Expressing agreement with the statements of the Speaker of the House of Representatives made on July 16, 2018, regarding Russian Federation interference in the 2016 United States elections and related matters.

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 thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the measures included here aren't just bad, they are dangerous. Take the Interior Appropriations bill. It would put the health and safety of Americans at risk by slashing funding to address climate change and enforce environmental safeguards.

The EPA, the agency tasked with fighting carbon emissions, is cut by $100 million. That is especially ironic since the majority was completely unwilling to rein in the wasteful spending by its former Administrator, Scott Pruitt. This is someone who spent $43,000 on a soundproof phone booth, but the majority was silent.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is cut by $65 million. That is after Republicans cut it by a third in the last fiscal year. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a champion of the LWCF, especially the stateside grant program where States provide a 50 percent match to grants that create more recreational and green open spaces in our districts. The people in communities in nearly every congressional district in the country have benefitted from these grants. We should be increasing, not cutting, LWCF.

There is even language in the bill that would repeal a rule designed to protect our wetlands and waterways. State revolving funds were cut by $300 million, a $150 million cut to clean drinking water and a $150 million cut to clean water projects like water treatment and sewage programs.

Mr. Speaker, the American people rely on Congress to make sure that the

water they drink is clean. What is going on with this bill?

As always, Republicans have again attached several poison pill provisions that undermine the health and safety of our communities and the environment. Every year--every year--provisions like these weigh down this bill.

Mr. Speaker, when will my Republican friends realize that harmful provisions like this are why the bill has to become law? I am especially outraged to see what the majority has done with the Financial Services Appropriations bill, especially after what we saw on Friday. That is when some of our worst fears were confirmed.

As part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced charges against 12 Russian military intelligence officers. They were accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee, hacking Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, and hacking the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The website of a State electoral board was also hacked. Voter information was stolen. Even the vendor of voting equipment was targeted for a cyber attack. And those individuals involved in administering elections were also targeted.

These charges are proof that our Nation, that our very democracy, is under attack. No troops were sent into combat. Not a single gun was fired. Instead, an adversary turned the internet into a battlefield. That is the new face of warfare in the 21st century.

Although the methods were different, this Congress should be responding the way we always have, by putting partisanship aside and putting our country first by doing whatever it takes to ensure we are not left vulnerable again.

But, Mr. Speaker, how is this majority responding? By using the Financial Services Appropriations bill to zero out funding for grants that help protect our election systems from cyber hacking. That is a cut of $380 million compared to what Congress enacted in fiscal year 2018. The wolf is at the door, and my Republican colleagues are inviting it inside for dinner. This is insane.

The President tweeted, shortly after the election: ``Unless you catch `hackers' in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, it may be hard, but it is not impossible, because we now have a 29-page indictment from President Trump's own Justice Department providing the roadmap. The indictment goes into extraordinary detail outlining how Russia successfully hacked into our election systems, how candidates and committees were successfully targeted--not by China or somebody sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds, as the President suggested, but by Russia, by Vladimir Putin.

It is mind-boggling that even after this indictment, after Russia's meddling was laid bare, the President did not stand up to Putin. He held a summit with him instead. He even told CBS News, in an interview before his sit down, that he ``hadn't thought'' about raising the issue with Putin during their talk.

It gets worse, Mr. Speaker. British investigators believe that current and former agents of the same Russian military intelligence service accused of disrupting our 2016 elections are also likely responsible for the nerve agent attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter in Salisbury, England, earlier this year.

Sadly, it is no surprise that the President didn't stand up to Putin. He never does. When President Trump was asked whether he was a friend or a foe, he recently called Putin a competitor instead, like this was all some kind of real estate deal.

A President who calls the free press, journalists in the United States, ``the enemy of the American people'' time and time again is unwilling to call the leader of Russia a foe or even an adversary. It is disturbing.

What kind of hold does Vladimir Putin have on this President, Mr. Speaker? So much so that the President basically blamed the United States for much of the tensions between the two countries.

The President even deflected when asked whether he trusts the American intelligence community or Putin.

The President may be satisfied by what he called Putin's strong and powerful denial of election interference, but I am not, Mr. Speaker. I am disgusted.

It is clear that an effort to defend our democracy will have to be led by Congress, because it is not coming from the White House. But we are not leading when we make it easier for an adversary like Russia to attack us again. That is retreating.

