Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Russia and the President's Address to Congress

Mr. President, on Tuesday night, along with my colleagues, I listened to the President of the United States address the joint session of Congress. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was particularly interested to hear what the President would be saying about American foreign policy.

I heard him say during the speech that American foreign policy would be based on the respect of the sovereign rights of nations, which is something that I strongly believe in. I then thought I would hear the President talk about one of our greatest challenges from a country that is not respecting the sovereign rights of the United States of America, that country being Russia. But the President didn't mention Russia at all in his State of the Union address, which really surprised me.

When we look at Russia's most recent conduct and know what they did in regard to their attack on the U.S. democratic election system, it is beyond dispute that they wanted to interfere with our free elections, they wanted to affect the credibility of our democratic election system, and they wanted to influence the outcome of the election. That is pretty clear from the evidence that we have seen to date. Yet

the President did not mention that at all--a country that had attacked us as recently as just a few months ago. There was no mention in the President's State of the Union address.

It wasn't an isolated attack by Russia on the United States. We knew that before that, when we saw Russia's influence in regard to Montenegro's elections and how they tried to impact their parliamentary elections to influence Montenegro's decision to join NATO. We know that Russia is attempting to influence the elections in Western Europe.

So we have a country that is trying to bring down our democratic system of government by using our democratic system of government, and the way that we conduct open elections, to compromise our system.

But that is not the only thing Russia has done that is contrary to the U.S. national security and our foreign policy objectives. We know that they have physically incurred into other countries. They have physically incurred into Ukraine. Today, Russia has annexed Crimea-- something we will never recognize. Crimea is part of Ukraine. Russia is continuing to support the separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine, compromising Ukraine's sovereignty.

The President did not mention that in his State of the Union address.

We know that Russia is in Georgia, in Moldova, and other sovereign countries; once again, no mention of that.

And then Russia is very much engaged in the Middle East. We know that Russia's footprint in the Middle East is growing. They have their military presence in Syria, backing the Assad regime, facilitating Iran's participation in Syria.

We also know that the type of conduct that has been conducted under Russian support, where civilians have been targeted, humanitarian convoys have been attacked, amounts to war crimes--a situation where Russia has culpability; yet, we don't hear anything about that.

So we have a role. Congress has a role to play in making sure that we protect our national security interests.

First and foremost, we have to know what is going on. We have to know what Russia was doing. We have to know what Russia's intentions were when they compromised our cyber security and used that information to try to influence our elections. We have to know what Russia's intentions are all about regarding the contacts they have made with Americans in their effort to influence this campaign. We have to understand what Russia's intentions are as they relate to democratic countries.

We saw in General Flynn's case that a contact was made, and as a result of not coming forward with that, General Flynn has left the Trump administration. And then we find out yesterday that the Attorney General, as a U.S. Senator, had contact with the Russian Ambassador, and that information was not made available during the confirmation process.

The timing of that meeting in Senator Sessions' office is concerning. It is concerning because it was right at the time that Russia was the most active in trying to get information that they could use to influence our elections. So this is an important aspect for us to understand.

We need to understand why that meeting took place and what was involved in that meeting. There have been calls by Members on both sides of the aisle that we get that type of information.

But I will add one more dimension to this: Why was the Russian Ambassador interested in meeting with Senator Sessions during the campaign period? Was this part of an overall strategy by Russia to try to influence the election? We need to get the answers to that.

The only way we are going to be able to get a complete account of what has happened by Russia's attack on the United States is by setting up an independent commission. Russia may not have used MiGs to attack America. They may have used a mouse. But it was an attack. And when we were attacked on 9/11, Congress did right thing--they set up an independent special commission to understand what happened, how we were so vulnerable to an attack, so that we could take steps to protect ourselves from future attacks and hold those responsible accountable. That was a bipartisan effort by the Congress of the United States, setting up an independent commission, a commission where the members could devote their entire full time to the assignment, because that is how serious being attacked is. There was no limit on their jurisdiction. They could go where the facts led. They could give a report to the American people so there would be credibility that we, the policymakers, are going to have independent information in order to act to protect the national security of the people of this country. That is what that independent commission meant. That independent commission met. They made many recommendations on eliminating a lot of the stovepiping of intelligence information and combining agencies together. Congress acted on those recommendations. As a result, we are safer today than we were prior to 9/11.

We need to be safer tomorrow than we are today from the attacks of Russia. The only way we are going to be able to get that objective information with the credibility so that we can act in the best interests for the people of this Nation is to have a nonpartisan, independent commission take a look at what Russia was doing, get all the facts, find ways and recommendations to make us safer, give the credibility to the American people, and then Congress needs to act in order to protect our national security. I know we have some committees looking at this. I know the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing some very important work. I support that.

We have our responsibilities in Congress to take steps within the jurisdictions of our committees. I am for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee looking into what Russia was doing in order that we can protect the jurisdiction of our committee to do a better job in our bilateral relationship with Russia, or what Russia is doing in Europe or in other parts of the world that affects our national security under the jurisdiction of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We need to do that work. The Intelligence Committee needs to do their work. Armed Services needs to do their work. Judiciary needs do their work.

But we need one central investigation that includes the broad jurisdiction that can get to answer why the Russian Ambassador may have wanted to see a U.S. Senator who was active in one of the campaigns that close to the elections, that has an opportunity to understand why Russia was so active in their cyber attacks in America, getting so much information, so much political information, why Russia was trying to understand our election system. There is no evidence that they tried to manipulate individual votes. That didn't happen--at least we don't believe that happened--but we know they were looking into how we do that. Was that for some future use? We need to understand that to protect our democratic system of government. That is what an independent commission will allow us to be able to receive.

I urge my colleagues to respond to the national security challenge of Russia, and let's establish an independent commission.

There are other things we need to do. There are two bills I filed with my Republican colleagues to make it clear that it is not going to be business as usual with Russia. There are going to be consequences to what they have done to the United States and our national security interests.

One bill that I filed, of which Senator Graham is the principal sponsor, is to make sure that Congress carries out its responsibility of oversight in regard to our bilateral relationship with Russia. It is the Russia Review Act, which would require the President of the United States to submit to Congress for review any attempt to eliminate or modify the current sanctions against Russia. He would be required to submit that to the Congress of the United States, hopefully working with us and consulting with us before he makes decisions but giving us an opportunity to weigh in before that decision could take effect.

For my colleagues who remember the Iran nuclear agreement, it sounds very familiar. Senator Corker and I, Senator Menendez, Senator Kaine, and others worked on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. It passed nearly unanimously in the Congress. It required a President to submit that

agreement to us before it could take effect. It made the negotiations much more transparent. As a result, I believe we had a stronger agreement, but we also had a more open process, and Congress had a chance to carry out its responsibility. In a similar vein, it is important that we pass the Russia Review Act so that we can carry out our responsibilities, preventing the President from taking unilateral action without consulting with us. This is bipartisan; we have Democrats and Republicans working on this. I hope we will be able to pass this bill in a timely way.

The third bill I want to bring to my colleagues' attention as it relates to Russia's activities in the United States is legislation that I have filed with Senator McCain and many others. We have a large number of Democrats and Republicans who have cosponsored this bill that would increase the sanctions against Russia because of their attack against us. It would expand the options for imposing sanctions to different sectors that could affect Russia's energy, that could affect the ability of Russia to finance their sovereign debt, that could affect Russia's ability to privatize their industries by making it clear that we are not going to allow Americans or companies to help finance these activities because in reality they are financing activities against our interests, such as the cyber attacks, as we saw last fall.

This legislation is comprehensive. It deals more than just with sanctions; it deals with another major problem that we have found. Through NATO and U.S. leadership, we have made it clear that we will defend the countries of NATO, and we have deployed troops to make it clear to Russia that they better not try to compromise the territorial integrity of the member states.

This initiative has been well received by Europe and has countered Russia's attempts to cause a fracture within the European community. We need a similar initiative on democracy, a democracy initiative, because not only is there a threat against Europe from their geographical boundaries, there is a threat against Europe in regard to their democratic institutions. We know that. We saw that here in America. It is being challenged in Europe. So this democratic initiative would allow us to participate in strengthening the democratic institutions in Europe so that we don't allow Russia to use the democratic institutions to try to bring down the democratic institutions.

