Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I witnessed, as did all of us, the jubilation of my friends, the Republican majority, in passing the tax cut measure that had been advocated as tax reform for a substantial period of time, but, finally, they did admit that it was a tax cut.

I rise here today just to lay down a marker. I have said, as have many of my colleagues, that what we witnessed is the beginning of what ultimately will allow for us to address the entitlements in this country.

Many of us know that the deficit that the tax cuts create are going to allow, some time during the course of next year or shortly after the election, us to begin discussing Medicare and Medicaid. I think that is a mistake, and I want that to be recognized.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes of debate. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action came before Congress, I made my objections very clear. I believed then, as I do now, that the Iran deal too quickly removed the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place, allowing Iran to remain a nuclear threshold state.

However, like it or not, the JCPOA is now law, and it will be wrong to undermine it for purely political reasons. Unfortunately, that is, in my opinion, what my Republican colleagues are doing here today. This is not the way to handle our country's foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, the most important question that you need to ask yourself at this time does not have to do with the substance of the legislation this rule provides for, but, rather, why on Earth this body is wasting what precious legislative time remains to bring these bills to the floor today.

The checklist of important items that need to be addressed is long and time is short. Thanks to the inability of my Republican colleagues to govern, even within their own conference, we face the specter of yet another government shutdown next week. The Band-Aid that Republicans came up with last week to provide funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which insures some 9 million children, expires at the end of the year. Utah, Colorado, Arizona, California, Ohio, Minnesota, the District of Columbia, and Oregon are just some of the States that have had to inform families that CHIP funding is nearing its end.

Why is this? Historically, the Children's Health Insurance Program funding has been a largely bipartisan effort. And why shouldn't it be? We are simply talking about helping to cover roughly 9 million low- income children and pregnant women.

It has been over 2 months since CHIP's authorization lapsed, and it is far past time for a sensible solution to this problem. Does today's legislation solve this issue? No, it does not.

We also have 800,000-plus DREAMers waiting for word from this Republican-

controlled Congress. Will my friends across the aisle allow these fine young people to remain in the only country they have ever known as home? Will you let those DREAMers who have served this country bravely stay in this country so that they may start their own families here in the United States, start their own businesses, and go to college?

The idea that my friends would drag their feet on such an issue, let alone actually allow DREAMers to be deported, is anathema to what this country stands for, and it will darken the beacon this country has been for millions of people since our founding: a place where those of differing backgrounds but dedicated to freedom and the rule of law come and make a life for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans control the House; they control the Senate; they control the White House; and what has that control translated into for the American people? Absolutely nothing at this point. In fact, it is looking increasingly more like the first year of a unified Republican government in over a decade will end with nothing getting done.

In an attempt to distract from their failures, Republicans have taken to blaming, and I quote them, ``obstructionist Democrats.'' They point to this side of the aisle as the cause of their governing woes. That is a neat trick, but the American people are not going to fall for it, and I think you saw that last night in Alabama where new stars fell on Alabama.

It wasn't the Democrats who tried to take healthcare away from 32 million people. It was Republicans. Thank goodness they failed. It is not the Democrats who are trying to give the wealthy and rich corporations a tax break on the backs of hardworking Americans. It is the Republicans. I hope this equally misguided effort likewise fails.

I have some advice for my Republican friends. If, like this side of the aisle, you spent more time working on policies that help the American people instead of the wealthy and rich corporations that are doing just fine, you would likely see more legislative success.

Democrats remain ready to work in a bipartisan way to accomplish all that remains left to do this year. We are ready to fund the government and provide for smart investments for the future of our country. We are ready to pull the hundreds of thousands of DREAMers out of unnecessary limbo and provide them with the status they deserve. We are ready to provide the funding and authorization needed to give millions of low- income children the health insurance they need.

The list goes on and on. But, Mr. Speaker, if Republicans continue to not even allow Democrats in the room to address these issues and if they continue to burn legislative time on the bills we have before us today, then it won't be just the Republican majority that pays the price. It will be the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am expecting another speaker. If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the bipartisan bicameral bill H.R. 3440, the Dream Act.

Just last week, a group of 34 of my Republican colleagues sent a letter to Speaker Ryan urging a vote before the year's end on legislation that would protect the DACA recipients. This means, if we defeat the previous question and bring up the Dream Act, the bill would garner enough bipartisan support to pass the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask how much longer will this body be complicit in the Trump administration's assault on DREAMers? It is time we listen to the vast majority of Americans and this body and act to protect these courageous young people.

