Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1084 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is my friend and the ranking member of the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6760, the Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018; H.R. 6757, the Family Savings Act of 2018; and H.R. 6756, the American Innovation Act of 2018.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday we had members of the Ways and Means Committee and other Members who came to the Rules Committee. They came to the Rules Committee to discuss before the committee the important aspects of continuing the economic growth that we have currently right now in our lifetime in the United States of America.

What a great time to be an American. Perhaps more importantly, what a great time to look forward to a great future, a future not only where the American Dream becomes available to each and every person, but even if you happen to be on the lowest end of the totem pole, perhaps beginning work today, those are the people who have benefited from not only the tax cut that President Trump, this House, and the Republican Senate made sure that we pass, but, more importantly, giving to the American worker the opportunity to have, not just a sense of accomplishment, not just a job, but potentially a career that moves forward.

What has happened as a result of that is what brings us to where we are here today.

They say that success has many fathers and mothers. In this case, it is aunts, uncles, and all sorts of people, Mr. Speaker, who can proudly look up and say: I am a part of what is probably the greatest economy that so many people can now enjoy.

Instead of being isolated to one section of this economy, it will abound.

You will hear me talk about even people who get up early in the morning, early risers. I used to be one of those because I threw a paper route. I would have to get up in the morning, and it gave me a lot of time to think about my future as I served what was my paper route, my small business, and my opportunity in second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grade, as I developed myself as a young man--not just as a Scout, to become an Eagle Scout--but as a person who saw himself growing up in a great country, America.

That is how I developed my American Dream. I developed my American Dream by sitting down with my family at a table and understanding Americanism and opportunity. It was about the free enterprise system. It was about a dream that I would have.

For too long, Mr. Speaker, we have had those in government who controlled our lives. They controlled our lives with high taxes, more rules and regulations, and a demand that Washington knew more about our dream than we did.

No more, Mr. Speaker, because last December there was an opportunity--a historic opportunity--that was seen as political because our friends on the other side did not vote for the bill. Even today they take advantage and talk about what are supposedly its frailties. But the American people know differently, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have today in America a higher GDP rate than we do unemployment rate. Today we have the opportunity to see that we are going to grow that GDP by asking this Congress to make permanent that which today is in law for only a short 10 years. We believe that what we have done is to give the American people--even people at the lowest end--the opportunity to take part in making America great again. At that same time, we will make their lives so much better.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we are going to do is we are going to talk about this today, and you will see that there are two different visions. One vision wants to go back to higher taxation, rules and regulations, and government control--government control not just in taxation, but also in healthcare--and we are, as a Republican Party and as the free enterprise party, going to stand up and say that we will be there on behalf of all workers and that we believe that the free enterprise system in this country has produced much that has helped so many people.

That is how we pay for Social Security. That is how we pay for Medicare. That is how we pay for Medicaid. It is done through more people working, not through higher taxes, higher unemployment, and more misery.

So, Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear today the argument that is taking place all across this country on the floor of the House of Representatives, and you are going to see that you, Mr. Speaker, and every single Member, will have an opportunity to say that we believe that the economic opportunity

for all Americans is equity. It is opportunity, and it is available at not just a theater near you but in your hometown.

So we are proud of who we are.

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

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

As my colleague was talking about the dismal results, I turned to my phone here and it is all green up and down on the stock market, because the stock market knows that today we are talking about making permanent the things that work for the American people; things that work well for employers; things that work well for bringing stock market prices, not only back, but understanding that many, many Americans and our seniors across this country have invested in the stock market. It is up 40 percent since we have had an opportunity to pass the tax cut.

The success of the free enterprise system is what my colleagues hate. They want to sell government, they want to sell defeat, they want to sell

the things that are the fear about making progress. The facts of the case are real simple, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from, of all places, The New York Times, that was dated August 3 of this year. On August 3, The New York Times, who does some inciteful reporting, said, ``Workers Hardest Hit by Recession Are Joining in Recovery.''

[From the New York Times, Aug. 2, 2018]

Workers Hardest Hit by Recession Are Joining in Recovery

(By Nelson D. Schwartz and Ben Casselman)

The least educated American workers, who took the hardest

hit in the Great Recession, were also among the slowest to

harvest the gains of the recovery. Now they are a striking

symbol of a strong economy.

The unemployment rate for those without a high school

diploma fell to 5.1 percent in July, the Labor Department

reported Friday, the lowest since the government began

collecting data on such workers in 1992. At the economy's

nadir in the summer of 2009, the unemployment rate for high

school dropouts hit 15.6 percent, more than three times the

peak unemployment rate for college graduates.

Buffeted by technological change and seemingly out of place

in an economy where skills and credentials are in ever more

demand, this cohort struggled while more educated workers

scored jobs and promotions and rose on the economic ladder.

High school dropouts make up 7.2 percent of the labor

force, and some experts doubted they and other low-skilled

workers would ever fully recover from the effects of the

recession, said Betsey Stevenson, a professor of economics at

the University of Michigan.

``As economists, we worried these workers would be shut out

forever,'' she said. ``But the long duration of the recovery

has pulled them back in. As the economy adds more jobs,

employers have had to dig a little deeper.''

reaching fuller employment

Unemployment among the least educated, the group hit

hardest in the recession, has been cut by two-thirds since

its peak of almost 16 percent in 2010.

The improvement in the fortunes of less-educated workers

was a highlight in a jobs report that showed continuing gains

across a broad variety of sectors.

Over all in July, employers increased payrolls by 157,000,

while the unemployment rate edged downward to 3.9 percent,

near the 18-year low achieved in May.

The data echoed other positive economic news recently,

including a report last week showing the economy grew by 4.1

percent in the second quarter.

And the headlines about President Trump's tariffs on steel

and aluminum and a widening trade war with China seem to have

done little to put a damper on hiring. The manufacturing

sector, which is particularly sensitive to exports, was

robust, adding 37,000 jobs.

Although the payroll increase in July was slightly below

what Wall Street was expecting, upward revisions for May and

June alleviated fears of a slowdown.

Several economists linked the shortfall to the shutdown of

Toys ``R'' Us, and the loss of 32,000 jobs at sporting goods,

book and hobby stores last month.