There is another part of this legislation which I think is extremely important. We are all getting to better understand the tactics being used by Russia, this fake news--inventing news and then using the social media to make it look like it is the hottest news in town. We know they are good at that. We also know they are very good at propaganda, and they go in directions that we, prior to this election, thought we would never see in our own country. We are now seeing it more frequently. Part of this legislation is for us to develop a capacity to be able to counter this propaganda and fake news so that Russia's deployment of it will not compromise our national security.

I think all three bills will be considered shortly and favorably by this body--setting up an independent review commission; requiring the President to submit any changes in the Russian sanctions to the Congress for review before they could take effect; and strengthening our sanctions regime against Russia for its conduct, including strengthening our commitment to democratic institutions and fighting this new cycle of fake news.

I also listened to the President during the State of the Union Address when he said that our foreign policy calls for a direct, robust, and meaningful engagement with the world. That is another statement I happen to agree with. And then I thought about what I had heard a little earlier that day: that the President's budget was going to have about a 30- to 35-percent cut--it wasn't exactly clear, but it was a large number--to the State Department.

I said: How are you going to have a robust and meaningful engagement in the world if you cut our diplomacy budget, you cut our development assistance budget? This is how we keep the world safe. This is how we get our goals accomplished globally.

We have had so many hearings in our committee where there is a much greater need. We need to do more in Africa in promoting democracy. We need to do more in the Middle East in promoting good governance and inclusive governance so we don't have to have as many wars. We need to do things in our own hemisphere. We heard today in a hearing what is happening in Venezuela. There is a lot of work for America to do. A 30- percent cut? Is that a more direct, robust, and meaningful engagement within the world? It didn't sound that way to me. I was concerned about that and how we are going to be able to gauge.

It was Secretary Mattis who said: If you don't give the Secretary of State the resources, you better give me more soldiers.

And they are more expensive. We have the best fighting force in the world, and we are going to support our fighting force. The way we show respect for our soldiers is to use them only as a matter of last resort. Diplomacy is critically important for America's national security.

A strong, credible Office of the President is equally important if we are going to be able to be the type of country that influences our values globally, and the President of the United States has put that at risk. That is why I am reintroducing my resolution to try to avoid a constitutional crisis. I introduced it before President Trump took the oath of office, and I am introducing it again to avoid a constitutional crisis. It deals with the emoluments clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Every modern President of the United States prior to President Trump, in order to avoid conflict, in order to do what is ethically right and to comply with the Constitution of the United States--the emoluments clause--has either divested their financial holdings or has set up a blind trust. Some have done both. That is the way that the ethics officers tell us you can comply with not just the Constitution but with the highest ethical standards so that there are no real conflicts and you don't have any perceived conflicts, which can be just as damaging to the credibility of a public office holder.

President Trump, by not divesting, by not setting up a blind trust, has put the Office of the Presidency, our country, in a compromising position.

Let me give some specific examples, if I might. I will mention three countries. I could mention more.

Saudi Arabia. Very interesting country, Saudi Arabia. In August 2015, the Trump organization filed eight separate business companies to do business in Saudi Arabia. As we all know, the President's Executive order that was originally issued that excluded immigrants from seven Muslim countries from visas did not include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia even though, as we all know, many of the participants in the 9/11 attack against the United States originated from the country of Saudi Arabia. President Trump has vast business interests in Saudi Arabia.

Let me quote President Trump:

Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy

apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I

supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.

It is not a question, Mr. President, of whether they like you or they don't like you; under our Constitution, they cannot give you any favor. If they give you a business favor, that is an emolument and violates the Constitution of the United States and violates your oath of office.

In regard to Turkey, Turkey has two large-scale developments in the country that are under the Trump organization. The Trump organization has a partnership with a luxury furniture company, Dorya International, to build pieces to be sold under the Trump Home Collection brand and a multimillion-dollar branding deal with the Dogan Group-- the Dogan Group is run by one of the most politically influential families in Turkey--for a two-tower complex in Istanbul. According to President Trump's May 2016 financial disclosure, he received as much as $1 million in royalties from the first venture and as much as $5 million from the second venture.

Because President Trump has not properly divested himself from his business, he will presumably continue to receive royalties from both ventures, and these business arrangements are not unknown to Turkey's leadership. President Erdogan presided over the opening ceremonies of Trump Towers, Istanbul.

Shortly after the election, President Trump held a phone call with President Erdogan in which he praised his business partners. There are substantial business interests known by the Turkish Government that Mr. Trump has in their country. Mr. Erdogan is not shy about talking about and using the Trump Towers. He has bragged about it. We have a lot of foreign policy decisionmaking that affects Turkey. We need to know that when the President is making those decision, it is America's interest which is at the front and center, not the Trump Organization's interests that are affecting those decisions. That is why we have the emoluments clause, that is why we believe in avoiding conflicts, and that is why President Trump needs to divest of his interest or set up a blind trust.

I will mention one other country, if I might. That country is China. For a decade, the Trump organization has been trying to get a trademark of its brand in China. I am going to quote from Mr. Trump on February 7, 2011, when he wrote to the American Ambassador in China. This is what Mr. Trump said: ``I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to secure my own name and globally recognized brand for Chinese individuals who seek to trade off my reputation.''

For 10 years he was fighting to get that trademark protection. It was granted on February 14, 2017, a few weeks after President Trump took the oath of office, shortly after President Trump stated that he would support the One China policy, something the Government of China strongly wanted him to say.

We don't know connections. We can't draw connections. We don't know that. That is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution, so you cannot accept any favors from another country. It is against our Constitution. Yet we have concerns as to whether the President is acting under that interest. That is just wrong and it needs to stop. What the President has done is established a circumstance where there is an appearance of conflict, where it looks like foreign governments are trying to influence his decisions.

He has affected America's standing to advance good governance and corruption. I want to underscore that point. He is compromising America's moral authority on the values we hold so dear. Our Western democratic values are being compromised because leaders of autocratic countries, corrupt leaders, can say: If it is all right for the President of the United States to keep his business holdings while he is President, what is wrong with me having an interest in some of our entities here? It takes away our effective ability to use diplomacy to solve problems or advance our goals. We are being compromised. The current arrangement is simply inadequate.

President Trump announced he is going to let his two adult sons handle his businesses, but he still maintains his financial interests. He gives a couple of different other things he is going to do. I will just go over one or two of them.

He says he is going to donate the profits from his foreign hotels to charities. That sounds good.

Let me just quote from Steve Carvell, a professor at the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, who said:

It's a monumental task to constantly run this down. Even if

the company is trying its hardest and making its very best

effort, it will be difficult to fulfill that goal.

Let's get serious about this. The arrangements he set out will not solve the conflict. It will not comply with the Constitution of the United States. The Office of Government Ethics said on the President's proposal it is ``wholly inadequate.'' That is the Office of Government Ethics. They go on to say: ``The plan the [President] has announced doesn't meet the standards that the best of his nominees are meeting and that every President in the last four decades has met.''

I am a lawyer but would not claim to be a constitutional expert. Let me quote, if I might, from constitutional experts. Richard Painter, Norm Eisen and Laurence Tribe have written a comprehensive study of the constitutional provisions, concluding that ``since emoluments are properly defined as including `profit' from any employment, as well as `salary,' it is clear that even remuneration fairly earned in commerce can qualify.''

Richard Painter, the chief ethics officer for President George W. Bush, stated it in a blunter fashion. He said:

This is a for-profit hotel. [Trump] is making profits over

dealing with foreign governments. Same with the loans from

foreign government-owned banks. Those are for a for-profit

business. That is prohibited under the Emoluments Clause of

the Constitution.

Let me just conclude with this. This is not about any one person. This is about the Office of the President. This is about our constitutional form of government that depends upon the Office of the President being respected. It is bigger than any one person. The Framers of our Constitution went on to say: We recognize it. We know the faults of men. That is why we set up the Constitution, to protect against the frailties of individuals.

This is about the Office of the President of the United States, not about any one person who may occupy it 4 to 8 years. We need to protect the Office of the President, and that is why we need to act now to avoid this constitutional crisis of the President of the United States, who has put our Nation at risk because of his personal conflicts and because of his violation of the Constitution of the United States.