I remember learning about the separation of powers in school, how the legislative branch is a separate but equal branch of government. The Founders designed it that way so we could provide a check on a President.

Mr. Speaker, when are the Republicans in Congress going to provide a check on President Trump? He is cozying up to Putin instead of holding him accountable for hacking our election.

As Senator Schumer suggested, we should be increasing sanctions on the Russians. The Republican majority should be joining us, demanding the President's national security team that accompanied him to Helsinki testify before Congress, detailing what they know.

It is past time that Republicans end their attacks on the Department of Justice, on the FBI, and on the special counsel. Already, 32 people and three companies have been either indicted or pleaded guilty under Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. Now, we will see where else it leads, but there is already evidence of clear wrongdoing.

He should be able to finish his work without any interference. The majority should move a bill from Representative Nadler to the floor immediately, so we can protect the special counsel's investigation from the whims of this President.

President Trump has shown he is willing to fire his FBI Director. Mr. Speaker, are the Republicans really going to stand by and make it possible for him to fire Robert Mueller, too?

This majority must also demand the President insist that the 12 Russians named in Friday's indictment are sent to the United States to stand trial. The President should have already done this when he met with Putin, but, apparently, it was an afterthought. Maybe he was too busy admiring the strongman to stand up for his country's interests.

I wish I were optimistic that Republicans would take these commonsense steps to protect our country, but I am not, not after what we saw in the Rules Committee last night. The majority failed to make in order an amendment by Representative Quigley. It was germane. But they failed to make in order his amendment that would provide $380 million to help States protect election systems from cyber hacking. This funding should not have been zeroed out in the first place.

Do my Republican friends see what is happening? Is anybody paying attention over there? Russia meddled in our election, and your response is to zero out funding for an election security assistance program. Then, when we pointed it out and tried to put the money back, you blocked the amendment. You won't even allow us to debate the program. That is the smallest step that they could have taken. Instead, we can't even have a debate on the floor.

Apparently, the Republicans are afraid of having a fair fight about protecting our democracy, and it is indefensible. If the President isn't willing to do more to prevent Putin from doing it again, then this Congress has an obligation to act, not gut the accounts that provide for election security.

We can start standing up by voting against this rule and the underlying legislation. It doesn't do nearly enough to protect our Nation against hostile foreign powers hell-bent on attacking our democracy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my good friend from Oklahoma who I think said that 39 percent of the funds are still left in the Election Assistance Commission account. Well, we still have 5 months left in this year, and does anybody here really believe that these attacks are going to stop? And shouldn't we have money in the pipeline? Shouldn't we be prepared not just for this election, but for the election after that?

This is about protecting our democracy, and I don't understand why this is controversial. But no matter what you think about Mr. Quigley's amendment, it was germane. It was relevant to this bill. It should have been brought up, and we should debate it. All we are asking for is a fair fight.

We are deeply concerned about what is happening to our country, and we are especially concerned in the aftermath of President Trump's disastrous meeting with Vladimir Putin.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Congress to stand unified with the unanimous assessment of our intelligence community.

I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Engel's resolution, H. Res. 999, which follows word for word yesterday's statement by Speaker Ryan affirming Russia's attacks on our democracy.

This is the second time today that I am going to give my Republican friends a chance to go on the Record and agree with the words of the Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.

Defending our democracy shouldn't be controversial. Agreeing with the Republican Speaker that ``the United States must be focused on holding Russia accountable'' should not be controversial. I would say to my friends, take yes for an answer.

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 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority has filled the Financial Services Appropriations bill with anti-Home Rule riders that meddle in local D.C. affairs. Not one or two provisions, which would be bad enough, but five.

One would prohibit D.C. from using its own funding to carry out Initiative 77, which eliminates the tipped minimum wage. That is an initiative, by the way, that passed recently with 56 percent of the vote.

Last night in the Rules Committee, the Republicans even made in order the Palmer amendment. This would prevent the District from implementing its local individual responsibility requirement. If passed, this amendment would increase health insurance premiums and cause residents to lose access to affordable coverage options.

Mr. Speaker, why are the Republicans continuing to interfere in local D.C. government? Where are the small-government conservatives? Where is the Freedom Caucus? They should be outraged by this meddling.