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, when my speaker arrives, I will allow Mrs. Torres to discuss this matter further. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, continuing, we are faced, as I said earlier, with another government shutdown. The National Flood Insurance Program, which is particularly critical to those of us in coastal States, is set to expire. The Republican Band-Aid to keep the Children's Health Insurance Program funded will run out, leaving millions of children without the healthcare they need.

The authorization of an important intelligence tool to keep this country safe is set to expire, and millions of Americans in California, Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands desperately wait to find out if they will receive the resources they need to recover from the devastating hurricanes and the wildfires that we have seen this year and that are continuing in California.

I have said repeatedly that FEMA is not only dealing with hurricanes and floods, they are dealing with tornadoes and with all sorts of matters, and the wildfires manifestly have kept them occupied over the course of time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), my good friend, as I previously noted, to discuss the proposal that I spoke of with reference to the DREAMers.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my good friend that I have no further speakers and I will be prepared to close when he is prepared.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of 2017, and with just a few legislative days left, the Republican majority is focusing on the wrong things. Plain and simple, the bills before us today are more evidence of that.

Over the next couple of weeks, we face a terrifyingly long to-do list, the outcome of which will affect every single American.

Let me be very clear. My friend from Maine and my friend from Texas, my friend from Maine, especially, passionately put forward significant matters having to do with Iran. My recollection is that I, for one, as did many members of the Democratic Party, voted for the transparency that he calls for and are likely to do so again.

While this is an important matter, it is not nearly as critical at this time that we be occupying this kind of legislative time. The simple fact of the matter is we could have put this on the suspension calendar and not been exercising ourselves in the Rules Committee, occupying legislative time that could be addressing the Flood Insurance Program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and intelligence tools that keep this country safe that are about to expire.

We could have been addressing the hurricane relief for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and southwest Louisiana.

We could have been addressing the fires in California, Oregon, Montana, and other areas of the country.

We could have been addressing the flood in Texas that devastated portions of that area, as well as, during that same period of time, we had tornadoes and other issues indicating how critical it is that we support these matters.

We could have been dealing with a real infrastructure measure. Everybody in this country knows that our roads and bridges are in despicable shape at this point, and it is not as if we do not have the ability to do something about it. We don't have the political will.

So we are wasting legislative time here today with these daunting tasks before us, and this is what the Republican majority chooses to focus on: trying to pass a tax bill, for example, that gives most of the benefits to the wealthy and rich corporations while adding over more than $1 trillion to the deficit.

I have said before: Look out. When we finish whatever this tax bill is--and now it is being called what it is, a tax cut and not tax reform that is needed in this country. When we finish with that, the next words out of many of my colleagues' mouths next year are going to be, ``We need to address the entitlements,'' meaning Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. I can assure you that that is what we will hear from my former deficit hawk friends who are now in charge of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican friends, for the sake of the American people, to abandon this reckless tact and return to regular order. That is something that we are not doing and have not done. We have had more closed rules in this session of Congress than in the history of the United States Congress.

They need to work with Democrats in a bipartisan way. I think Alabama told us that last night, and I hope that that message is pervasive and allows for us in this body, as well as in the other body, to understand the importance of everybody, all of these brilliant people that Americans sent here to work, to work together to solve many of the issues of this country and address its needs in a meaningful way, not the needs of the wealthy few. Given everything there is to do, anything less is abdication of our duty as legislators.

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, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mrs. Annie Jackson of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who passed away at the age of 99 on October 27, 2017. Mrs. Jackson was born in Waynesboro, Georgia and received her education in the Georgia State School system. She held a variety of jobs in her lifetime and retired from the Broward County School System, where she worked for over 29 years.

At the age of fourteen, Mrs. Jackson's spiritual life began at the Third Chapel Church in Midville, Georgia. She later joined and continued to serve at New Hope Baptist Church, until her health began to fail. Married to the late Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jackson spent her time ministering to the needs of her church, family, and community.