On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve upgraded its view of the

economy's underlying condition from ``solid'' to ``strong.''

The central bank remains on course to raise interest rates

twice more this year, in September and December, to avert

overheating.

Other indicators suggest the recovery is finally extending

its reach. The Labor Department's broadest measure of

unemployment, which includes workers forced to take part-time

jobs because full-time positions are unavailable, fell to 7.5

percent in July, the lowest since 2001.

All this has translated into better economic opportunities

for workers without a college degree, who account for a

majority of the work force. It is a contingent that was

championed by Mr. Trump during his presidential campaign, and

one that both parties want to appeal to in the midterm

elections in November.

The White House was quick to note that the economy is in

the midst of the longest monthly streak of job growth in

history.

And after 94 consecutive months of job creation, bosses and

human resource departments are recalibrating their

requirements.

``You definitely get the sense that employers are willing

to look at workers they haven't looked at in the past,'' said

Martha Gimbel, director of economic research at Indeed.com,

the employment website.

Unemployed Americans who might not have put feelers out in

the past are also venturing back into the hunt for a job, she

said. On Indeed's search engine, much of the growth in

queries lately has been for positions like full-time cashier,

mobile home park manager, maintenance person and fulfillment

associate.

``This is an indicator that low-skilled workers are seeing

opportunities for themselves in the labor market,'' Ms.

Gimbel said.

Until recently at Steel Ceilings in Johnstown, Ohio, the

company's president, Rick Sandor, insisted on a couple of

years' experience in metal fabrication before considering

applicants. But he's had a harder time lately finding workers

for his company, where shifts run from 5 a.m. to 2 p.m. and

temporary positions start at $14 per hour.

He now settles for candidates who show mechanical skills,

like carpentry or heating and cooling repair. Mr. Sandor is

willing to waive the requirement for a high school diploma as

well and has even hired applicants with what he terms

``minor'' prison sentences.

``If a person was truly trying to get their life back

together, we thought it would be helpful to offer them a

job,'' he said.

Unemployment for less-skilled workers has been dropping for

several years, with a pickup in hiring in sectors like

manufacturing, construction and parts of health care. And to

be sure, the month-to-month figures for unemployment among

high school dropouts are volatile.

But the long-term trend is clear, as is hiring among the

sectors responsible for it. Last month, the leisure and

hospitality field recorded a 40,000 gain in positions, with

half of that coming from restaurants.

For example, Buffalo Wings & Rings, a restaurant chain with

60 locations in 13 states, has been stepping up hiring and

opening new restaurants.

Many outlets have seen double-digit sales growth over the

past year, and some are up as much as 40 percent, said Nader

Masadeh, the company's chief executive. The tax cuts that

took effect in January are playing a role, Mr. Masadeh said--

most families may have gotten a relatively small tax cut, but

it is enough to fuel a few more nights out.

``People feel good. They're going out and spending more

money,'' he said. ``In our segment, $50 feeds you and your

family.''

Still, the hot economy brings challenges of its own. At an

annual gathering of the company's franchisees in June, Mr.

Masadeh said, he was bombarded with questions about how to

retain talent when workers can readily walk out the door and

find another job. And costs are rising throughout his

business.

``Right now the economy is great, but we're also seeing

higher construction costs, higher commodity items, shortages

of labor, so there's always something that counterbalances

something else,'' he said.

That pressure, however, has not resulted in much fatter

paychecks for most workers. The Labor Department said average

hourly earnings ticked modestly higher in July, putting the

annual rise at 2.7 percent. That's below the pace of

inflation in recent months.

One reason for the lack of big raises is that a substantial

number of workers remain on the sidelines, including the

less-skilled ones who are now gradually coming back, said

Simona Mocuta, senior economist with State Street Global

Advisors.

``We are bringing unemployment way below 4.5 percent, which

the Fed considers full employment,'' Ms. Mocuta said. ``But

we are getting very modest wage inflation. This is an issue

not just for the U.S., but in every other developed market.''

``Because the labor market is tight, less-educated workers

have more of a chance of getting hired,'' she added. ``For

people with the highest level of education, it's easier to

find jobs even when the economy isn't doing well.''

A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 4, 2018,

on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Robust

Recovery Lifting Laborers Hit the Hardest.

All across this great Nation there are people who were tired of the loss of jobs in this country, the movement of jobs overseas, the continuation of a tax policy that did not allow jobs and money that was earned by American companies to come back here.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not without notice to the American people that the discussion may be on great economic policy that is working for people, we are attacked here in Washington on the floor, and then the subject changes to something else, rather than the overwhelming evidence of how we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, there was a discussion I put in the Record, that New York Times article about those at the very bottom who had been left behind before, under the previous administration's tax increase, to where they lost jobs because we lost jobs in America with the massive spending spree that took place by President Obama and the Democratic Party.

I am pleased to report not just what was said on August the 18th by The New York Times, but even today. African American and Hispanic unemployment rates are at some of the lowest rates that they have ever been.

The Bureau of Labor Standards even passed out a report about the weekly unemployment claims. Those are the claims where people who were seeking jobs, we count those up across the country. They are at the lowest rates since 1969. That means, even though we have a larger amount of people in the country, a fewer numberwise--not percentage, numberwise--are seeking unemployment compensation.

Mr. Speaker, it is working. There is success in the marketplace. What Republicans did is so good that we want it to continue, because people who have their jobs tend to want to protect those jobs. But the protection of the jobs is being done by this administration to make sure that we can sell more of our products overseas.

About 40 percent of everything made in this country is made for export. We are for a larger export market. We are for jobs in this country. Over $50 billion has flowed back into the United States from overseas as a result of what we did last December 18 with the tax bill.

The overwhelming success of people back at home, wherever we are from, is apparent. They are working. They have got an opportunity. Their savings are increasing.

All over my hometown of Dallas, Texas, there are companies after companies after companies after companies that have reinvested in their businesses to make sure that not just ergonomics or new ways to mechanize are employed in their businesses, but, actually, many companies paid, doubling down the amount that they had contributed to a retirement fund or to a 401(k) or to giving company stock or, as in the case of many companies in Dallas, gave a $1,000 bonus and then said to the employee: For the $1,000 bonus I give each of the employees, I want you to know we are going to reinvest in making our business up to date and better, too.