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton filed amendments to strike these riders and spoke in the Rules Committee last night. She asked a pretty simple question: Don't my Republican friends have their own districts to worry about?

Her amendments complied with the rules of the House, yet they were blocked from getting a vote on the floor. We can't even debate them here. The majority is afraid of a fair fight.

We are long past the point of breaking the record for being the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. This is more of the same for the most closed Congress in history, but that doesn't make it right, Mr. Speaker. When will the Republicans finally say, ``Enough''?

So enough with the meddling in D.C. affairs, enough with overriding the will of local residents, and enough with the restrictive amendment process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more speakers the gentleman has on his side.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, when Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein announced the charges against 12 Russian military officers on Friday, he said: ``We need to work together to hold the perpetrators accountable, and we need to keep moving forward to preserve our values, protect against future interference, and defend America.''

Well, Republicans and Democrats working together need to come together to defend this country. That shouldn't be controversial. It should be common sense, and it should be above partisanship.

But we have a President who probably tunes out anything the Deputy Attorney General says because President Trump is too busy attacking the special counsel investigation on a near-daily basis. He calls it a witch hunt and even worse, and that is despite the fact that the Justice Department has issued more than 100 criminal counts against more than 30 people and three companies. Numerous associates of the President have pled guilty, and his former campaign chairman is sitting in jail today.

Or maybe more accurately, Mr. Speaker, the President attacks Robert Mueller's investigation because of that fact, because the special counsel could be closing in on even more possible wrongdoing. Where there is smoke there is usually fire, and there is at least a lot of smoke so far.

So, given the President's action, we need, as a Congress, to step it up. We need to hold Russia accountable and prevent this kind of hacking from ever happening again because the President, who is unwilling to say even publicly that he trusts the American intelligence community over Vladimir Putin, will not.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can go on record as disagreeing and condemning what the President did in Helsinki, which was such a betrayal of our values. And what we are asking to do is to vote to endorse the Speaker of the House, the Republican Speaker of the House's words.

I mean, quite frankly, we should have a resolution of disapproval on the floor, or maybe even a censure, given what the President did. But we are saying let's come together in a bipartisan way, and let's make a statement that we disagree with what the President did, what his behavior was.

So vote ``no'' on the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend, 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 6147, the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019, which also includes the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2019.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the third installment of the House's effort to pass all 12 appropriations bills on the floor for fiscal year 2019. We have previously passed appropriations bills covering Energy and Water, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Defense.

Today we turn to the work of the Appropriations Committee Subcommittees on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies and Financial Services and General Government.

Once the House finishes its work for the week, we will have passed 6 of the 12 appropriations bills across the floor.

Overall, the package covers $58.65 billion in spending. Of those funds, $35.25 billion are allocated to the Interior bill and $23.4 billion to the Financial Services bill, which is equal to the enacted level for fiscal year 2018 for both of these bills. The package represents many months of work by the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, as I have so often said when discussing appropriations bills, today's package represents the most fundamental duty of Congress, to fund the government and keep it open each year to continue to provide our constituents with the services they need and deserve. But, importantly, this package also fulfills an additional duty of Congress to the American people: its fiscally prudent stewardship of the taxpayers' hard-earned money and to ensure that we appropriately prioritize where and how to spend taxpayer dollars in the most efficient manner.

Mr. Speaker, the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill funds critical programs at the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other crucial areas. Among the areas of greatest importance, the bill includes $3.9 billion for the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service to fight wildfires. It includes $500 million for payments in lieu of taxes to help local governments, and it provides $2.6 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund.

It funds the National Park Service at $3.25 billion, an increase of $53 million over fiscal year 2018. Of great import, not only to my home State of Oklahoma but to Native Americans all across the country, the bill honors our treaties and trust agreements by providing $5.9 billion for the Indian Health Service and $3.1 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Education.

The bill also fulfills an additional commitment to the American people by including provisions to rein in the runaway regulatory agendas of parts of the Federal Government. It reduces the EPA's regulatory programs by $228 million. It also fully repeals the economically damaging waters of the United States rule and includes various prohibitions preventing the EPA from overregulating agricultural operations and exempting livestock producers from EPA greenhouse gas requirements.

The Financial Services and General Government portion of this bill provides $23.4 billion across several important accounts. It provides $7.7 billion for the operation of the Federal court system. The bill also provides funding to help combat the opioid crisis, including $415 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including $280 million for high-intensity drug trafficking areas and $118 million for other Federal drug control programs.

