By Congressman Jimmy Gomez and Katie Bethell As the Senate considers the Heroes Act--a $3 trillion stimulus bill recently passed by the House to stem the spread of COVID-19 and stave off a full-fledged depression--millions of families across America continue to suffer the health and economic impacts of the pandemic. And during this unprecedented time, working families across the country are speaking out about the specific challenges they face, exposing a common and disturbing theme: a lack of access to paid leave. One mom who spoke to Paid Leave for the U.S. Action Fund (PL+US Action)--the leading national campaign to win a federal paid leave policy--talked about potentially being "forced to choose between employment and childcare." Another was worried that our current system forces workers to "choose between getting paid and your health." And many were concerned about unknowns that lie ahead. As one mother put it, "If my job transitions back into a non--work-from-home position, I don't know what I will do as a single mom who can't leave her kids home alone all day." Working families are voicing these fears as the pandemic demonstrates the importance of paid leave as an economic necessity. But now, we are also clearly seeing paid leave as a public health issue. Similarly, essential workers--disproportionately people of color with higher exposure to the virus--in many cases do not have access to paid leave and paid sick days and need time to get healthy. For example, only 8% of grocery store employees can take the two weeks doctors recommend to recover from COVID-19 without losing at least some pay. Virtually every family in America is feeling the economic and health consequences of a system unprepared for workers who need time to recover from serious illness, care for a sick family member, or look after a child when schools and day-care centers are shuttered. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike are simultaneously experiencing the need for paid leave firsthand. Voters across demographic and partisan lines are making their voices heard, and they want to see action. A recent PL+US Action poll of likely 2020 voters in the battleground states of Arizona, Iowa, and North Carolina has helped shed more light on attitudes about paid leave and the impact of the pandemic. The survey found that 83% of voters support a national paid leave policy and see paid leave as one of the top solutions to the pandemic. It's easy to see why: One in four of those voters also expected to take unpaid leave as a result of COVID-19. Both President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden have shown an openness to expanding paid leave. Last year, Congress and President Trump extended 12 weeks of limited paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child to federal workers. Vice President Joe Biden has included paid leave in his presidential platform, and last month, announced his support for 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. The momentum has been building, but the pandemic has made the need for action even more urgent. There are affordable, tested solutions for providing paid leave that are entirely within reach. Five states and Washington, D.C., have used social insurance models as the basis for their paid family leave programs, creating systems where everyone pays in a little, and the financial support is there when employers and individuals need it--just like Social Security or unemployment insurance. Three more states will be soon following suit. This type of model is the most affordable way to provide the highest-quality federal paid family and medical leave program, reducing the financial and administrative burdens on businesses while increasing retention and improving equity in the workplace. States like California with established paid leave programs were well positioned to provide needed support to working families through this pandemic. But Congress should pass federal legislation like this to ensure all workers have access to high-quality paid leave. And the President should sign it into law. In its current form, the Heroes Act would extend eligibility for paid family, medical, and sick leave benefits by removing exemptions to the program under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). It would expand access to employees at businesses with fewer than 50 or more than 500 employees, as well as to first responders and health care workers, and would allow workers to take emergency leave for a wider range of circumstances. It's another substantive step in the right direction, but by no means does it represent the end of our shared efforts to secure paid leave for every person who calls the United States their home. For our work to be done, we'll need a permanent, sustainable, national program that truly supports the workers who represent the financial backbone of this country. We should always be able to put our families first--not just during global health threats. But right now, paid leave is absolutely crucial for ending the COVID-19 pandemic and this economic crisis. We need to ensure workers can stay home when they or a family member are sick, and give consumers the confidence to return to businesses knowing that employees are only at work if they're healthy. We have an unprecedented opportunity before us to rebuild an economy that supports all working families. But that starts and ends with strong, inclusive paid leave policies. With the lives of families across the country hanging in the balance, we simply cannot address this paid leave crisis with short-term solutions. The time for long-term, bipartisan-backed paid leave is before us. And it's time to seize the moment.