So, Mr. Speaker, no wonder--no wonder--the other side, as they come to the table today with an equal opportunity for time, changes the discussion point to something that is extraneous from how successful this tax bill has been. So we will stand here until the end of our time and say: We need to make it permanent because it works.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for all the lawyers in the House on the Democratic side to come down and argue their case, but I would politely disagree with them.

The way you save this great democracy is by making it economically sound and powerful and prepared so that we can pay for this government, so that we can understand that America's greatest days lie in our future, so that we can understand it is the American people who want and need to make success, that they want their dream to succeed, not just the government.

What we are hearing today is they have abdicated this debate today from what was an economic debate all the way to a political debate. Economics, you see, has that side of it where people can see what works and what doesn't work, and that is why they have abdicated this fight today on the floor. The fight that they thought they were bringing is not about the success or failure of this; it is about another issue.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that America is economically stronger. We have more people working today than in the history of the country. There are companies that are making money, and there are employees who are making money, and there are employees who are successful.

When that happens, Mr. Speaker, you get an increase in take-home pay, and that is also what Republicans understand about what we have done: an increase in the amount of take-home pay to where the American people gain benefit not just for their hard work, but for their families; to pay for their families to be able to go to a Boy Scout outing; to make sure they are prepared to send their children to school, so that they can pay themselves, not looking to the government to make the payment for them; not looking for a handout, but, rather, making sure that people have the dignity of work, the dignity of opportunity, an honest day's work, an honest day's pay, an opportunity for the free enterprise system, the American Dream, to work.

That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about the success and the limiting success. And the limiting success is, if we make these tax policies permanent, it creates an opportunity for wiser choices, wiser decisions, wiser long-term attributes of success, not for the government, but for the American people.

And that is what the debate is on this side: helping the middle class of this country to achieve a strong footing to where they can make their American Dream work not only for them, but for their children and grandchildren.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the frailty of the arguments from my opponents is staggering. The newest report out, ``the ACA healthcare market stabilized nationwide for most customers,'' and yet we are told we are not even funding it. It is funded by the government. It is mandatory spending. But the good part is is that they now have an idea of who is in the marketplace and what those correct rates are, and it is stabilizing.

It is stabilizing because what we have done is made the opportunity available for people to have a job to pay for their healthcare. And the ability to have a job means that you not only have a chance to pay for your car, your home or apartment, your daughter or your son's college, but you also have an opportunity to pay for your own insurance, your own healthcare, your own needs to take care of your own family.

This is where we see America, right now, has the largest number of people who are employed in America. Every single economic and social indicator indicates that more people at the highest level are employed. More people at the highest level are having an opportunity to get up and go to work, a chance to make their lives and their family better.

This is the essence of what we are talking about today: making life better for people, giving them a better opportunity back home to have a job that is available.

In Dallas, Texas, where I am from, last week, 2 weeks ago, we had a seminar whereby people talked about and demonstrated what this economy is doing. I had several employers who stood up and said to the media, that was never reported:

We have 10 jobs that are available at a starting salary of

$60,000, but you have to be able to pass a drug test and you

have to come to work every day. We will train you. We will do

the training. We don't need the government or someone else to

do that, but you have to do two things: You have to be able

to pass the drug test, and you have got to come to work every

day, and you have got to be able to go be willing to be a

part of a team that is about your success and theirs also.

What a great deal the free enterprise offers today. Instead of us begging for jobs and wishing they were here, they abound, Mr. Speaker. It is called great economics. It is called making America great again. That is why we want to make it permanent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of song and dance on the floor, but it is revisionist history. What some of our colleagues have forgotten is that the African American unemployment during President Obama's Presidency was 15.5 percent. It was called misery. It was called no job. It was called unemployment. It was called more government assistance. It was called, unfortunately, demise.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done by passing the tax cut is to make sure that employers had an opportunity to hire employees. All across this country, there is a marketplace available to people who were ready and willing to come to work, and they have. The figures are, to us, as Republican, normal and regular.

We were told by President Obama and Ms. Pelosi: ``We can't get the 4.2 percent GDP rate.'' That is right. You can't get to 4.2 because your policies and procedures won't let the country do that. We are going to be stuck in the ones.

But, Mr. Speaker, what happened is that a new energy abounded in this country, and it is called optimism and opportunity and success and redevelopment of ideas to bring the American spirit back to the top. And that was, instead of Uncle Sam telling us what to do, we are getting that opportunity to have the success back home.

That is why the largest number of African Americans ever in the marketplace or, thereto, the largest number of women, the largest number of Hispanics in the marketplace today. This is yet another reason, Mr. Speaker, why Republicans are on the floor talking about the economy and my friends are talking about another issue.

Mr. Speaker, we need to be very clear about this. I will be asking all 435 Members of Congress, for them to see the reality and the truth of what is available back home, and that is opportunity can abound for a longer period of time with more success and more opportunity.

The next chance to make sure that the contract that is won by their company or the next successful quarter or the next opportunity that they get to get a pay raise can come because we are making sure that the free enterprise system is sound and secure for the future.

And that is how you save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid: by working today and protecting American jobs. It is an effort that the Republican Party has had, will have, has today, and we can't wait to see the vote to see who is for the free enterprise system of seeing that success.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the American Dream should be available to everybody: young, old, African American, Hispanic, Native American, even those people who have come to our shores. To make America work, American business has to work.

Making American business work--which is why we have business schools, why we have college-educated people, why we have entrepreneurship, why we have small business owners, why we have people who dedicate themselves to that free enterprise system--comes about as a result of their opportunity to work within a series of rules, regulations, and tax policy that is balanced.

A balanced tax policy would tell you that, if you have the highest taxes in the marketplace, your opportunity levels diminish. Likewise, it would say and tell you that, if you do not pay an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, you would not have employees and would be searching to try and make up that deficit another way.

Today, American business and American workers have more work than we can get done in 1 day, and numbers of orders and opportunities for our future abound. That is what we are here about also.