It encourages responsible spending at the Internal Revenue Service by appropriating $11.6 billion for IRS activities, an increase of $186 million over fiscal year 2018, and continues stringent oversight and protections of taxpayer dollars that have been included in recent years.

The bill provides $1.66 billion for the Securities and Exchange Commission and will help grow the economy by providing $737 million, or full funding, in capital to various Small Business Administration loan programs. Perhaps most importantly, this bill includes provisions that will finally bring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under congressional oversight.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, when the CFPB was created in the original Dodd-Frank Act, the new agency was allowed to operate without congressional oversight because it did not receive appropriations. Consequently, since its inception, unelected bureaucrats at the CFPB have been allowed to operate entirely without congressional supervision. Today's bill will remedy that and will ensure that the CFPB falls under congressional authority, oversight, and supervision once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. The package before us represents a fulfillment of our most important responsibility as Members of Congress and provides appropriate funding in two divisions: Interior and Environment, and Financial Services and General Government. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their months of work in making this bill a reality and cheer their efforts on moving forward to completion of the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will turn and yield time to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly respond to my friend's concern about the Election Assistance Commission funds.

As I am sure he is aware, that was the last installment last year, this fiscal year, of a $365 billion authorization that was actually done back in 2002. Currently, 39 percent of those funds for this year are still available to the

States. Actually, 19 States have yet to submit any sort of request, and the legislation itself has not been reauthorized. If the authorizing people reauthorize it, I am sure we will revisit this matter.

It also worth noting that anything added will be available only from October 1, and the election is 5 weeks after that. So the idea that we are going to do something in that period of time, I think, is a bit of a red herring.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), my good friend from the Seventh District.

Mr. Speaker, I am reiterating my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not yield for any other purpose.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

Let me make a couple of comments in response to my friend.

It was the last President, not this President, who told Russian leaders that he would be more flexible after an election.

It was the last President, not this President, who said Russia was not a geopolitical threat and chastised Mitt Romney when he raised it in the campaign.

And it was the last President, not this President, who drew a red line and then refused to enforce it.

If you actually look at the Record, it is this administration and this party that, frankly, has begun to restore America's defenses after years of neglect by the last administration. That is not good news for Russia.

It is this administration that has also encouraged and cajoled some of our allies to increase their defense level up to the levels that they, themselves, had committed to.

It was this President that twice enforced red lines in Syria.

It was this Congress that administered ever-increasing penalties on Russian sanctions.

So I think if you look at the actions, the actions are pretty impressive.

But I want to actually get back to the matter at hand, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress: funding the Government of the United States.

Although not perfect, the bill before us today will lead to the completion of the House's work on two more appropriations bills. We will provide funding for important government activities like fighting forest fires, funding the Indian Health Service, enforcing tax and securities laws, and funding our national parks; and we will ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is no longer allowed to operate without congressional oversight.

While I look forward to completing our work and passing all 12 appropriations bills, this legislation represents an important step along the way to fulfilling that goal. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Federal administrative law judges, commonly known as ALJs, decide over 1 million cases a year, covering everything from appeals of Social Security Disability and Medicare claims to disputes over black lung benefits and securities law violations. These are cases that can touch virtually all of our constituents.

On July 10, President Trump issued an executive order that will undermine the quality and independence of ALJs and the impartiality of the decisions they render. It does so by changing the hiring standards for judges.

The current standards guarantee that ALJs are fully qualified to serve. The executive order will replace those standards with a far more lenient system that would allow ALJs to be hired based on ideology or cronyism rather than experience and competence.

This executive order, titled, ``Exempting Administrative Law Judges from the Competitive Service'' will open the door for the politicization of a profession that plays a defining role in the lives of millions of American families.

Representatives Elijah Cummings, David Cicilline, John Larson, and I filed an amendment to defund the executive order and preserve the impartiality, independence, and competence of administrative law judges. Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee has refused to allow Members of Congress to vote on or even debate our amendment.

The longstanding hiring standards for ALJs were designed to guarantee the legitimacy of their decisions. ALJs were required to have 7 years of trial-level experience as an attorney and successfully complete a six-part examination. To insulate judicial decisionmaking from agency political pressure, the examination was conducted by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, which maintained a list of the highest scoring applicants from which agencies can then select their candidates.

