Providing for Consideration of H.Res. Expressing Disapproval of the Trump Administration's Harmful Actions Towards Medicaid; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Protecting the Right to Organize Act of and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief and Puerto Rico Disaster Tax Relief Act, 2020

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Connecticut an additional 30 seconds.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers. So, if the gentleman from Texas would like to close, I am prepared to close.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source