Mrs. Jackson led her family by example as a strong Christian loving mother, and endless server of her community. Fond memories of her will forever remain with her son Rayford Smith; her sisters Florence Smith and Mae Julian Smith; four grand-children; three great grandchildren; two great-great grandchildren; a great-great grandniece; her caretaker and host of other relatives and friends.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Annie Jackson will be remembered by the many people she touched in her 99 years of life. She was truly a shining star of the Fort Lauderdale community. I am so grateful to honor her life and legacy. She will be missed tremendously.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy Mrs. Nezzie O. Marion of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who passed away at the age of 102 on October 14, 2017. Born on May 15, 1915 to Mr. & Mrs. Allanza and Katie Oglesby, Mrs. Marion was Georgia-born and raised.

Married to the late Mr. Willie Preston Marion in 1937, the young couple moved to Fort Lauderdale in 1940. Mrs. Marion's spiritual life began at a young age. She was a faithful member of the New Mount Olive Baptist Church for 77 years, where she served on the Usher Board and the Pulpit Aide Ministry.

Mrs. Marion led her family by example as a strong Christian loving mother, embodying what it means to be a true servant to her community. Fond memories of her will forever remain with her four children: Willie Marion, Polly Harden, Lonzie Marion, and Beverly Hardemon; two sisters: Mary Caldwell and Annie Wallace; eleven grandchildren, nineteen great grandchildren, and eight great-great grandchildren, along with a host of nieces, nephews, cousins, and other loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Nezzie O. Marion will be remembered by the many people she touched in her 102 years of life. She was truly a blessing to the Fort Lauderdale community. I am so pleased to honor her life and legacy. She will be dearly missed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 54th closed rule brought by the Republican majority to the floor. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I pointed that out, as well as the fact that there were 25 Members of this body who offered amendments that were not made in order. Significant numbers of them were germane, and they were bipartisan. We cannot continue to ignore the importance of allowing full membership to participate on behalf of their constituents.

Today's bill combines two bills: one, a bipartisan supported approach to strengthening background checks; the other, a disgraceful handout to the powerful gun lobby and gun manufacturers.

I also pointed out last night that the NRA, in many respects, is two bodies: those at the top and the rank-and-file members. Many of the rank-and-file members, for example, support universal background checks that we could be talking about in this measure if an amendment seeking to have that made in order had been made in order.

A month ago yesterday, this country grieved with our brothers and sisters in Sutherland Springs, Texas, as they reeled from one of the worst mass shootings this country has ever suffered. A man walked into a house of worship as churchgoers prayed and sprayed bullets throughout the building. He killed an 18-month-old baby; he killed eight members of one family; he killed the pastor's 14-year-old daughter--a total of 26 people--and he was able to do so in a matter of minutes.

We learned later that this man had served in the Air Force and, while there, had been court-martialed for committing acts of domestic violence against his wife and infant child. As part of his sentence, he was prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Tragically, this information was never put into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and we call that NICS. He was able to pass a background check and come into possession of several guns he would use to murder 26 innocent people in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on November 5, 2017.

This tragic event is instructive to the bill brought by us today. Clearly, our background check system must be strengthened.

The problems with our background check system are more grave than we previously could even imagine, as recent reports indicate that the FBI has sought to retrieve guns from thousands of people that the background check system should have blocked from buying a weapon but who ultimately were allowed to do so.

I think we can all agree that, if we have a system through which people

like the murderer in Sutherland Springs can buy a gun or one in which thousands of people who should have never been allowed to buy a gun in the first place are able to do so, then we really have no system at all.

Today's bill, in part, would have been a good first step in addressing those weaknesses. But, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues, in a fashion so common for their majority of this Congress, have decided to sabotage a commonsense, bipartisan bill by combining it with a reckless piece of legislation that will allow guns to be carried all over this country.

Let us remember that the gunman in Texas was a known domestic abuser. He abused his wife and he abused his child. Under today's concealed carry bill, all we would have to do is change ``wife'' to ``girlfriend,'' and in some States he would be able to obtain a concealed carry permit for a handgun. Should today's bill become law, he would then be allowed to bring that concealed handgun into your State, even if your State does not allow convicted domestic abusers to have concealed weapons.

For example, Mr. Speaker, the State that I am privileged and proud to represent, Florida, stops abusive dating partners from carrying loaded, hidden handguns in public. However, my friend from Georgia's State, right over the border, does not have that same restriction. Under this legislation, Florida would be mandated to allow abusive dating partners with concealed permits from Georgia to carry their weapons in Florida.

Under H.R. 38, violent offenders and people with no firearms safety training would be able to carry hidden loaded guns even if they could not otherwise legally purchase a gun in the State.