All of that was jettisoned by the President's executive order, which removes ALJs from the competitive service. Now the only requirements are that an ALJ must be a lawyer in good standing.

This executive order is strongly opposed by a broad spectrum of organizations. The Federal Administrative Law Judge Conference, a nonpartisan, voluntary professional association, warns, ``now, any agency that wants to hire an ALJ needs no approval from OPM and can hire any attorney regardless of skill or experience. The new appointment process will not afford members of the public the due process and fair hearings they deserve. Instead, it will give agency insiders and political loyalists a job for which they may not be qualified but for which they will feel indebted.''

The Association of Administrative Law Judges, which represents over 1,600 ALJs at the Social Security Administration, states that the President's order ``will politicize our courts, lead to cronyism, and replace independent and impartial adjudicators with those who do the bidding of political appointees.''

The American Association for Justice writes: ``It is important for all cases overseen by ALJs to have a neutral ALJ handling the case, not someone who may be beholden to a particular political party, hostile to a particular agency or program, or otherwise politically motivated in their decisionmaking.''

The American Bar Association writes: ``By giving agency heads sole discretion to hire ALJs who will be making determinations affirming or overturning decisions rendered by that agency, the executive order has the potential to politicize the appointment process and interfere with the decisional independence of ALJs.''

The American Bar Association says further that: ``Nothing less than the integrity of the administrative judiciary is at issue here. That is why it is critical that Members of Congress have an opportunity to participate in the debate and help formulate a solution. The first step is to halt implementation of the executive order.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters from those four organizations.

American Association for Justice,

July 13, 2018.

Hon. Members of the House,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Member of Congress: The American Association for

Justice strongly opposes the Trump Administration's recent

executive order regarding the hiring and role of federal

Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). An impartial judiciary is

central to the strength of our justice system, and ALJs

should not be involved in the political process. The ALJ

executive order threatens the American people's right to a

neutral arbiter and right to due process.

It is vital that ALJs be independent and impartial. This

executive order eliminates the process of selecting ALJs

based on their qualifications, and instead allows these

positions to be filled by political appointees without any

merit-based procedure. Administrative proceedings should

continue to be overseen and adjudicated by ALJs who are

qualified, such as attorneys with at least seven years of

litigation experience and who are vetted by the Office of

Personnel Management, as was the prior process. The

appointment of ALJs with no experience, who can gain

appointment solely due to their financial contributions or

other political incentives so long as they possess a bar

license, could result in unfair, biased rulings for millions

of Americans.

The executive order will have a devastating effect on a

vast array of cases, including cases before the Social

Security Administration, Department of Labor, National Labor

Relations Board, and Department of Health and Human Services.

There are about 2,000 ALJs that decide over a million cases

each year. Approximately 1,600 of those ALJs hear Social

Security disability cases and render almost 700,000 decisions

each year at the hearing level. It is important for all cases

overseen by ALJs to have a neutral ALJ handling the case, not

someone who may be beholden to a particular political party,

hostile to a particular agency or program, or otherwise

politically motivated in their decision-making. AAJ is

especially concerned about bias against claimants seeking

Social Security disability benefits.

We urge you to oppose this executive order and to support

Amendment #55, sponsored by Reps. Scott (VA), Cummings,

Cicilline and Larson (CT), to Division B of Rules Committee

Print 115-81 (H.R. 6147). We greatly appreciate your support

in protecting the American people's right to due process.

Sincerely,

Linda Lipsen,

CEO, American Association for Justice.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, by refusing to allow this amendment to come to the floor, the majority has denied Members the opportunity to have an important debate on this issue. Rather than avoiding the issue, the majority should be standing up for a just and impartial review process. Rather than refusing a vote on this amendment, the majority should be joining us in holding the administration to account.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the majority's opposition to consider this issue that affects so many constituents across the country. I, therefore, urge Members to oppose the rule.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the ranking member for his very cogent remarks that go to the principle of the matter before the House today.

I have to say, I come to the well of the House in outrage against the attack on the District of Columbia by the Republican House. In 1973-- that is 45 years ago--Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which created the locally elected government.