We are here about the youngest of people who we have in our midst who are second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth grade. We are about those people who are in college, who are studying hard because they want to be a part of a workforce. They want to be part of making their dream better.

But if there are no jobs, that is an indictment on this body. That is an indictment of elected officials and of an administration, many of them unelected, but who have a policy that fits their political ideology, rather than what is intended for success of people back home.

Today, I am going to ask every Member of this body, and I will do it right now, to please understand that you will have an opportunity to vote to make what we have today even more successful for a longer period of time; and to grow the amount of GDP; to grow the amount of investment; to believe in the American worker; to expect the opportunity for there to be an equal marketplace share, where the employer and the employee can both gain, not only in the ability to pay their own bills, but the ability to sustain what we do.

Mr. Speaker, let's not show the short side of this and talk about the negatives or the frailties or the things that really, I don't think, will come to bear, but let's talk about the success. The success is that we are going to move our stock market, as it is doing today, with the evidence that they have that we can, as a body, move our business.

Just this week, we had an opportunity to do what hadn't been done for 21 years. Those pesky Republicans in the House and the Senate and our President are going to sign a bill funding 80 percent of the government to avoid not just a continuing resolution, but to get it done on time, expecting this government, in their balance, to do their job that we have entrusted them with.

Today, we are taking part on the other part of that equation, to the free enterprise system saying: Keep producing jobs. Keep doing the things that small business does; whether you are in Weatherford, Texas, and own a car dealership, and you sell your product and make it available to customers back home, and you expect them to pay and your product to sell and win, or whether we expect to produce products that we sell overseas.

Mr. Speaker, it is the other half of the equation. This same week that we gave 80 percent of the government, including the military and Health and Human Services, the things that they have asked for and need to produce, today, we are asking the other side of the equation, the American people, to continue fighting, continue working, continue believing, not only in your American Dream, but continue to believe that the future of this country is bright and going to be successful for you and your family.

They can drown out the detractors. They can drown out people who brought a different idea to the table, because that brought us 15 percent unemployment for African Americans when we had a President who claims he was there for equality also. Equality is a job and an opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the gentleman is correct. I will be closing for us, so anytime the gentleman chooses to do that, he may expend his time.

Mr. Speaker, before I start, could you please advise me on how much time remains for me.

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

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity that we have to be on the floor today is about one thing. They want to make it about something else, and that is within their purview and their decision.

What it is about is whether we are going to continue to have the highest rates of employment in this country; the highest and best opportunity for people to continue take-home pay increases; the opportunity for American jobs, workers, and business to have more work than we have employees for; the opportunity to take and have, all across this country, the opportunity for reinvestment; the opportunity for people to be successful; the opportunity for people who are in school today to look up and know they see a bright future.

That is the way the world sees it, at least I think we do here in America, not in Washington. We might be a drug-free work zone up here, but what we have is the ability for this majority to keep pushing its opportunity for success for the American people.

So this week, we took care of making sure we fund, on time, perhaps a little bit early, the government for next year. But we are also going to fund the American people and the free enterprise system.

So, Mr. Speaker, what a fun day, what a great opportunity for people all across schools, and in schools, and people who work to say, one party is going to vote for me and one party is going to vote against me.

I am asking every Member to do it, so that we get together on economic outlook and view. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

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

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

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, 9 months ago, as the already unpopular Republican tax scam was making its way through Congress, Speaker Ryan stood in this Capitol and made a bet. He wagered that ``results are going to be what makes this popular.''

Today the results are clear, and they are not what the majority and President Trump promised. Big corporations have gotten a windfall. Workers have gotten laid off. Jobs are being shipped overseas, and the richest 1 percent is getting 83 percent of the law's benefits.

Despite those realities, my colleagues seemed to be surprised recently when a survey commissioned by the Republican National Committee was released in the media. It found that the public believes their tax scam benefits the wealthy and large corporations over average Americans by a two-to-one margin--61 percent to 30 percent.

Let me repeat that before the President tries to tweet that it is fake news. It was a poll conducted for Republicans by a Republican polling firm. That is why we are here today with tax 2.1, Mr. Speaker, because the majority's bet is turning out to be a losing one.

Nine months ago, the Republicans were assuring themselves their tax scam was good politics. Back then, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, ``If we can't sell this to the American people, we ought to go into another line of work.'' With polling like this, some Washington Republicans may have to. But first, they are here today with a package of bills that represents their last-ditch attempt at trying to turn the tide before November. And the sequel is as bad as the original in three key ways.

First, the original Republican tax scam added $2.3 trillion to the national debt to give the wealthy more tax cuts. 2.0 would add another $3 trillion to the debt. You won't see its cost on the budget scorecard. Republicans think they can waive a magic wand and hide the costs. But I have news for them: this is Congress, this isn't Hogwartz. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that this is going to cost $3.2 trillion.

It is important that people pay attention to this. I have got to give the Republicans credit for their sneaky ways to try to avoid the realities. They have an amendment that says this massive giveaway to the wealthy magically doesn't count.

And here is the other thing. We won't even get to vote on it. It is in the rule. It will be self-executed once the rule passes. So no one has to take any responsibility for adding all this to our debt.

This is at a time when the U.S. Treasury is borrowing money at a rate of $5.4 billion a day. The Congressional Budget Office recently found that the majority and the Trump administration have blown a $900 billion hole in the Federal budget. The deficit will increase by nearly 32 percent this year alone, with one of the main causes being the first GOP tax law.

Mr. Speaker, what happened to the Republican Party that claimed to care about fiscal discipline?

This majority is drowning in red ink. And the list goes on.

Second, the original Republican tax scam reduced the Medicare trust fund by 3 years. 2.0 could trigger an automatic 4 percent cut in Medicare. That means hundreds of billions of dollars for this program would be lost.

My colleagues on the other side may stand here today and claim that they want to protect Medicare and Social Security. But don't believe them. Don't be fooled. Right after their tax law exploded the deficit, what did the President's chief economic adviser do? He called for new cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

It is no wonder that in the Republican poll I referenced earlier, many Americans worry that the tax law would lead to cuts to these vital programs. Make no mistake: under the majority, these earned benefits are on the chopping block so Republicans can give tax breaks to the wealthy.