Footnote right there: like my friend from Georgia, I, too, have a concealed carry permit in the State of Florida, and I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment and a person's right to own a weapon, but I also think we should be discussing today matters such as the bump stock, and there were amendments that dealt with that that were not made in order. I think we should be discussing assault weapons in the hands of the public. I, for the life of me, do not understand how anybody, other than people in law enforcement and the military, need an AK-47 or a multiple-firing gun.

Mr. Speaker, this idea that we are presented with here is so terrible, so anathema to common sense and decency, that one has to wonder aloud, where did such an idea come from.

Well, we have an answer, and it is probably not too surprising. Today's concealed carry bill is brought to you by the Republican Party via their very influential friends in the powerful gun lobby.

Footnote right there: the gun lobby does the bidding of gun manufacturers, who benefit immensely. Why don't we just pass a mandate that every woman, man, and child in America must buy a gun, and maybe that would satisfy or satiate gun manufacturers with reference to how they continuously cause us to do things that are not commonsense matters as it pertains to guns.

In fact, this bill, which will allow domestic abusers to carry concealed weapons across State lines, is the top priority for the gun lobby. Well, happy holidays, fellows, but we here on this side of the aisle are going to do everything that we can to make sure you don't get it.

When this matter gets to the other body, I can assure my friend from Georgia, and all of the speakers on either side today, that it is going nowhere.

So what are we doing by bringing this measure in the first place? Is it a distraction? Is it an absolute necessity that we do this?

Mr. Speaker, just so we are crystal clear, what is happening right now in the people's House, let me reiterate, just over 2 months after a gunman killed 58 people and wounded nearly 550 people in Las Vegas, and just over a month after another gunman killed 26 people in their church as they prayed, this Republican majority, in response to those atrocities, saw fit to bring to the floor a bill that would allow violent offenders to carry concealed weapons all across the country. Let that sink in.

This isn't the only time that we have done something along these lines. After Sandy Hook, after children were killed and their teachers were killed, we did nothing. After Virginia Tech; where people were killed in significant numbers at a military base; in Colorado in a theater; in Orlando, Florida, in a nightclub, repeatedly we have seen these multiple shootings, or mass shootings as they are referred to, where three or more people are killed, 330 times this year alone we have had mass shootings, yet we come here with a bill talking about carrying concealed weapons.

Every day in America, 93 people on average are killed with a gun, seven of them children, but in the midst of this gun violence epidemic, and that is what it is, what do my Republican colleagues do? Did they bring to the floor legislation to close the gun show loophole, or did they close loopholes to prevent domestic abusers from purchasing guns, or are they considering a ban on so-called bump stocks that do turn semiautomatic weapons into illegal automatic guns, most recently used to rain carnage down on innocent concertgoers in Las Vegas?

One country music singer pointed out that his band had legal guns, but they were afraid to bring them out in Las Vegas because the authorities couldn't ferret out who was doing the shooting. We had that in a Wal-Mart that all of us saw posted, the shooting where people with guns caused confusion among the police.

A footnote there: this bill proposes to study the issue of bump stocks. Mr. Speaker, we don't need a study. As my colleague, Congresswoman Dina Titus, who represents the city of Las Vegas, said last night at the Rules Committee, the only study we need is to go look at the 58 crosses in her district. That is what bump stocks do. That is your study.

Did my Republican colleagues bring to the floor a bill that would have addressed any of these commonsense proposals? Of course not, because even though those proposals have the support of an overwhelming majority of American people when it comes to guns, that is not what motivates my Republican friends. What they care about is the gun lobby and gun manufacturers and their wish list. That is why we are here today.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle like to compare a concealed carry permit to a driver's license, but let me set the record straight, because that comparison is nothing but a gross exercise in false equivalency. A driver's license must meet stringent, uniform Federal criteria established under the REAL ID Act. This includes a photo of the license holder and data including their date of birth and their State of residence.

There are absolutely no such uniform standards when it comes to concealed carry permits. In some States, they could look like a paper library card. In others, they may have photo identification.

There is no national database, no hotline that contains permit information from all 50 States, so law enforcement would be in a position of having to find each individual issuing agency to verify that a concealed carry permit is valid, and that is impossible.

My Republican colleagues often tout their support for our first responders. Well, I urge them to heed the warnings of those brave men and women. Major law enforcement groups understand how dangerous this bill would be, and that is why so many of them oppose what the majority is trying to do here today. Organizations like the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Foundation, and Police Executive Research Forum all stand in strong opposition to today's bill.