By Jimmy Gomez In 1620, a group of refugees, persecuted because of their religious faith, set forth from Plymouth, England, for the "New World" -- which was, of course, not so new to the Indigenous people living there. Despite having no documented invitations from the inhabitants of the nations in which they intended to settle (and despite historical evidence that suggests the local people had already suffered greatly at the hands of previous newcomers), we are this week still celebrating the fact that the Wampanoag people welcomed those we now call Pilgrims to this land, and helped them adjust to living here. But outside of their Thanksgiving tables, this administration is hardly paying homage to this most fundamental part of America's origin story: We are not just a nation of immigrants, but we also were founded by a group of refugees. Instead, President Donald Trump has declared that this country is full, particularly to more refugees. He said it during a trip to the southern border in April, during a speech before the Republican Jewish Coalition this spring, in tweets to his 59.6 million followers, and in a rally in May. Doing so served two purposes: It was a rallying cry to solidify his base; and a declaration to refugees and asylum-seekers to stay away. And while it's true our immigration system is strained -- due in part to the president's efforts to sabotage it -- it's a lie to say we can't accommodate anyone else. Nonetheless, the administration is going to extraordinary lengths to use policy to prop up this propaganda. Trump recently moved to drastically restrict the number of refugees our nation accepts, down to 18,000 in fiscal year 2020. It's the lowest number of refugees accepted since the program was established in 1980, 78 percent lower than the 85,000 cap set by President Barack Obama. But our country isn't "full"; our president is just full of it. A declining birthrate combined with an aging population have helped slow U.S. population growth to levels not seen since the Great Depression. In fact, the U.S. doesn't even break into the top 100 most densely populated countries worldwide, ranked only at 146 between Venezuela and Kyrgyzstan. But Trump's comments about the U.S. being "full" clearly weren't rooted in facts or data, but rather his own perception of American attitudes toward immigration. Even then, the president is wrong. While the president's base supports his anti-immigrant agenda, a majority of Americans strongly disagree with both his radical perspective and the draconian tactics used by his administration. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found 75 percent of respondents believed immigration was good for the country. And a new Gallup poll on attitudes about Central American refugees revealed that 57 percent of Americans -- with increased approval from Republicans and independents -- support taking them in and making this country their home. As a congressman, I'm all too familiar with the president's penchant for dog whistle rhetoric and false assertions. And I try -- in an effort to stay sane -- not to take any of what he says to heart. But as a Latino representing the heart of Los Angeles, his comments about refugees and immigrants in general continue to strike a personal chord. My parents, who once lived in a one-room adobe house in Mexico, came to the United States in search of opportunity. They both worked multiple jobs to make ends meet. My mother was a domestic worker by day and a nursing home laundry attendant at night and on weekends. My father was a bracero -- a farmworker -- and cooked at various restaurants across Southern California. They raised six children and helped put most of us through college. I believe in America's promise that if you come here, believe in our values, and contribute to our society, you can call this country your home. That promise was upheld for my sister, who was granted citizenship last year. It was upheld for my other siblings, who became educators and artists. And that promise was upheld for my parents, who gave their youngest the opportunity to go to school and eventually become a member of Congress. I intend to help keep that promise for future generations. The spirit of Trump's assertion that our country is full -- and that of remarks he's previously made -- have been echoed throughout the world by dictators of the past and far-right extremists of today. The phrase evokes images of hundreds of Jewish refugees murdered in concentration camps after their German ocean liner, the SS St. Louis, was turned away by the U.S. in 1939. It takes us back to 2014 when Nick Griffin, former leader of the British National Party -- whose platform is "a complete halt to immigration" -- declared "our country's full, we'll shut the door," to those escaping unimaginable violence. And the president's portrayal of immigration as an "invasion" reminds us of the hate-filled manifesto of the Australian man who executed 49 worshipers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, after referring to Muslims as "invaders" who "seek to occupy my peoples lands." Contrary to the Trump administration's efforts to brand them as such, refugees do not represent a threat to national security, nor are they drains on our country's social safety net programs. Not only are they the most intensively vetted population to enter the U.S., subjected to years of security screenings including thorough interviews, background checks and biometric data collection, but they also help grow our local and national economies and fill critical gaps in our labor market. You'd think someone who touts himself as a businessman would appreciate the fact that nearly half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by refugees, immigrants or their children -- but that would obviously undermine the false narratives he used to propel him into the White House. Clearly, policy matters, particularly when you're the president, but the words used to promote such policy can often be just as important. The rhetoric of our leaders should remind us of our shared values -- justice, tolerance and empathy -- that make the U.S. a beacon of hope around the world. Whether Trump likes it or not, refugees were here at the start of the American experiment and have inextricably woven themselves into the tapestry of this country. And, for that, I am truly thankful.

By Jimmy Gomez Most people have heard of the estate tax, or as it's labeled by conservative fearmongers, the "death tax." But few understand just how important it is, how weak it's become in recent years, or why that matters. Thanks to the 2017 Trump tax cut -- one of the biggest wealth grabs in history -- a couple can now pass on an estate worth up to $22.8 million completely tax-free. With such a high cutoff before you start paying any estate tax at all, this clearly isn't something that prevents working class families from passing along their savings to their children and grandchildren. Rather, it's one of the best defenses we have in addressing economic inequality -- one of the defining challenges of our time -- and pushing back against the growth of a new American aristocracy, one in which a small number of wealthy families get wealthier while working Americans fall further behind. It's the only tax that many ultra-rich heirs will ever pay on the millions of dollars they're inheriting. And unless you're incredibly wealthy, you'll never pay a cent of it. The current exemption limits of $11.4 million for an individual or $22.8 million for a couple are truly absurd. The vast majority of Americans are nowhere near passing on $11 million to their children, much less $22 million. In fact, the estate tax only affects about 1,800 of the wealthiest families in the country in a given year, many of whom pay a minuscule amount on massive inheritances. With the exemption limit at $22.8 million, someone can pass along $22,800,001 and pay just 40 cents total in estate tax. That inheritance is more than what most Americans will make in their entire lifetime, yet they pay less in taxes than what the average American pays on their salary for one hour of work, much less an entire year or lifetime. This system needs to change. That's why the 99.8% Act is so important. It would lower the threshold to $3.5 million per individual, still protecting small, family-run businesses but requiring more from more wealthy estates. Even with the lower threshold, the bill would only affect the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans, leaving the tax bill of 99.8 percent of Americans completely untouched. It would also start taxing even larger estates at progressively higher rates. Fortunes of $20 million and $2 billion aren't the same, and we shouldn't tax them the same. The base tax of 45 percent would still apply to fewer than 6,000 estates, but as the value of the estates grow, the rate would increase -- with the highest rate, 77, only applying to estates over $1 billion. This shouldn't be a difficult decision for Congress to make. There's no defense for continuing to allow the ultra-rich to pay little to nothing at all on millions of dollars in unearned wealth while the working class supports our country.