Third, the original Republican tax scam temporarily limited the State and local tax deduction, undermining funding for priorities like schools, firefighters, and police officers. Under 2.0, that deduction would be made permanent. More than 45 million Americans claim the SALT deduction, including those in Massachusetts, by the way. They will have a harder time doing things like buying a home if this package becomes law, all while State and local governments have a harder time investing in their communities.

Even while making these harmful changes to the Tax Code, the majority apparently couldn't be bothered to make changes that could actually help Americans who have become victims to natural disasters. In the wake of Hurricane Florence and the largest wildfires in California history, Democrats asked the majority to include an amendment that would provide to all eligible Americans the same type of relief that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee provided his constituents last year after Hurricane Harvey. That request was denied. It is outrageous that, under the majority, the tax relief Americans get after a tragedy apparently depends on their ZIP Code.

Mr. Speaker, there is a word for doing the same thing other and over and over again and expecting a different result. I think the majority would be hard-pressed to find anyone watching today who thinks doubling down on such an unpaid for and damaging policy is anything other than insanity.

The policies in these proposals are very similar, but there is one key difference worth noting, and that is the process.

The first time around, the majority used special fast-track procedures to provide tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations. They pulled out all the stops to assure that it became law as quickly as possible. They couldn't even find time to hold a hearing before voting on it. But now, on a proposal they are claiming is for the middle class, there are no fast-track procedures. There is not even a guarantee that this proposal will even be considered in the Senate.

Every middle-class American watching should realize this: with this majority, the wealthy and the well-connected get a windfall under a special, quick process. Their tax cuts were virtually guaranteed under a rigged system. Your tax cuts aren't getting that same urgency. There is no special process for you. This plan will be left in limbo on the other side of the Capitol. And we all know that.

The fact is, their procedures give away the whole game. This isn't about policy. This is about politics. The first tax scam isn't paying the kind of dividends that the majority anticipated. It is unpopular. So they are trying to pass this to have another talking point on the campaign trail. The public didn't fall for the majority's spin with their last tax scam, and I think they will see through this one again.

They will see what this is all about. They will see this for what it is: a proposal that continues the same, old Republican policies at a time when the public is demanding a new direction.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nonsense to suggest that somehow Democrats don't want the economy to work well. The difference here is we want the economy to work well for everyone, not just those at the top. Eighty- three percent of the benefits in their tax scam go to the top 1 percent of this country. The people who are struggling are those in the middle and those struggling to get in the middle.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the Speaker and to the minority leader from Feeding America, which basically says very clearly that the Republican tax bill `` . . . did not prioritize assisting those taxpayers who are most at risk of being food insecure, and as a result the new law provides little direct, tangible benefit to the individuals and families served by Feeding America.''

Feeding America,

September 25, 2018.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

House Democratic Leader,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: We write to share

Feeding America's views about ``Tax Reform 2.0'' and the

legislation recently approved by the House Ways and Means

Committee. We previously expressed our concerns about the Tax

Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) and its impact on the millions of

Americans facing hunger in every community across our

country, and do not believe making its provisions permanent

would ease the burden on those individuals and families

As the nation's largest private response to domestic

hunger, and the country's third largest charitable

organization, Feeding America works to advance public

policies that support food insecure individuals and families

and that expand the resources necessary for them to access

nutritious food. Given that the aggregate annual food budget

shortfall for the more than 41 million food insecure

individuals in the United States now stands at more than $21

billion, our highest priority is protecting the federal

nutrition programs that help these families access the

resources and nutrition needed to succeed.

At the same time, a large percentage of individuals,

including children, who struggle with hunger fall outside the

public safety net, underscoring the profound need for private

food assistance. In 2016, more than a quarter of food

insecure individuals nationwide lived in households that

earned too much to qualify for most federal nutrition

assistance programs. For these working families, the

generosity of individuals and corporations makes possible

vital food assistance that might not otherwise be available.

Regrettably, H.R. 1 did not prioritize assisting those

taxpayers who are most at risk of being food insecure, and as

a result the new law proves little direct, tangible benefit

to the individuals and families served by Feeding America.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) beginning

in 2021 taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $30,000 per

year will see an increase in their average tax rate, a

circumstance that will apply to all taxpayers earning less

than $75,000 by 2027.

Additionally, changes to the standard deduction and the

availability of itemized deductions have effectively

eliminated the charitable deduction for 28.5 million

taxpayers, according to JCT. The result will be a decline in

charitable giving of more than $17 billion per year,

according to a recent American Enterprise Institute study,

with human service charities likely to be especially hard

hit. Of the 28.5 million taxpayers expected to no longer file

itemized returns, 24.6 million earn less than $200,000 per

year. Donors with incomes below $200,000 are responsible for

62% of annual charitable giving to all human needs charities.

Simply put, the loss of this century-old giving incentive

will have a devastating effect on a wide range of charitable

programs and services delivered in communities across the

country, including those that provide much-needed food

assistance to hungry individuals and families who are not

otherwise benefitting from the new tax law.

H R. 1 represented a missed opportunity to provide relief

for the millions of Americans who struggle to put food on the

table, and we do not support making its provisions permanent.

We do, however, encourage you to undertake Tax Reform 2.0

with the aim of enacting legislation that eases the burdens

on lower-income working families, continues to encourage

Americans to give generously to charity, and ensures the

government has the resources necessary to meet our collective

obligations to provide for the health and well-being of our

neighbors and our communities.

We hope to serve as a resource to you as this process

unfolds, and we look forward to the opportunity to share with

you proposed tax code changes that we believe will have a

positive impact on the people we serve.

Sincerely,

Alabama Food Bank Association (AL); All Faiths Food Bank;

Arkansas Foodbank (AR); Atlanta Community Food Bank (GA);

Blue Ridge Area Food Bank, Inc. (VA); California Association

of Food Banks (CA); Capital Area Food Bank (DC/MD/VA);

Central California Food Bank (CA); Central Pennsylvania Food

Bank (PA); Central Texas Food Bank (TX); City Harvest (NY);

Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma (OK); Community Food

Warehouse of Mercer County (PA); Connecticut Food Bank (CT);

Eastern Illinois Foodbank (IL); Facing Hunger Foodbank (WV/

KY/OH); Feeding America; Feeding America Southwest Virginia

(VA); Feeding Indiana's Hungry (IN).