I call upon President Trump to live up to the values of the Constitution. Give the American people the transparency they deserve and completely sever his relationship with the Trump Organization before we are embroiled in an ethical and constitutional crisis that will not serve the best interests of the President, Congress or the American people.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying resolutions.

The resolutions that this rule provides consideration for threaten our air and don't protect the American people. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that somehow repealing these rules will create jobs. It will actually destroy jobs, jobs that are associated with recapturing methane.

This is what a methane flare looks like. I drive by them in Colorado, and the potential for capturing, rather than flaring that methane, is important for the quality of our air and to reduce our emissions.

The House majority has made it their priority to instill fear and uncertainty in hardworking American families. People, who come here legally on visas who have lived here for many years, even small businesses, rather than focusing on jobs or having constructive conversations about immigration, are worried about their employees and, in some cases, even their owners being deported or not allowed back after conducting business overseas.

Republicans apparently would rather help shield large corporations from transparency, eliminate regulations that protect families from water and air pollution, and require companies to follow wage rules.

To add to this uncertainty and fear, President Trump has signed an executive order already that bans refugees and citizens from predominantly Muslim countries. Well, America is a nation of immigrants--those who fled political and religious persecution, violence in their home countries, and those seeking to build a family in a country that values freedom and upholds civil rights.

Our new President has decided that the best use of taxpayer money is to build a wall on our southern border. Our President has used his first 2 weeks in office to generate fear and uncertainty among vulnerable households who may lose their health insurance rather than create jobs and improve our economy. The new President has even limited the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to communicate with the public about things like methane flaring.

The two Congressional Review Act resolutions we are discussing today--like the previous ones that, I should point out, do not follow regular order--they didn't receive any hearings in this Congress. They were a closed rule with no amendments allowed. I offered two amendments to the methane rule amendment. Neither were allowed to even be debated on this floor of this House, no less adopted.

I would like to quote from Speaker Ryan when he took the gavel in October of 2015. He said: ``We need to let every member contribute--not once they have earned their stripes, but right now.'' In a further quote, Speaker Ryan said: ``The committees should retake the lead in drafting all major legislation. If you know the issue, you should write the bill. Open up the process.''

``In other words, we need to return to regular order.''

Yet, here we are again with two CRAs that did not come through regular order, did not have a hearing with no opportunity for Members on either side of the aisle, Democrats or Republicans, with good ideas to make these pieces of legislation any better. Apparently, Speaker Ryan's commitment doesn't apply to CRAs or issues that keep our air and water clean or protect workers.

I would like to ask that Speaker Ryan explain to his colleagues how he is sticking to his commitment of regular order and to clarify what that means.

Not one amendment was allowed to be heard on the floor on either of these bills. This is a closed rule, including two of mine.

First, let's talk about the methane waste rule. It is very important to my constituents where fracking has worsened the quality of the air and upset neighborhoods across my district in Colorado.

The first amendment offered in the Rules Committee was to the methane waste rule, and it would have added Bureau of Land Management scientific findings. It would offer transparency and truth to this Congressional Review Act, providing facts about methane, methane waste, and why it is necessary for this rule to be moved forward. Without this rule, we would be seeing a lot more of this in areas like my district and my State.

In the last few weeks, a war on science has been begun by this administration. If we support facts, then we should let facts speak for themselves and be as objective as possible. We should have allowed that amendment which would have listed the scientific truths around methane and this rule.

Scientific facts are clear. The current rule would supply energy for up to 740,000 more households per year. Rather than burn that methane into the atmosphere, we can actually provide energy for 740,000 more households; and that methane is 25 times more dangerous and potent as carbon dioxide for worsening the impact of global warming.

Even if you want to ignore the energy impact of helping more Americans have power or the climate impacts of increasing climate change, if we look at this rule from a jobs perspective, this CRA would destroy American jobs.

I would like to explain how this methane waste CRA rule will affect the jobs of thousands of employees of the more than 70 companies headquartered in the U.S. that provide services and equipment to identify and capture natural gas and methane leaking from pipelines, processing equipment, and wells, including many in my home State of Colorado. This rule directly threatens the livelihood of many businesses and employees in my home State.

If, for some strange reason, the job creation argument isn't enough for you, how about the hundreds of millions of dollars American taxpayers would collect over the next decade from additional royalties?

Oil and gas companies are required to pay for the methane they collect and sell from public lands, and the more that is captured rather than burned off, the better not only for the companies and the employees, but also for taxpayers as we try to reduce our budget deficit.

An estimated $140 million in royalties over the next decade would be lost if this CRA moves forward. That is $140 million more in deficit spending that this rule signifies if it were to pass, and

that is why it is opposed by Taxpayers for Common Sense and most other fiscally conservative groups.

Again, if job creation, science, and taxpayer savings aren't enough, how about the cancer-causing impacts, carcinogenic effects, of oil and gas drilling?

Stacy Lambright lives in Thornton, Colorado, near my district with her husband, Eric, and her two kids, Jack and Molly. Stacy became a community activist and a member of Moms Clean Air Force after she found out her neighborhood park frequented by children and families was directly next to a leaking oil and gas fracking well.

Stacy and her family have been living in the neighborhood for over 14 years, and they have started to experience health concerns after oil and gas drillers moved in. Since 2015, Stacy's been documenting an unusual amount of nosebleeds in her family. Just as recently as Monday, her daughter had a nosebleed, while her son had six nosebleeds last month, something they never had before. And Stacy's husband's asthma has significantly increased.

They have lived in the neighborhood for 14 years and only recently, since the drilling occurred, have they had these health impacts. There have been no changes in their home or surrounding neighborhood other than the increased amount of fracking and oil and gas wells and leaks, documented leaks, to existing wells.

This methane rule further threatens the health of constituents as we gather additional data, and that is why Stacy is advocating for stronger legislation and better management practices, not worse management practices, with regard to existing oil and gas wells.

The safety and health of Stacy's family should be a top priority for Congress, but it appears, instead, the Republicans' top priority in this resolution is bringing us back to a time when our water is polluted, our skies are smoggy, and health issues from dirty air are a burden for families.

I know it has been argued--we probably will again--that oil and gas companies are fixing and capping leaks on their own, but that is false. There is a massive amount of gas leaked every day, and these companies have not reduced methane emissions from the field one bit. Again, absent this rule, we will see more of this kind of activity, not less.

Another argument is that infrastructure, like pipelines, is important to prevent methane flaring. And of course that is true, but a GAO report says that only 9 percent of venting and flaring is due to the lack of infrastructure, so it is only a small part of the overall issue.

And, by the way, this rule doesn't block or in any way impede any new infrastructure projects, and more infrastructure alone clearly won't solve the problem of leaking wells and flaring methane.

The issue of leaking methane, in particular, is partially addressed by this rule, which, by the way, doesn't go far enough. However, what they wrote has been proven to work in creating jobs and cleaning up our air.

In Colorado, we have a methane rule that, frankly, this rule is largely based on, and I know it has worked in Colorado. And while we need to do a lot better in my home State, at least some level of baseline can work for the whole country.

Oil production on Federal lands went up 28 percent between 2010 and 2015 under the Obama administration. There is no question that BLM has and still has authority to regulate methane. It is a waste of taxpayer money, a misuse of our public lands to do anything other than to reduce our methane emissions.

Just as an aside, the benefits of this rule include increased job creation, cleaner air, healthier families, and the climate.

BLM was extraordinarily conscientious when drafting this rule. They held eight public forums. They extended the comment period for 75 days. Over 300,000 public comments were collected and addressed. The BLM's methane rule was done out in the open with public input as opposed to, by the way, this process, which was done behind closed doors, without a public hearing, and didn't even have a committee hearing.

It doesn't make sense to use the CRA to repeal this BLM methane rule. This BLM methane rule creates jobs, protects our families, saves taxpayer money, and reduces our budget deficit.

The second amendment I offered got to the heart of the problem with CRAs in general. Regardless of the rules that they are impacting, they are a reckless, blunt tool, and they are not the right instrument for honest, thoughtful legislating.

If Congress has a problem with the authority under which the methane rule was issued, we should amend the statutory authority of the agency, not use a congressional resolution of disapproval.