Understand that after the Civil War, it is Republicans who first gave the District of Columbia the right to have its own home rule, a tradition that this Republican majority has repudiated. According to the Home Rule Act, a central purpose of the act was, and I am quoting, ``to relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.''

President Nixon, who signed the bill, affirmed that purpose himself when he wrote--and I am going to quote President Nixon: ``One of the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local control and to provide local governments with the authority and resources they need to serve their communities effectively. The measure I signed today represents a significant step in achieving this goal in the city of Washington. It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city officials and to govern themselves in local affairs.

``As the Nation approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly appropriate to ensure those persons who live in the Capital City the rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen. But the measure I signed today does more than create machinery for the election of local officials. It also broadens and strengthens the structure of city government to enable it to deal more effectively with its responsibility.''

Signed, Richard Nixon.

How do we square those words and the bipartisan Home Rule Act with a fiscal year 2019 appropriation bill which is the most significant abuse of congressional power over the District

of Columbia since Republicans took control of the House in 2011?

This bill repeals two D.C. laws and prohibits the city from spending its local funds, consisting only of local taxes raised in the city by local citizens, not a cent of it raised from this House, to either carry out or enact three laws.

I filed amendments to strike all five of these undemocratic riders. Even though my amendments complied with the House rules, the Rules Committee did not make any of them in order, afraid, apparently, of debate on this matter before the people of the United States. Adding insult to injury, the Rules Committee piled on by making in order two additional anti-Home Rule riders. If this bill stands, there will be a record seven anti-Home Rule riders in it.

Some of these riders come back every year, and yet we have been able to get them off every year in conference.

This Republican majority endlessly touts their support of local affairs--a lie, as long as that principle stops at the District of Columbia border, and Republicans interfere with the spending and laws of a local jurisdiction not their own.

Pardon me for being angry, but I remind my colleagues that the 700,000 American citizens who live in the District of Columbia pay the highest Federal taxes per capita in the United States and have fought and died in every war since the Revolutionary War; yet they have no voting representation on this House floor, even on their own appropriation, and no representation in the Senate at all.

These riders amount to bullying that takes unfair advantage of the District of Columbia. No wonder we are making headway on our D.C. statehood bill, but it should not take statehood.

It should not take statehood for any district to be treated with respect and fairness.

We have been successful in cleaning up the D.C. appropriation in the past, and we will be successful again. The people of the District of Columbia will not let you get away with bullying them after they have paid their Federal taxes the way every Member of this House has.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding to me, and I want to strongly identify with his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I led the Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats last week urging President Trump to cancel his meeting with Vladimir Putin because I knew this was going to turn out badly, but, frankly, I didn't know how bad it would be. It turns out President Trump embarrassed himself and disgraced our Nation.

Standing on foreign soil, the President of the United States questioned America's intelligence community; he attacked America's law enforcement with bizarre conspiracy theories; he lobbed petty political insults; and he did it all while standing next to America's chief rival, Vladimir Putin.

When faced head-on with the question, ``Who do you believe?'' President Trump sided with Putin and affirmed Putin's brazen lies. This is the tyrant who directed attacks on America's democracy in an effort to elect Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. And, as Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said, these attacks are still ongoing.

As we all know, Putin is a ruthless leader who seeks to tear down our alliances, undermine Western unity, and destroy democracy. With the eyes of the world on them, it is plain that the President of the United States is now Putin's willing accomplice, Putin's poodle. It is outrageous; it is disgusting; it is dangerous; and it has been met with near universal condemnation.

Here is what Speaker Ryan said just yesterday, and I agree with the Speaker:

There is no question that Russia interfered in our election

and continues attempts to undermine democracy here and around

the world. The President needs to understand that Russia is

not our ally. There is no moral equivalency between the

United States and Russia, which remains hostile to our most

basic values and ideals, and that Russia must be held

accountable.

That is what our Republican Speaker said, and I agree with him.

I have introduced this resolution so that the entire House can go on record agreeing with the Speaker, affirming that we stand with the Speaker. I deeply regret that a member of the Speaker's own party just blocked the House from speaking with one voice and taking up this resolution by unanimous consent.

We must reject the President's capitulation to Putin; we must stand up for American leadership on the global stage; and we must demand that this administration treat Russia like the enemy it is.

How can you treat Putin better than U.S. intelligence? It just boggles my mind.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the resolution I have just introduced, which is H. Res. 999.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question.