To make matters worse, this piece of legislation even exposes members of the law enforcement community to personal litigation if they mistakenly question someone's ability to carry a concealed weapon.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just some small issue limiting a law enforcement officer's ability to carry out their job; this limit on challenging concealed carry permits will cost lives. In fact, a recent study conducted by Stanford University found that when States weaken law enforcement's authority to deny a permit to those who pose a danger to the community, violent crime goes up by 13 to 15 percent. This research is clear, convincing, and not at

all difficult to fathom. When you lift limits on who can carry a concealed weapon, gun-related crime goes up. It is that simple.

Mr. Speaker, among the many important issues this body must address, the following stand out: as of this moment, we are roughly 72 hours away from a government shutdown; we have 800,000 persons whom we refer to as DREAMers who continue to wait for us to do the right thing and bring them fully into the only country that they know as home; and we have 9 million children and their parents facing an unconscionable lapse in lifesaving funding for the incredibly important Children's Health Insurance Program.

Given all that, what does the Republican-controlled Congress do? They bring a bill to the floor that will make it easier for domestic abusers to cross State lines with concealed weapons. This is shameful and no way to run a government.

Last night, I thought actively too long trying to go to sleep about the acronym GOP, Grand Old Party, the conservatives, the States' rights conservatives, the fiscal conservatives who are about to dump serious debt on our children should be called now by their acronym, rather than GOP, in light of the choice that they make with reference to guns, perhaps GOP should stand for ``Guns Over People.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a very good friend of mine.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Iowa, Mr. King, had two amendments that were rejected last night in the Rules Committee. I join him in saying that we need to get back to regular order.

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform me and my friend from Georgia how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my good friend, who is a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act.

Mr. Speaker, a group of 34 of my Republican colleagues sent a letter this week to Speaker Ryan urging a vote before the year's end on legislation that would protect DACA recipients. I include in the Record that letter.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: We write in support of passing of a

permanent legislative solution for Deferred Action for

Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients before the end of the

year. DACA recipients--young people brought to America

through no fault of their own--are contributing members of

our communities and our economy. For many, this is the only

country they have ever known. They are American in every way

except their immigration status.

Since DACA's inception, the federal government has approved

approximately 795,000 initial DACA applications and 924,000

renewals. Since being approved for DACA status, an

overwhelming majority of these individuals have enrolled in

school, found employment, or have served in the military.

Studies have shown that passing legislation to permanently

protect these individuals would add hundreds of billions to

our country's gross domestic product (GDP). That is why the

business community, universities, and civic leaders alike

support a permanent legislative solution.

We agree with President Trump that executive action was not

the appropriate process for solving this issue, as was done

under the previous administration, and we believe Congress

should act. We are compelled to act immediately because many

DACA recipients are about to lose or have already lost their

permits in the wake of the program's rescission. Not acting

is creating understandable uncertainty and anxiety amongst

immigrant communities.

While we firmly believe Congress must work to address other

issues within our broken immigration system, it is imperative

that Republicans and Democrats come together to solve this

problem now and not wait until next year. We all agree that

our border must be enforced, our national security defended,

and our broken immigration system reformed, but in this

moment, we must address the urgent matter before us in a

balanced approach that does not harm valuable sectors of our

economy nor the lives of these hard-working young people. We

must pass legislation that protects DACA recipients from

deportation and gives them the opportunity to apply for a

more secured status in our country as soon as possible.

Reaching across the aisle to protect DACA recipients before

the holidays is the right thing to do.

Sincerely,

Scott Taylor; Dan Newhouse; Mia Love; Mark Amodei; David

G. Valadao; Dave Reichert; Brian Fitzpatrick; Mike

Coffman; Charlie Dent; Frank A. LoBiondo; Peter T.

King; Carlos Curbelo; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Ryan A.

Costello; Fred Upton; Jeff Denham; Rodney Davis; John

J. Faso; John Katko; Chris Stewart; Susan W. Brooks;

Adam Kinzinger; GT Thompson; Mike Simpson; Mimi

Walters; Leonard Lance; Pat Meehan; Elise Stefanik; Tom

MacArthur; Chris Smith; Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon; Joe

Barton; Will Hurd; Bruce Poliquin.