My other amendment simply said that the agency has the right and authority to write a rule impacting this issue which, otherwise, the CRA could effectively prevent; and due to that uncertainty, passing the CRA creates even more uncertainty for the industry.

As the Denver Post, a newspaper that has endorsed dozens of Republicans over the last few years, said in regards to this methane waste rule: ``Congress is getting ready to use an ax where it needs a scalpel.''

The Congressional Review Act is one of the most ridiculous tools to be used by Congress, and, regardless of whether you disagree or agree with the policy, the better way to approach it would be to amend the statutory authority of the agency to make it clear whether they have the authority to issue this kind of rule and under what conditions.

While we may disagree on that, and we may be able to offer and bring to the floor amendments regarding agency authority, that is the appropriate venue for this discussion.

Let's move on to the other bill under this rule, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces bill. My Republican colleagues continue to refer to this order as a problematic order. Unfortunately, it is another attempt to mislead the American people. This is a tactic the Republican elite have called ``providing alternative facts.''

The rule under CRA today comes from the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order, and it is sorely needed legislation. What this rule says is, if you are a company that consistently breaks the law, without regard for your workplace, workers, taxpayers, or the community, you should not receive millions of dollars in taxpayer contracts.

It makes common sense to me. If you are abusing workers, have engaged in tax fraud, why would we want to contract with you with our taxpayer dollars?

Companies that cut corners in safety or fair pay, dozens of other areas, shouldn't get to compete for our taxpayer money against good actors and companies that play by the rules. Everybody needs to start from a level playing field.

Now, to be clear, there are only a few bad actors. The vast majority of companies have no issue at all with this rule. But unscrupulous actors who have ignored the law, violated the law, cut corners, should not be rewarded; and, to this day, there are a few bad actors that continue to receive billions of dollars of your taxpayer money in Federal contracts.

In 2010, a GAO report proved that there was a problem. GAO investigated 15 Federal contractors cited for violating hundreds of Federal labor laws enforced by the Department of Labor, OSHA, and the National Labor Relations Board. The Federal Government awarded these 15 Federal contractors over $6 billion in government contract obligations, your money going to known violators in 2009 alone.

How about that for waste, fraud, and abuse?

Now, look, I don't know about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but fiscal responsibility is core to my beliefs as a Member of Congress. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of an amendment to require a balanced budget.

I believe in the value of hard work and personal responsibility. If we know a company is cutting corners, taking the easy way out, and avoiding the responsibility of the law, why would we reward them with your money?

Organizations throughout the country, representing a diverse group of stakeholders, agree. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Service Employees International Union

all join me in opposition to this Congressional Review Act. They recognize the value of hard work. They don't support companies who cheat. I don't know why my Republicans colleagues do.

This rule modernizes an antiquated system. Right now it is virtually impossible for procurement officials to know if company A has had any violations when they are up against company B for a contract. If company A has been cheating workers out of overtime and that allows them to underbid Company B, they shouldn't get the contract and be rewarded for violating the law.

This executive order will increase coordination, simplification, access to information, and streamline the system.

This executive order does not set up any way for companies to be banned or disbarred. That process has always existed and will still exist alongside this as a separate, independent process. In fact, what this process does is it provides a remedial path for companies to right the ship, to get right with the law, to be eligible, once again, for Federal contracts.

A simple or rare mistake should, of course, not bar a company from participating in the Federal recruitment process. Instead, companies with repeated and excessive transgressions should be helped to follow the law and create a better workplace and be rewarded to be better stewards of taxpayers dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I am prepared to close if the gentleman doesn't have any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, the gentleman from Oklahoma referenced that these have been the subject of hearings. I would point out that there are over 50 new Members of this body who were not part of the last Congress who have not had a chance to look at it. And there has been time.

They could have had hearings and markups last week or the week before

prior to these bills coming to the floor. I just came from a hearing in one my committees today. So they certainly could have been done consistent with the timeline, had that been the desire.

But, again, the better approach, the correct approach, would be to amend or change the authorities of the authorizing agency for these rules, rather than use the CRA process.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump's immoral and unconstitutional executive order banning Syrian refugees and suspending immigration from many countries is an attack on our core American values as a nation of law and a nation of immigrants.

This callous indifference of human suffering not only has tarnished and hurt our image abroad but harmed our national security by alienating allies and providing terrorist groups with new recruiting tools.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund this dangerous executive order.

Let me be perfectly clear for people watching what this vote means. A ``no'' vote on the previous question gives us the opportunity to overturn this order and bring up Representative Lofgren's bill. A ``yes'' vote means the House will continue to do nothing to stop President Trump's executive action and, instead, choose with allowing more methane to be spewed into the atmosphere.

This will be the third such vote the House takes this week, and, so far, every vote cast by a Republican Member in Congress has been in favor of turning a blind eye to President Trump's unconstitutional and dangerous order.

The American people should take notice and insist that their elected Representatives vote ``no'' and reject this administration's disgraceful policy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

The fact that these CRA proposals that we have before us have not gone through any sort of special order, regular order; the fact that CRAs are cumbersome and reckless tools; and the fact that all they do is take away protections from our air and from our workers should make it easy for every Member of this body to join me in voting ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying bills.

We should be keeping regulations and standards predictable that put Americans at the top of our priority list, not oil and gas companies, and not companies that are bad actors and violate our law by refusing to pay overtime to their workers.

We should value clean air, and we should value companies that play by the rules. We should value regulations that protect our taxpayer dollars rather than increase our deficit by $140 million. We can do all of these things by simply defeating this rule and defeating the underlying bills.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying bills.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this is the 32nd time I have come to the

floor in the last year to talk about an issue that unfortunately is getting worse--not better--and that is the epidemic of opioids; that would be heroin, prescription drugs, and now, more recently, synthetic heroin, also known as fentanyl or U-4 or carfentanil.

Every single day we are now losing 144 Americans to drug overdoses. Think about that, every single day, 144 people. By the way, that means, during the time it takes to give these remarks, which will be about 12 minutes, on average, we are losing another American to this opioid epidemic.

It is an issue that is now so serious that it has overtaken car accidents or even homicides from gun violence as the No. 1 accidental cause of death in our country.

It is easy to get discouraged because we see these statistics. We hear about the overdoses. We hear about the deaths. We hear about the difficulty for people to get out of the grips of this addiction. The relapse rate is high. It is an issue that is affecting every single community in this Chamber. By the way, it is affecting our inner cities, it is affecting our suburbs, it is affecting our rural areas and every group of Americans out there. No one is immune from this, and it knows no ZIP Code.

Yet today I want to talk a little about some of the reasons for hope and some of the models of success out there because this Congress, to its credit in the last year, has actually gotten much more serious about this issue. We passed two pieces of legislation to help; particularly, to provide better prevention and education to keep people from getting into the funnel of addiction and then, second, to help in terms of providing the resources: the treatment, the recovery. The longer term recovery, in particular, it is the first time Congress has stepped up on that.

We also need to do a better job ensuring that our law enforcement and our other first responders have what they need to save lives and to be able to reverse the effects of overdoses through this miracle drug called naloxone or Narcan. It is part of the legislation that has not just been passed but is beginning to be implemented.

Fortunately, in my own State of Ohio--although we have one of the worst addiction problems in the country--we also have a lot of really compassionate people who have stepped forward and are taking advantage of these resources, including not only resources from Washington now but also from State and local governments and from so many nonprofits out there. They are taking advantage of that to provide better treatment, better recovery, and better prevention. As a result, they are saving lives.

On Saturday, I visited a group called Clean Acres in Wilmington, OH. It is a farm that provides recovery housing for men. These are men who are struggling with addiction. They work on the farm. They provide each other support, and it has been very successful for a lot of them.

I met a guy named Dan, who told me how Clean Acres is helping him get his life back. For over a decade, he was a heroin addict. He shot up every morning until one day, he was actually at work, and he passed out. He was digging a ditch, and he passed out.

He was rushed to the hospital. The doctors discovered he had a very serious infection related to his intravenous drug use. He required emergency, lifesaving surgery right then.