Feeding San Diego (CA); Feeding South Dakota (SD); Feeding

the Gulf Coast (AL/FL/MS); Feeding Wisconsin (WI); FeedMore

(VA); Food Bank Association of New York State (NY); Food Bank

Council of Michigan (MI); Food Bank for Larimer County (CO);

Food Bank for the Heartland (NE/IA); Food Bank of Central and

Eastern North Carolina (NC); Food Bank of Central New York

(NY); Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano (CA); Food Bank of

East Texas (TX); Food Bank of Iowa (IA); Food Bank of

Lincoln, Inc. (NE); Food Bank of Northern Indiana (IN); Food

Bank of Northern Nevada (NV/CA); Food Bank of the Golden

Crescent (TX); Food Bank of the Rio Grande Valley (TX).

Food Bank of the Rockies (CO/WY); Food Bank of the Southern

Tier (NY); Food Bank of West Central Texas (TX); Food Finders

Food Bank, Inc. (IN); Food Lifeline (WA); FOOD Share of

Ventura County (CA); Foodbank of Southeastern Virginia and

the Eastern Shore (VA); Foodlink, Inc. (NY); Forgotten

Harvest (MI); Fulfill (NJ); Georgia Food Bank Association

(GA); Gleaners Food Bank of Indiana (IN); God's Pantry Food

Bank, Inc. (KY); Good Shepherd Food Bank (ME); Greater

Chicago Food Depository (IL); Greater Cleveland Food Bank,

Inc. (OH); Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank (PA); Harry

Chapin Food Bank of Southwest Florida (FL); Harvesters--The

Community Food Network (MO/KS); Island Harvest (NY); Kentucky

Association of Food Banks (KY).

Long Island Cares (NY); Los Angeles Regional Food Bank

(CA); Mid-Ohio Foodbank (OH); Mid-South Food Bank (TN/AR/MS);

Montana Food Bank Network (MT); Mountaineer Food Bank (WV);

New Hampshire Food Bank (NH); North Texas Food Bank (TX);

Northern Illinois Food Bank (IL); Ohio Association of

Foodbanks (OH); Oregon Food Bank (OR/WA); Ozarks Food Harvest

(MO); Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York (NY);

Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma (OK); Rhode Island Community

Food Bank (RI); Roadrunner Food Bank (NM); San Antonio Food

Bank (TX); Second Harvest Community Food Bank (MO/KS); Second

Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida (FL); Second Harvest

Food Bank of Northeast Tennessee (TN); Second Harvest Food

Bank of Northwest North Carolina (NC).

Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County (CA); Second

Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties (CA);

Second Harvest Foodbank of Southern Wisconsin (WI); Second

Harvest Heartland (MN/WI); Second Harvest Northern Lakes Food

Bank (MN/WI); Shared Harvest Foodbank (OH); Southeast

Missouri Food Bank (MO); Southeast Ohio Foodbank (OH);

Southeast Texas Food Bank (TX); St Louis Area Foodbank (MO/

IL); The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts (MA); The

Foodbank, Inc. (OH); The Greater Boston Food Bank (MA); The

Idaho Foodbank (ID); Three Square Food Bank (NV); Treasure

Coast Food Bank (FL); Tri-State Food Bank, Inc (IN/IL/KY);

Utah Food Bank (UT); Vermont Foodbank (VT); Virginia

Peninsula Foodbank (VA); Weld Food Bank (CO); West Ohio Food

Bank (OH); Westmoreland County Food Bank, Inc. (PA);

Worcester County Food Bank (MA).

Feeding America is the preeminent organization that feeds hungry families in this country. We have a hunger problem in this country. Nothing in this bill today or the bill that the Republicans passed previously does anything to help those people.

So yes, we want the economy to work well, but for everybody. Not just the rich, but we want it to work well for those in the middle and those struggling to get in the middle. We don't want to embrace a tax scam package where 83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent. They may be good contributors, but that doesn't represent the majority of America.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Ranking Member Nadler's bill, the Special Counsel Independence Act. This vital legislation will allow the people's House to demonstrate that we as a body are capable of putting America's interests over partisan politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, to discuss his proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are offering this procedural motion is because the Republicans run this House like Putin. We are shut out of everything. So this is our only opportunity to try to get some important business done.

The Republicans can spend every day trying to pass more tax cuts for their wealthy friends and big corporations, but maybe--just maybe--we can do something useful like protecting our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague from Texas, tax cuts for the rich and big corporations aren't going to protect this country from another attack by the Russians on our elections and on democracy.

But here is the deal: You can do both. You can debate your tax scam 2.0 for the rich, and if you vote to defeat the previous question, we can also vote to protect the Mueller investigation.

So we can do both, and I hope my colleagues will vote to defeat the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), a distinguished member of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire of the gentleman from Texas how many more speakers he has on his side?

Mr. Speaker, I kind of figured, if this was so popular, that there would be tons of Republicans down here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire of the gentleman from Texas one more time, just to make sure there is nobody else who wants to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have so diminished this House of Representatives. We are being told that tomorrow may be our last day in session before the election, that the Republicans will adjourn 2 weeks early so they can go home to try to convince voters that they deserve to be reelected.

What we are doing today, this tax scam 2.0, is a joke, because they know it is going nowhere in the Senate. They are frightened by the fact that their original tax bill is so terribly unpopular, and rightfully so, because the American people object to a tax bill where 83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent. That is just not fair. People understand things like fairness.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking people to defeat the previous question to protect

the Mueller investigation. Since we are adjourning most likely tomorrow, this may be our only time to do it. You can vote to defeat the previous question. You can still vote for this tax scam bill, but you also can vote on whether or not to protect the Mueller investigation. We ought to do that.

But there is another thing I want Members of both sides to appreciate, as this may be the last rule we bring to the floor.