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 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have watched this year as members of the Republican majority have worked diligently to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would have been a failure for the American people but great for special interests.

I have watched members of the Republican majority work relentlessly to push a tax scam bill through this body that will certainly be a failure for the American people but great for corporate America and the ultrawealthy.

I have watched members of the Republican majority here today and yesterday in the Rules Committee champion a bill that will be a failure for the American people, especially survivors of domestic violence, but great for the powerful corporate gun lobby and gun manufacturers. I sense a theme for my friends across the aisle, and it is a shameful one.

Mr. Speaker, our country faces a gun violence epidemic, and we here in Congress should be doing all that we can to put it to an end.

The opportunity to pass a bipartisan measure to strengthen our background

check system has presented itself, but apparently the majority, without hearings, would rather drown bipartisanship in the dirty waters of the corporate gun lobby and gun manufacturers.

I have said it before, and I will say it again here today: Those who stand in the way of legislation that will address our country's gun violence epidemic are increasingly culpable for its needless continuation. That is why I dubbed and gave the acronym GOP, ``Guns Over People,'' but I guess I should have used the acronym ``Good Old Puppets'' of the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and underlying bill, and 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, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 645.

personal explanation

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, for far too long, the Republican majority in Congress has treated Federal workers as if they are the problem.

We have spent years beating up Federal employees, implementing pay freezes, implementing hiring freezes, and cutting benefits in order to drive employees away from government service. The legislation we are debating today continues this offensive unfair trend.

This bill doubles the probationary period for employees of the civil service, in an effort to make it easier to fire the employees without giving them any chance to challenge that decision. In doing so, my Republican friends are sending a clear message, and that message is that they see Federal employees as untrustworthy and unworthy of being secure in their employment.

The amendment I am offering would exempt those who have served this country through programs such as the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps from the 2-year probationary period under this legislation, instead keeping them at the 1-year level of probation already in effect.

Last night, I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee to extend this same exemption for veterans, but it was blocked from consideration.

Let me say that again because I want every one watching to hear me loudly and clearly. Last night, the Republican majority on the Rules Committee voted to block an amendment that would have protected veterans employed in the government from being fired without cause.

I was told by my colleague who introduced this measure that being able to fire veterans within a 2-year probationary period--footnote right there: veterans would have already served 2 or more years before becoming civil servants at that level--but I was told that, without giving them any legal protections, recourse, or even an ability to improve ``helps the veterans, just like it helps everyone.''

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you that is hogwash. Veterans should not need to prove themselves worthy of a government job for a full 2 years before they are afforded the rights that should be inherent their position.

We ought to be spending time working to strengthen our Federal workforce through better training and more plentiful diversity programs. Instead, this bill needlessly undermines our civil service and the fine people who work within it, while simultaneously making it a less attractive place of employment for our best and brightest at a time when we are in desperate need of such people.

This amendment would protect those who have already served our country in the national service from this bill's intentions. In my opinion, we should be expanding protections for everyone--for veterans, women, minorities, LGBTQ Americans, and especially for disabled Americans.

Let me say one more thing that I said last night, and this is with due respect to my colleague, Mr. Connolly, who is managing for the minority in this case, and the extraordinary number of constituents that he and the Members, both Republican and Democrat, in the near curtilage of this area here in metropolitan Washington, they do an incredible job. Their constituents virtually all are saying to them that this is an unnecessary measure.

I am sure that Mr. Connolly has made that very clear. I heard him introduce measures that I introduced in the Rules Committee last night from a variety of organizations. I will not burden you more but to say that we should be about the business of trying to build a Federal workforce and not put obstacles in their way.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, yielded me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Once again, my Republican colleagues have decided that the best way to govern is through obfuscation, mathematical gimmicks, and a rushed and closed process, and all in an obvious attempt to hide from the American people the devastating consequences the Republican-led tax scam bill will have on working class and middle class Americans.

Just so we are all crystal clear on this point: Who, under this tax bill, benefits on the backs of working and middle class Americans? Yes, folks, it is the wealthy corporations and the richest among us.

The Republican majority has made lofty claims about their bill, saying that because of this legislation, everyone gets a tax cut, jobs will be plentiful, and that the economy will grow exponentially and astronomically. The White House has even said that the tax cuts would result in each household receiving an additional $5,000 to $9,000 in annual income.