The doctors told him he might not wake up. He did wake up after that surgery, and there before him were his three kids. He hadn't seen them in 5 years because--in so many cases you hear this and as Dan said this--the drugs became everything. He said, not his family, not his relationships, not his friends, not his work--the drugs became everything. These three kids had come to his bedside because they thought it might have been his deathbed, he said.

He saw these three kids, whom he hadn't seen in 5 years. He said that even after having experienced this near-death operation and having his three kids there, the first thought that came to his mind was: Where can I get another hit? Where can I get another hit? But then, in the situation he was in, he prayed, and he said his prayer was: ``Lord, help me get out of here.'' ``Help me get out of here,'' meaning, ``help me get out of this situation.''

He made a decision. He was going to try treatment again. He had tried treatment before. So many recovering addicts and addicts I talk to around my State have been in and out of treatment programs, detox treatment. It hasn't worked.

He decided this time he was not just going to get into treatment, but he was going to try something different, which was not to go back to the old neighborhood, not to go back to his old friends, but instead to try longer term recovery. That is how he ended up at Clean Acres. That is this farm where he and other men live together. They work, but they support each other to try to keep their lives on track after their treatment is over. It doesn't provide the treatment, but it does provide them with the meetings they need to be able to have that support around them in order to keep clean.

As one of the men at Clean Acres told me, it is hard to go through treatment. It is much harder to stay clean after treatment.

So Dan is healing himself. He is working at the farm. He plans to go into construction. He has big plans now. That is the hope. That is the opportunity for people to get their lives back on track whom I see every day when I talk to the people in my home State of Ohio.

Last week, I was also at Racing for Recovery, outside of Toledo, OH. I met with Todd Crandell. He has been in recovery from addiction for about 20 years. He is now giving back in a huge way.

I met with parents who had lost children to addiction. They come to Todd's organization, Racing for Recovery. They find support there, and they help other parents to work through this.

I met law enforcement officers there who are working with this recovery facility to try to ensure that the people whom they are locking up aren't going to just get right back into the revolving door again, back in and out of prison, back committing crimes. The No. 1 cause of crime in the State of Ohio is this addiction; people who, again, put the drug first ahead of everything, including their own sense and their own conscience, their own sense of what is moral and right, and instead they are committing burglaries and fraud and shoplifting--anything they can do to get the funds they need to continue their addiction.

I met Jessica at Racing for Recovery. She has been clean for 9 months. Before she sought help, she overdosed for 3 days in a row. She said her life was saved by the police; specifically, a program by the Lucas County Police Department called the Drug Abuse Response Team, DART. I am really impressed with DART and what they are doing. It is now being copied in other communities around Ohio and around the country. DART is being proactive. They got her engaged in treatment and recovery. She is now in sober housing. Todd, Jessica, and others there told me this: Look, you have to have this longer term recovery because that is what works.

A couple of weeks ago, during the State work period, I held a roundtable discussion in Fremont, OH, where I met Matt Bell. Matt is an amazing guy--a charismatic, young guy. He said that for him the gateway drug was marijuana and alcohol in high school. He ended up overdosing on heroin three times. He was convicted of 13 felonies, and he went to detox 28 times. Now he is clean and preventing new addictions from taking place by working nonstop to raise public awareness about the dangers of drug use. He goes around to the schools, and he doesn't just talk to kids who are juniors and seniors. He talks to middle schoolers because he knows he has to go younger and younger to get kids to think about their own futures, about the fact that addiction can happen in one use sometimes, and it is something that can ruin their lives. Thank God for Todd and thank God for Matt, because guys like that are out there every day giving back and they are saving lives.

So I want to thank all these compassionate people I have met--Clean Acres, Racing for Recovery, the Lucas County DART team, and Team Recovery. They are doing the hard work. They are in the trenches trying to actually turn the tide on this growing addiction problem we have. Again, I want to tell them that help is on the way.

Last year Congress did pass the 21st Century Cures Act and authorized

funding for States--$500 million this year and $500 million for next year--to fight this epidemic. Another step we took, which I think was probably the biggest step we have taken in a couple of decades in this area, was the passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or the CARA Act. Those who know about CARA know that it is a new approach on treatment, recovery, and prevention. If you don't know about it, look it up and check it out. Be sure that the groups in your town, wherever you live, know about the fact that they can apply for grant money to be able to help on these recovery services that I am talking about, many of which do not have the funding to be able to be successful without the increases in rehab. Be sure they know about the fact that if you have a fire department in your community that is strapped for cash and cannot afford the Narcan to provide the Narcan treatments, there is an opportunity to apply for grants there, too, to be able to save lives from overdoses. Narcan is not the answer. The answer is to get into treatment. But Narcan is saving lives, and, therefore, it is necessary today. So let people know that is around and is available now.

Sadly, the situation is not getting better, even with these new efforts that are finally being implemented by the new administration. They started at the end of the Obama administration with a couple of programs, and now we have a couple more programs coming on line. Within the next few months, we expect the rest of the programs to be fully implemented. They are absolutely necessary, but they are pushing up against something new, which is, I hate to say, even more dangerous than heroin, and that is this synthetic heroin that is coming into our communities. It is like a poison coming into our communities by the U.S. mail system, if you can believe it.

The experts tell us that most of this fentanyl or carfentanil is being made in laboratories overseas, mostly in China, and it has been coming through the mail system. Why? Because the traffickers don't want to use other private carriers--UPS or FedEx or others--because they require that there be advanced digital information on where the package is from, what is in it, and where it is going. Guess what. We don't require that in the mail system. So the bad guys choose to send it through the mail system instead. That certainly is something the Federal Government should address.

So we have introduced legislation called the STOP Act. It is very simple. It says that if you want to send something to the United States of America, it has to say where it is from--what place in China--what is in the package, where it is going, and it can only go to the place they say it is going. That gives our law enforcement a new tool they are desperate to have because they are not able to look at millions of packages. But they can look at hundreds and this helps them to ferret out those packages that look most suspicious.

By the way, this new stuff, fentanyl and carfentanil, is incredibly powerful and incredibly dangerous. It is believed to be 30 to 50 times more powerful than heroin. Think about that. I was in Dayton, OH, a week before last and was meeting with the law enforcement task force there. They told me the sad story about a little girl, 14 years old, who was told by her friends: You ought to snort this stuff; it is called heroin. She did. It was fentanyl, and she dropped dead. She overdosed and died immediately because it was so powerful. Even a few flakes of it, they say, can kill you.

According to the Cleveland medical examiner of Cleveland, OH, this past month of February, which is the shortest month in the year, was also the deadliest month in Northeast Ohio for fentanyl and heroin. In other words, what they are seeing is not just more overdoses but more deaths because of fentanyl being mixed with heroin or sometimes fentanyl in its pure form. In just 28 days this February, 60 Clevelanders died from overdoses in one month. This is one city in America. There are another seven cases that are undergoing tests, but they are suspected to be the result of heroin and fentanyl overdoses.

What is driving the growth of this epidemic is the increasing use of fentanyl. Drug traffickers are lacing other drugs with it. I was told by the DART task force in Toledo that they are actually putting fentanyl in marijuana now, and people are showing up in the emergency room and overdosing on marijuana because it is sprinkled with fentanyl. It is more addictive. So the traffickers like it. It is more deadly. So we need to fight back. The Drug Enforcement Administration says it takes 2 milligrams of fentanyl to kill you. That is about the same as a pinch of salt. Many heroin users don't realize that the heroin they buy on the street may contain these new incredibly powerful synthetic drugs. So part of the message has to be what one father told me, which is: You are playing Russian roulette every time you use these drugs because you don't know what is in it. If there is fentanyl in it, there is a good chance you won't just overdose, but you will end up as one of these statistics we talked about earlier.

In Lorain, OH, last Monday, a 29-year-old man drove off the road and nearly hit a tree. When police arrived they found him unconscious from an overdose, with a baby in the backseat--a baby in the backseat. It took several doses of this Narcan and naloxone to reverse the effects of the overdose. Ordinarily, it would take only one dose, but with fentanyl-laced heroin it takes more. When police went to his home, a child answered the door and said: Mommy is sleeping, and we can't wake her up. Again, this is the guy that overdosed in the car. They take the kid home and another kid says: Mommy won't wake up. They find out the mother is also unconscious from a heroin overdose that she had in front of her four children. According to police, the couple thought they were using heroin, but tests confirm that it was laced with fentanyl.