What we are considering today is record-shattering. The majority broke the record for the number of closed rules in Congress earlier this year. The record they broke, by the way, was their own.

This restrictive process has often shut out debates here on the House floor that the American people desperately want this Congress to have, on issues like gun safety, protecting the Dreamers, and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.

Now, today, the majority is taking is the most closed Congress in American history to a whole new level because, tucked inside this measure, is the majority's 99th, 100th, and 101st first closed rules of this Congress. There has never ever been a moment like this in American history, more than 100 closed rules in a single Congress.

This isn't some arcane legislative matter. Consider what the majority has brought under closed rules, things like their first tax scam and their disastrous healthcare repeal bill.

There are still months to go before the 116th Congress begins. Who knows what other disasters the majority of President Trump will dream up next.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that everything that the House considers should be under an open rule. There are times when a closed rule might be necessary. But more than 100 closed rules? There is no justification for that.

Now, I don't know who will run this place in January, but if Democrats are trusted with the majority, we will have a more accommodating process. This place will be run like professionals. Ideas will be allowed to come forward, and the House of Representatives will actually debate again.

But we don't have to wait until next year to force a more open process. We can start right here today. My Republican colleagues have voiced frustration with their majority's closed process. Well, we have the chance here to do more than just talk. We can vote.

So when a closed rule goes down, Speaker Ryan will actually have to start upholding his promise of a more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, and more participatory process.

It would be better late than never. While calling for a more open process, virtually every Republican voted for every closed rule we have considered. The rank and file Republicans are part of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, if they are not going to take a stand on the 101st closed rule, will they ever be able to back up their talk with their vote?

So I ask the majority, as we stand on the doorstep of this dubious distinction, join us in voting against this record-shattering closed rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, and an original co-sponsor, I rise today to urge all Members to support and cosponsor H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act.''

When we were here in March, before the Easter Recess, I indicated that firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller would not be crossing a Red Line.

It would not be crossing a Blue Line.

It would be crossing a Red, White, and Blue line.

I have been concerned about this issue for a very long time--to me it was clear in August, and every day that passes is another where my first instincts about the President's desire to fire Special Counsel Mueller, are confirmed.

The importance of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into the 2016 election, and the nature and extent of Russia's interference, cannot be overstated.

The allegation that a foreign government--hostile or otherwise-- played any part in the internal democratic processes of our country should shock every single American citizen.

It strikes at the heart of our democratic system of government.

We must come to terms with the fact that our very last national election is a crime scene.

The 2018 election could be one, too.

It was critical then, it is critical now, and it will be critical tomorrow that the Special Counsel be permitted to do his work unimpeded.

That is why last August I introduced H.R. 3654, ``Special Counsel Independence Protection Act,'' which precludes the firing of the Special Counsel absent of substantial evidence, that there exists good cause to do so, and that determination accepted by a three-judge federal court.

H.R. 3654 has the support of 152 cosponsors and is also the subject of a discharge petition, and 144 members of the House of Representatives have signed the discharge petition.

I thank my colleagues who have supported H.R. 3654, to protect the Special Counsel's investigation recognizing that nothing less than our sovereignty, our democratic ideals, and our national dignity are at stake.

Today, I announce my support for new legislation protecting the Special Counsel, H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act,'' introduced by Ranking Member Nadler, myself, and Mr. Cohen.

I am pleased that this legislation incorporates the core of my legislation to protect the Special Counsel.

The Nadler-Jackson Lee-Cohen bill constrains the Attorney General from damaging the Special Counsel's investigation, absent judicial ratification of any action to terminate the Special Counsel.

Under H.R. 5476, the judicial branch--yet another check on an unwieldy executive--would determine if the termination was appropriate.

The necessity of enacting this legislation is clear.

Seven times this year, the President has decried the investigation as a ``witch hunt,'' including yesterday.

The New York Times has reported that the President has tried at least twice in 2017 to fire Special Counsel Mueller--once in June 2017, and once again in December 2017.

Now, this morning he is claiming, again over Twitter, that reports that he wanted to fire Special Counsel Mueller were more ``fake news.''

On Monday, after news that his lawyer's residence and offices were raided, the President openly mused, at a gathering of his war cabinet, about firing Special Counsel Mueller.

On Tuesday, the President asserted that he had the power to fire Special Counsel Mueller.

Yesterday on Twitter, the President called Special Counsel Mueller ``the most conflicted of all.''

He is wrong.

Last night, he advertised a program on his favorite cable network, and when that show aired, it consisted of a derogatory piece against the president's chief investigators: former FBI Director Comey and Special Counsel Mueller.

Last month, the President twice said he opposed the investigation, told an untruth about the political composition of the prosecutors in the Special Counsel's office, and has reiterated that it should never have been started.

Given the actions of the current President, it is appropriate to ask whether stronger legislation is needed.

But H.R. 5476 is an important compromise with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

We must step back and take off our partisan hats and approach this as Americans.

We, as Members of Congress, are Constitutional Officers.

This is an `Article I' moment.

The People's House must exercise its constitutional prerogative and conduct oversight.

The framers of the Constitution prioritized the legislature branch over the executive branch.

Recent public opinion polls reflect that 70 percent of the American people want the Special Counsel to continue his investigation.

The Framers of our Constitution wisely divided power through a system of checks and balances.

They anticipated a moment like this and vested power in the Congress to address, deter, and remedy a crisis caused by a Chief Executive who held himself to be above the law.

When future generations look back on this moment, and they consider that our democratic ideals and institutions were under enormous pressure from unsuspecting places, they will ask what we did when it mattered.

We must act.

Now, while we as Americans have our differing views, they are ours to solve, amongst ourselves.

Unfortunately, for all of us, the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation also includes the question of the extent to which the Trump campaign was helped in any way by the Russians.

Congress must not abdicate its Article I responsibility.

We must get to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 election.

We must permit Special Counsel Robert Mueller to continue his investigation.

We must seize the moment and pass H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 1084, the rule governing debate for H.R. 6756, the American Innovation Act of 2018,'' H.R. 6757 ``Family Savings Act of 2018,'' and H.R. 6760 ``Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018''.

