[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.
____________________