This is an opportunity for us in the Congress to pass legislation that will help to be able to stop some of this poison from coming into our communities. At a minimum, it will raise the price, because some of this fentanyl, I am told, is less expensive than even the things that are less powerful, like heroin.

Fentanyl took the life of Erin Jarvis of Troy, OH. Erin was a prom queen. Erin was very popular. She was active in student government. She was captain of her soccer team. She got good grades. She got into Ohio University, a great school.

She had multiple knee injuries from playing soccer, which required surgery. She was prescribed Percocet. She became addicted. At Ohio University, her friend introduced her to a drug that was stronger and cheaper and easier to get. Of course, that was heroin. This story I have heard so many times. There is the overprescribing, sometimes because of an accident and an injury, and, then, somebody becomes addicted and turns to heroin because it is cheaper and easier to get. Erin began disappearing for days at a time, stealing from her family. Her mom Kelly started missing jewelry, credit cards, and even a TV set. When her sister got her wisdom teeth taken out, she stole her sister's Percocet. By the way, she never should have gotten Percocet for her wisdom teeth, in my view.

Erin finally got help. She went to rehab. She decided she wanted to become a nurse and help others struggling with addiction. After receiving treatment, she moved back in with her mom. But she relapsed, and she died. She died at the age of 24 with this promising life ahead of her. Her last words to her mom were these: I love you. The next day Kelly watched her daughter get taken out of their home in a body bag.

Tests showed that Erin died of an overdose of heroin laced with fentanyl. According to the coroner, she hadn't used the full injection. There was a lot left in the needle. He said: I suspect that what was in that syringe was not what she thought it was--exactly.

Families who have loved ones struggling with addiction are worried about the poison pouring into the streets, and you can see why. As deadly as heroin is, this stuff is even worse.

To keep this poison off the streets, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Rubio, Senator Hassan, and I have introduced bipartisan legislation, the Synthetic Trafficking and Overdose Prevention Act, or the STOP Act, which would require the Postal Service to require this simple information that would give our law enforcement the ability to target these packages of fentanyl.

Based on expert testimony in hearings we have had hearings before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, it would make it easier for them to detect those packages. That is what law enforcement is asking for. We should provide it to them. There is a bill in the House that is identical to ours, introduced by Congressman Pat Tiberi of Ohio and Congressman Richard Neal of Massachusetts.

This is not the silver bullet, as I said. It is not the solution. No one has that silver bullet, but it would take away a key tool of drug traffickers and restrict the supply of these drugs, raising their price and making it harder to get. With the threat of this synthetic heroin and this poison coming into our communities every day, we need to act and act now.

So I would urge my colleagues to let their constituents know about the help that is on the way. Tell them about what is going on with the Cures Act and CARA legislation. Put it on your website so they know they can get help with treatment and recovery that was not previously out there. Our law enforcement, first responders, and firefighters can get the help they need to be able to get the training and have the funds for Narcan to save lives. We can do much better in terms of prevention and education. Some of this grant money is directed toward letting people know the connection between prescription drugs and heroin and between fentanyl and heroin.

Finally, to my colleagues, please join us in pushing back against these new poisons coming into our communities by cosponsoring the STOP Act and by requiring that this basic information be provided. With more cosponsors, I think our leadership will be much more likely to take this to the floor. Once it gets to the floor, it can be passed because people know that in their communities all over this country this epidemic must be stopped.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be with you this afternoon. I have a series of other speakers who will be joining me later in the hour from the Progressive Caucus, as we discuss some of the key events of the week from our perspective.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all the Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I love magic, and I bet a lot of people out there watching today love magic, too. Ever since I was a kid, I loved the cup tricks, the card tricks, and the rabbit coming out of the hat. When I was in college, I even used to entertain at elementary school birthday parties, helping to pay my way through college.

The key move in magic, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is the sleight of hand. I looked up the definition of ``sleight of hand'' in the Merriam- Webster Dictionary, which defines it as a cleverly executed deception.

A sleight of hand is also sometimes called a prestidigitation, quick fingers, or legerete de la main, which is the French phrase for ``lightness of hand.'' It is defined as the set of closely related techniques used by a stage magician to manipulate the perceptions of the audience.

Sleight of hand depends on the use of psychology, careful stage misdirection, constant blabbering, and strategic confusion to distract the audience.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has been masterfully deploying sleight of hand ever since his inauguration. With his nonstop tweeting and his incessant mad antics, the President distracts us from the real action, which is what is happening here in Congress. We are witnessing a magic trick on the world's largest stage, the auditorium of American democracy. And we, the people, are the captive, bedazzled, and totally distracted audience of the President. The tweets are a massive sleight of hand distracting us from the serious destruction of public policy and law that is taking place right here in Congress.

I want to say, at the outset, I prefer to think of this as a magic trick because the alternative that the President simply can't control himself is almost too horrific to contemplate.

The Constitution does have a way of dealing with that problem, too, and you can find it in the 25th Amendment.

Today, we are going to assume that all of this is a magic show. I used to coach kids' soccer. And when I coached soccer, I would always tell the kids: Don't bunch. Keep your eye on the ball. Stay in your lane and pass the ball.

Without fail, the youngest kids who are just starting out, they all chase the ball. They move around the field in a big clump, a big mob. And I would say: Don't follow the mob that is following the ball. Go to where the ball is going to be going.

When they are young, they don't know how to do it.

I think that advice applies here as well to America, to the body politic. Don't follow the mob that is following the ball. Let's not be distracted full time by all the tomfoolery and tweetfoolery.

There are important and dangerous things happening right here in Congress right now. While the President is tweeting insults and fake news and inflating his slender college victory and the size of his inaugural crowd and making fun of Meryl Streep and chatting about Nordstrom's department store and talking about how he is going to make Mexico pay for his wall and so on, what is taking place in Congress is the systematic dismantling of the regulatory apparatus that the American public depends on for clean air, clean water, safe food, a decent environment, and control of criminality in the country.

The fundamental political action that we must be paying attention to now is the dismantling of the regulatory apparatus of the Federal Government, which is happening every day right here in the Halls of Congress. This is the apparatus that protects our food, our air, our water, our health care, our financial system, the ability of people to invest safely on Wall Street, occupational safety and health for our workers. All of this is being attacked in terrifying and often invisible ways.

Behind the scenes, while the wizard of odd convenes a dinner in Mar- a-Lago where he entertains a national security crisis discussion in full view of other diners who begin to tweet out and Facebook out what they are seeing happen, while all of that is happening, Congress is rolling back environmental protections to protect streams, rivers, and drinking water from pollution. They are savaging the rules that restrict the volume of greenhouse gas emissions that are leaked into the atmosphere, destabilizing our climate system. Check out H.J. Res. 38 and 36.

While the distractor in chief whines about leaks, while his whole campaign was based on leaks of emails that were captured by Russian agents working to get him elected, in Congress, they are rolling back financial regulations which ensure that workers have retirement savings options, H.J. Res. 66, and which protect consumers from excessive financial risks, H.R. 78.

They have also targeted and rolled back labor regulations that promote safe and healthy workplaces and fair employment practices, H.J. Res. 37.

Amazingly, while President Trump's National Security Adviser, General Flynn, was forced to resign when it was revealed that he had been colluding with Russians to lift the sanctions that the Obama administration had imposed on Russia, here in Congress, we are passing joint resolutions to rescind anticorruption regulations that required oil and gas companies to report monetary payments that they made to foreign governments, H.J. Res. 41.

So Trump tweets about leaks, while his administration is one vast leak to the Russians. And here, Members of the GOP are working to throw an invisibility and secrecy cloak over corporate payments being made to foreign governments and corporations.

While the world is distracted by all of the sleight of hand, this Congress is passing bills to give government back to giant corporations and special interests that care not for the common good but simply for their own bottom line.

Mr. Speaker, as a freshman, I have been here for only 8 weeks. I have to tell you that I am disappointed that I have not voted on a single bill in the House Judiciary Committee that has had so much as a hearing. Yes, I want to repeat that. We have voted on five bills since I got here and not one of them has had a hearing.