I must oppose this rule and urge the defeat the previous question, not because we do not support innovation for our small businesses and entrepreneurs, but because defeating the previous question will enable this House to consider and pass H.R. 5476, the ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act''.

This is an opportunity we do not want to misuse.

For the last sixteen months, our nation has watched as the Special Counsel investigating the attack on our democracy during the 2016 election has returned dozens of indictments against foreign actors suspected of interfering in our democracy.

Tellingly, the investigation has also returned a series of guilty pleas, including:

allocutions from the President's former personal lawyer;

his campaign chairman;

his deputy campaign chairman;

his first national security advisor;

a top foreign policy advisor, and many more.

Americans have come to the conclusion that the 2016 election was a crime scene.

The 2018 election could be one too.

While the Special Counsel--appointed by officials from the Trump Administration--has been diligently returning pleas and indictments, and unearthing the extraordinary efforts that a hostile foreign power had on our election, the President has been busy berating the effort, and those whom he believes are assisting in attempts to get at the truth of what transpired in the 2016 election.

Yet, beyond guilty pleas and indictments, the Special Counsel has also been performing an essential service for the American people: he has been telling the American people a story of how our democracy is susceptible to outside influence.

He has done this by sharing certain, critical facts such as:

the President's son, son-in-law and campaign manager attended a meeting with

agents of the Russian government promising to have ``dirt'' on the President's 2016 opponent, Secretary Hillary Clinton;

we also learned how Russians funneled money through stalwart Republican-leaning organizations to influence our campaign; and

we learned that Russians selectively leaked and indeed weaponized stolen emails in order to influence our electorate.

Alongside this parade of developments, the American people have watched as this president has tried to wrestle control--either functionally or formally--of the investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, and whether and to what extent the effort was aided and abetted associates of the Trump Campaign.

For good reason, Americans are suspicious of this president's ability to abide by longstanding norms to which all prior American presidents have adhered: the need to abstain from interfering in law enforcement investigations.

Most infamously, the President breached this norm when he fired the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey in May 2017.

Between that date and now, the President has:

ridiculed the Attorney General, who recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation and, in the process, drew the ire of the president;

terminated or forced the retirements of several senior law enforcement officials; and

has threatened or attempted to take extraordinary steps--like the selective dissemination of classified information--for the purposes of tainting the investigation into his possible criminal activity.

Along the way, House Republicans have refused to exercise even the slightest amount of oversight on this president or this president.

One significant way the Congress can do this is by protecting the Special Counsel and his investigation.

This has long been a concern of mine.

This is why, alongside the Jerry Nadler, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I introduced H.R. 5476, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act.

If enacted into law, H.R. 5476 permits a terminated Special Counsel to challenge his termination in court and would stay the investigation pending the challenge.

The Special Counsel would be given a notice stating the reasons for the removal.

The matter would be heard by a three judge panel who would determine whether the removal was for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause.

If it is, the removal is affirmed.

If it is not, the Special Counsel is reinstated.

In the face of this president's bellicosity towards the law enforcement institutions investigating him, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act is a measure of oversight we can place on this president, who increasingly feels emboldened to flout longstanding norms in the name of covering up his past conduct.

This is an Article I moment--it is time for all in this chamber and across the Capitol in the Senate to seize it.

Through their elected representatives, the American people must harness the constitutional apparatus created by the Framers and provide oversight on a president sorely in need of it.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here because, earlier this week, we were confronted with the threat of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's firing.

On Monday, Mr. Rosenstein was summoned to the White House, with rumors swirling that he had resigned or was about to be fired. Today, he was scheduled to meet with the President. But yesterday, the President said he may not fire him. He prefers not to, but he may. And he may meet with Mr. Rosenstein or not.

Mr. Rosenstein is directly responsible for Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged links between the Russian Government and the Trump campaign, as well as other related work, now in the Southern District of New York in the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, that could have a profound effect on the integrity of elections to come.

The fear is that, if the President fires Mr. Rosenstein, a new Acting Attorney General will take steps to end the investigation by Mr. Mueller in order to protect President Trump and his associates. It is unacceptable for a law enforcement project of this magnitude to turn on the employment status of one official.

As we have all seen, President Trump has spent his Presidency undermining every effort to understand what happened during the 2016 elections. He has shown no interest in safeguarding the 2018 elections from ongoing attacks by foreign adversaries. Instead, he attacks the intelligence community; attacks the Department of Justice; attacks career civil servants; and attacks Special Counsel Mueller, complaining about what he calls a ``total witch hunt'' and calling for the Attorney General to end the investigation.

This is not a witch hunt. In a relatively short period of time, investigators have secured multiple convictions and guilty pleas from key Trump campaign personnel, including the President's campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, his national security adviser, and others.

But President Trump and his allies in this Chamber are engaged in a broader strategy to undermine the legitimacy of any finding, guilty plea, or any conviction that may come out of the investigation. President Trump will take any opportunity to reign in, suppress, or end the Special Counsel's investigation.

We know this because President Trump has told us so. He told us that he fired the FBI Director because of the ``Russia thing.'' He is reported to have ordered the firing of Robert Mueller at least twice. He attacks his own Attorney General for quite properly recusing himself from the investigation. His surrogates compare the FBI to the Gestapo, and call for the police to raid the Justice Department.

Fortunately, as a coequal branch of government, we have a way to protect our law enforcement officers from these threats and to protect the country from this barrage of misinformation from the White House.

H.R. 5476, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, would protect the Special Counsel from being unjustly fired and would allow for the courts to review any political interference. This is bipartisan legislation that has 126 cosponsors and is identical to Republican legislation that has a number of Republican cosponsors.

The Senate counterpart to H.R. 5476 was introduced by Senators Graham, Booker, Coons, and Tillis, and passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 26, 2018, by a vote of 14-7.

We have been calling on the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to bring this important legislation before the committee for a vote, but he has refused to act.

Democrats have taken the unusual step of invoking House rule XI, clause 2(c)(2) to force a markup. But other Republicans on the committee have sat on their hands and refused to join in this demand. But for three Republicans, the Judiciary Committee would be forced to consider this legislation.

We cannot wait any longer. The stakes are too great. That is why I offer this proposal.