporations, unfair labor laws 
and the enactment and enforcement of those laws, and the rise of 
monopolies have fueled inequality to the point where we are at Great 
Depression levels, and we will suffer the consequences if we don't 
address that in this room. It will be addressed outside of this room.
  We have an opportunity today to move this country in the right 
direction with these three measures. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule 
and the previous question.
  And I have two last quotes. Plutarch said, 2,000 years ago, that the 
oldest and fatal flaw to republics has always been the imbalance 
between the rich and the poor.
  Samuel Gompers, great union leader, when he was fighting to organize 
Americans during the Depression, said: Unions and equality, and until 
we get it, no surrender.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 833

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 834) supporting policies that are a part 
     of the ``Best is Yet to Come'' blueprint, outlined by 
     President Trump during his historic, optimistic State of the 
     Union Address. The resolution shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the Majority and 
     Minority Leaders or their designees. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX 
     shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 834.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________