Now, I come from the Maryland State Senate where I proudly served for 10 years as a State senator. When we had a bill coming up, no bill could be brought to the floor without a hearing first, and anybody who wanted to come testify on the bill could come testify on it. Now, that is not practicable here in the U.S. Congress. However, we could at least have experts relating to the bill and people who are affected by the bill come in and testify, but we haven't done that in the House Judiciary Committee. Instead, we voted on a series of bills which, to my mind, dramatically curtail the public interest.

Yesterday, we voted on a bill to dismantle, essentially to put into a stifling straightjacket, the class-action mechanism that has been used over the decades to vindicate the interest of people who are victims of sex discrimination, victims of race discrimination, victims of toxic torts, victims of asbestos poisoning. We voted basically to trash class action yesterday without even so much as a bill.

Now, on some of the other bills, it was said to me: Well, there were hearings in prior Congresses. One Member said: We had a hearing on that back in 2012.

This is 2017, 5 years later. But on this particular bill that I am talking about, nobody even heard the bill. There was no hearing on it. It was simply brought up for a vote. That is irresponsible legislation. That is not real democracy when you don't even have a hearing and people who are affected by the legislation don't have the opportunity to come and talk about it.

Now, they are not having hearings because they think--and they are probably right--we're not paying attention. What are we paying attention to? We are paying attention to the magician. We are paying attention to the wizard of odd. We are paying attention to the tweets instead.

The good news is that the audience is starting to wise up. The whole country is waking up to the profound dangers of the administration's financial and political entanglements with Russia, with the Russian corporate and governmental elite.

Just this week, the National Security Adviser, Mr. Flynn, resigned after reports came out about his communications with the Russian Ambassador while President Obama was still in office, communications dealing with the lifting of sanctions on Russia, communications that General Flynn lied about and was forced from office because of it. He misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about his conversations with the diplomat, which was being monitored and recorded by the intelligence community.

Now, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, let's think about this for a moment. As a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mr. Flynn was no innocent about the world of spy versus spy. He must have known that his telephone call with the Russian Ambassador was being monitored and recorded. If he really wanted to go rogue and operate on his own without the permission and the license of President Trump, he never would have allowed that telephone conversation to be recorded. But he did allow it to be recorded. He made the call with presumable full knowledge that other people in the intelligence community would be listening in on it, which leads me to the inescapable, logical conclusion that Flynn knew that, in making that call, he enjoyed the full support of the one person above him who could remove him from his job, the President of the United States.

Now, do I know that? No, I don't know it. I surmise it. How are we going to know whether or not this is true? How do we get to the bottom of the Russian connection in the campaign? How do we get to the bottom of the Russian connection in the Trump administration?

We need to have a full, complete, independent investigation by experts, like the 9/11 Commission, which gets to the bottom of this profound danger, this dagger pointed at the throat of American democracy.

Mr. Speaker, everybody loves magic, I think. Everybody loves the enchantment of being fooled, of being distracted, of being diverted. That is why people go to magic shows. It is diverting. It is amusing. It is fun.

Everybody loves a great magician, too. None was greater in our history than the great Houdini, who dazzled the world with his extraordinary optical illusions and effects, his amazing ability to simulate telepathy and telekinesis.

Houdini also had a very strong ethical and professional code about being a magician. He never revealed a trick. More importantly, he never tried to fool people in order to defraud them. He never tried to fool people in order to humiliate them. He never tried to fool people in order to take away their rights. He never tried to fool people in order to demoralize and crush them or to strip them of their freedom. He never tried to fool people in order to victimize them.

Indeed, in the 1920s, Mr. Houdini channeled all of his magnificent energy away from doing his magic shows and instead put it into the separate but related task of exposing psychics, mediums, con men, charlatans, and practitioners of the occult and the dark arts who did take advantage of people's good will, who did take advantage of people's impressionability to defraud them, to take their money, their belongings, and to distract them from the real world, and to undermine the moral and ethical principles that should govern human behavior and must govern social life.

Although Houdini is no longer with us, he has great heirs today in socially responsible magicians like the Amazing Randi and Penn & Teller.

Already millions of Americans themselves--millions of us in the audience--have woken up to the fact that we have been pulled into an irrational and dangerous fantasy world, an echo chamber of malignant narcissism, cruelty, and paranoia.

It is time for all of us to stop being distracted, to stop being bedazzled, and pay attention to the real game, which is, one, trying to get America to join with Vladimir Putin, a dictator and an autocrat who said that the single greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in order to create an international league of dictators, demagogues, and despots to violate human rights and crush liberal democracy; and, two, to dismantle at home the public regulatory infrastructure which protects our land, our air, our water, our climate, our liberties, our freedoms, our equal rights, and our capacity to function as the greatest democracy on Earth and to function as an efficient and effective government meeting the needs of the people.

The magicians out there--there aren't many--but you have a special obligation to help us blow the whistle, and you are doing it. But it is really the American people--it is all of us who must stand up.

The Constitution talks about three branches of government. Article I is Congress. Article II is the executive. Article III is the judiciary. Let's call Congress the first branch.

But when you think about it, what is even more important than the Congress is the trunk, the roots of democracy. Everything grows up from the people. The branches are out there, but Congress works for the people. The President works for Congress and the people. The Supreme Court and the judiciary work for the people.

It is time for the people to dissolve the spells that have been cast over the country, to say this is a democracy. We operate by the Constitution and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), my good friend, the Assistant Democratic Leader.

Honoring Voorhees College and Denmark Technical College

Mr. Speaker, we should be joined momentarily by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee. I want to close out, though, my own thoughts by responding to something I have been hearing over the last week here in the Halls of Congress.

Now that it is clear from our intelligence agencies, 16 of them, including the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and so on, that Vladimir Putin had a deliberate campaign of espionage, cyber sabotage, propaganda, and fake news to undermine American democracy in the 2016 election, and now that it is clear that there were high-level contacts between Trump associates and officials of the Russian Government, it is no longer being denied by anybody on either side of the aisle. What I have started to hear is, well, sure, they tried to hack our election, and, sure, they leaked thousands of emails, and, sure, they changed the dynamics of the campaign and what people were talking about in the campaign, but there is no proof that they stuffed any ballot boxes or they hacked into the computers. And that is true; we don't know that they stuffed any ballot boxes or hacked into computers, and we will have to see if anything comes out about that when we finally get to do a real comprehensive investigation. But, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we should be terrified and appalled and outraged that they were allowed to go as far as they did.

How many people in this body would accept a foreign entity coming into our congressional districts and spending millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars against us, hacking into our computers, releasing our emails, and completely changing the dynamics of the campaign?

So when I hear from colleagues that, well, yes, they distorted the campaign, they hacked into the campaign, but they didn't steal the election, I think that they are making a distinction with no difference at all. If you derail the campaign, you kidnap the campaign, you hijack the campaign, you have altered the outcome of the election, especially one in which your opponent gets 2.9 million votes more than you did, especially in an election where you were able to torture out only the slenderest of electoral college victories in three States by 70,000 votes.

So I simply reject the constant claim that I am hearing from colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that we don't need to worry about Russian subversion of the 2016 election because it only affected the campaign; it didn't necessarily affect the election outcome. To influence the campaign is to influence the election outcome.

Mr. Speaker, I am seeing Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is not here, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the value of companies doesn't always go up. It is not true that the stock market always goes up and only goes up. It would be nice if Methuselahs at Google and every other company in America could get stock options and end up millionaires, but the truth is the world doesn't work that way. That is why disclosure is very important. That is why there is nothing wrong and no one objects to employees being compensated with stock options, but those employees ought to at least know the value of those stock options.

If you give me a check and it has a monetary value, I can read it and I know how much it is. If you give me stock options and you don't tell me because you don't have to disclose how much they are worth, then that is not fair, and that is what we object to.

This bill simply allows companies to avoid disclosure to employees of what those stock options are worth. That is wrong, and that is why we oppose it.

Let me just start in terms of the context, Mr. Speaker. Today we consider yet another bill in favor of the moneyed interests. Today we consider another bill that basically helps out people who have a lot while so many Americans are struggling to get by and problems abound almost everywhere.

I have got to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the SEC's rule--section 701, to be precise--the priority for this week?

We have been here for about 3 months now. The Republicans have set

the agenda. They are in the majority. They get to decide which bills come up. Why do they keep on bringing up bills that only the moneyed interests want?

Mr. Speaker, in the past few months, congressional Republicans--I almost called them corporate Republicans--who decide which bills are the priority, have brought forth a hodgepodge of pieces of legislation. I will just review a few.

Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation.

Do you think the unemployed want that?

I doubt it.

Republicans have passed and the President even signed a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations like wage theft before winning government contracts. I have got a feeling the employees were not calling for that.

House and Senate Republicans passed laws that allow internet service providers to sell your browser history. I don't think most folks on the internet today were clamoring for that gem, which I was proud to vote ``no'' on.

Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams.

Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption.

H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments, which is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation comes within a certain kind of context--a context where we are not talking about increase in pay, making people safer, making water cleaner, making foreign governments more honest. It is quite the opposite.

In the 3 months that we have been back in Congress, these laws removing competition, removing disclosure, and removing consumer privacy are all priorities of Republicans, who set the agenda.

Mr. Speaker, people who might be clued into this broadcast today need to know what the majority has been up to. It has not been up to business.

These are all multinational corporate interests that don't punish people for polluting, allow them to sell your internet browser's history, allow them to make money off of testing laid-off workers receiving employment compensation that is due them, and don't make corporate interests disclose payments to foreign governments when they drill for oil and minerals.

I just want the American people and Members to understand what is going on here, what is the larger context of this piece of legislation that we look at today.

When I talk to my constituents, they don't bring up any of this stuff. Mr. Speaker, they want to know: Where is the jobs bill? When are we going to get back to work? Somebody said we were going to work on real infrastructure, real fair trade. When is that going to happen?

Well, the people who are in charge around here, I guess they are going to get around to it at some point.

My constituents say: Can't we raise the minimum wage from something higher than $7.25 an hour, which is the Federal minimum wage? When is that bill coming up? Or, what about reconstructing our roads and our bridges and allowing us to raise a gas tax to invest in our Nation's infrastructure?

They say they want to increase skills. Let's invest in preschool, Pell grants, and community college. Let's put the people, not the corporate wish list, first.

Today we are asked to vote on a bill that basically makes it easier for private companies to provide options, like stocks, rather than compensation to their employees. As I have said, fundamentally, this may not be a bad thing if disclosure is made. This bill makes it not required. This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to employees without disclosing financial information to them.

While I am glad to see employers reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive. I don't think that is asking too much, Mr. Speaker.

With this bill, H.R. 1343, it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised or even completely worthless.

Employees could decide to forego a salary increase and accept lower pay in order to receive more stock options; yet, those stock options could be worth way less than they expected.

Why should employees receive less information than any other minority shareholder?

If an employee is trusted enough to run day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the stock. Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision.

It is not difficult to allow participating employees to sign nondisclosure agreements, and it can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm. These firms prepare these types of disclosures to receive rule 701 exemption from the SEC in the first place.

So I am also concerned about the mismatch of power between corporations and their employees, and I am very concerned that employees can be susceptible to pressure. Let me do a quick example.

George Maddox was one of 21,000 people who worked for Enron. After working at Enron for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock valued at $1.3 million. When Enron collapsed, he had literally nothing, Mr. Speaker. All of his retirement was Enron stocks. If you haven't watched the movie ``Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room'' recently, I would urge you to watch it again. You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name.

One image consistently stuck with me: a staff rally where leaders extolled the virtues of the firm. Just as we heard on the other side of the aisle a moment ago, leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy Enron stock, even as leaders knew it was worthless. In fact, corporate leaders had already sold their stock while urging employees to buy. Enron had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring new employees to buy Enron stock to keep the stock price inflated. Since Enron usually fired 10 percent of the workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show commitment to the firm.

I can't just support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors. I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forgo cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option. It is not right.

Mr. Speaker, I see you reaching for the gavel. I will include the rest of my comments in the Record. I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular piece of legislation until it allows for disclosures.

Today we consider another bill requested by corporations.

But, I got to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the Securities and Exchange Commission rules--Section 701 to be precise--the priority for this week?

We've been here for three months now.

House Republicans set the agenda.

They lead this governing body.

Why do they keep bringing us bills that corporate America wants?

In the past few months, Congressional Republicans, who decide which bills are priorities have brought forward a hodgepodge of corporate requests.

Here are some of the bills that are now law.

Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation (H.J. Res. 42).

Republicans passed--and the President signed--a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations--like wage theft--before winning government contracts (H.J. Res. 37).

House and Senate Republicans passed laws that allow internet services providers to sell your browser history.

Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams (H.J. Res. 38).

Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption.

H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments.

Which is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations.

And, a law preventing State governments from setting up retirement plans for residents who do not have a work-based plan.

So, in the three months we've been back, these laws--removing competition, disclosure, and consumer privacy--are the priorities of Republicans who set the agenda.

These are all asks of corporate America--don't punish us for polluting streams; let us sell your internet browser history; let us make money drug testing laid off workers receiving unemployment due them, and; don't make us disclose our payments to foreign governments when we drill for oil or minerals.

When I talk to my constituents, they don't ask for any of these.

They say, ``Where's the jobs bill?''

My constituents say, can't we raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour?

They say, our roads and bridges need work. Let's raise the gas tax a skoch and invest in infrastructure?

They say, we want to increase our skills; let's invest in pre-school, Pell grants and community colleges.

Let's put people, not corporate wish lists--first.

But, nope, today we are asked to vote on a bill that makes it easier for private companies to provide options--like stocks--rather than compensation to their employees.

This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to their employees without disclosing financial information to them.

While I'm glad to see companies reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive.

With this bill--H.R. 1343--it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised, or even, completely worthless.

So, employees could decide to forego a salary increase--or accept lower pay--in order to receive more stock options, yet, those stock options could be worth way less than expected.

Why should employees receive less information than that of any other minority shareholder?

If an employee is trusted enough to run the day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the stock.

Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision.

It's not difficult to allow participating employees to sign non- disclosure agreements.

And it can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm.

Because these companies prepared these types of disclosures to receive the Rule 701 exemption from the SEC in the first place.

I'm also concerned about the mismatch in power between the corporations and their employees.

I am very concerned that employees can be more susceptible to pressure to take options instead of salary increases.

For example, we could ask George Maddox.

George was one of the 21,000 people who worked at ENRON.

After working at ENRON for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock. It was valued at $1.3 million.

Then ENRON collapsed, and he had literally nothing.

All his retirement was in ENRON stocks.

If you haven't watched the movie ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room recently, I'd urge you to watch it again.

You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name.

One image has consistently stuck with me.

A staff rally where leadership extolled the virtues of the firm.

Leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy ENRON stock even as the leaders knew it was worthless.

In fact, corporate leaders had already sold their stock while urging employees to buy.

ENRON had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring the new employees to buy ENRON stock to keep the stock price inflated.

And since ENRON usually fired 10% of workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show a commitment to the firm.

I just can't support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors.

I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forego cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option.

I don't think the supporters of this bill are doing this for nefarious reasons.

I'm sure they find my reference to Enron hyperbolic.

They might also say that it's irrelevant since Enron was a public company and we are talking about private companies.

So, let's talk about Palantir Technologies.

This $20 billion company convinced top-tier engineers to accept below-market salaries by promising them generous stock options.

But some employees who accepted this bargain, hoping to make money on selling their shares, cannot sell them.

The only buyer of their stocks is Palantir Technologies themselves-- or a buyer approved by Palantir Technologies.

Palantir is not a small firm.

Palantir is the third biggest American tech startup, behind only Uber and AIR B-N-B.

It was also founded in 2004, which makes Palantir as old as Facebook--which is a long time to wait to cash in your options.

Pushing employees to own more of employer's stock exposes workers-- like George Maddox--to put all their retirement eggs in one basket-- what we call ``concentration risk.''

I ask this Congress to stop doing the bidding of corporate America until we address the priorities of American families and workers.

We should increase wages and access to affordable housing, provide clean air and clean water, and protect our privacy.

We should not make it easier for employers to pressure workers to choose options over salary without adequate disclosures. Vote no on