Mr. Speaker, it seems there isn't anything that Republican leadership won't say to get their own Members to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, they can make all the claims they want, but the actual tax experts who have analyzed this bill paint a much darker picture about the consequences of this legislation. According to one nonpartisan tax analysis, today's Republican plan will result in a tax increase for 38 million middle class Americans.

Not to worry, though. While these hardworking middle class families have to deal with the tax increase, the richest 0.2 percent of Americans will get a windfall. In fact, the estate provision in this bill alone would allow the heirs of just 11 ultrawealthy individuals to pocket up to $67.5 billion. An estimated 80 percent of the tax cuts in this legislation will go to wealthy corporations and the richest 1 percent.

Mr. Speaker, even more astonishing, a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that this Republican tax bill could trigger automatic cuts to mandatory spending to the tune of $136 billion, including $25 billion in the Medicare cut.

Let that sink in, because actually what is getting ready to happen here is we are going to have a $1.5 trillion deficit, and these deficit hawks on the other side are then going to turn right back around and say that we need to pay for these things. Then watch out Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, because that is the objective, in my view, in the first place.

In order to cut taxes for the ultrawealthy and corporations, my Republican colleagues are not only raising taxes on the middle class, but are now potentially triggering a $25 billion cut to Medicare.

If this inequity were not staggering enough, Americans also have to keep in mind that today's Republican tax giveaway to corporate America and the ultrawealthy is not only on the backs of the middle class, but also future generations, as this bill will explode our national debt by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Not surprisingly, Republicans are making the tired excuse that these cuts will pay for themselves. If they did, then we would have the easiest jobs in the world. Just cut taxes, and magically we will have even more revenue to pay for the important needs of our country. That sounds a lot like the old trickle-down-which-never-worked economics. It sounds that way to me, and we all know that as far as economic theories go, that one was and is a complete and total dud.

Mr. Speaker, to summarize the majority's attempt to overhaul our Tax Code for the first time in 30 years: they raise taxes on middle class Americans, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, and manage to explode the debt all at the same time--all this while also leading the most closed Congress in history and shutting out Members of Congress who represent nearly half of the American people.

Hear that, America: a lot of your Representatives had no opportunity to say or do anything regarding the measure that we are discussing.

Mr. Speaker, let us step back and really get a full view of how callous this bill is for our Nation by looking at how the bill treats middle class Americans versus its treatment of the ultrawealthy and corporate America.

Under this Republican tax scam bill, a working class schoolteacher who buys supplies for his or her students would not be able to deduct that expense, but a corporation that buys supplies for itself would be able to use such a deduction.

Under this Republican tax bill, a middle class homeowner would see their property tax deduction capped at $10,000, but a corporation would not face the same cap.

Under this Republican tax bill, if a worker was forced to relocate for his or her job--footnote there, including the military--because the company moved or, in the case of the military, they were relocated, he or she would not be able to deduct that moving expense; but if a corporation decided to relocate, even to relocate overseas, it will be able to deduct its moving expense.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on. But we shouldn't be surprised. As the old adage goes, bad process makes for bad policy.

Not since the Republicans' failed attempt to strip healthcare away from millions of Americans have we seen a process that is this bad.

Take, for example, the last time Congress passed major tax reform legislation in 1986 and what that process looked like. During that effort, the Ways and Means Committee held a month of public hearings and took testimony from over 450 witnesses.

The legislation before us now has had no--zero--public hearings and testimony from no--zero--expert witnesses.

During the last tax reform overhaul, the Ways and Means Committee spent 26 days marking up the framework of the legislation. This time around, Republicans spent only 4 days marking up the legislation.

The 1986 legislation framework was released a year before it was passed in the House. In contrast, the framework for this bill was released less than a month before they started today's process of jamming their final bill through the House. There were no hearings and no amendments made in order. From start to finish, there was less than a month of actual consideration.

Much like the majority's rushed healthcare processes that produced an abysmal, destructive bill that would hurt working class Americans, this rushed process has produced a tax bill that benefits corporations and the wealthiest Americans, all while managing to raise taxes on the middle class and adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is lurching from one bad bill to the next with speed--not thoughtful policy--seemingly being the only goal. It begs the question: What is the rush?

As a matter of fact, I don't even think we need a tax bill of this consequence. According to them, the economy is roaring, unemployment is low, interest rates are low. So what is wrong with certainly leaving the wealthy in the category that they are in?

Why are my Republican colleagues setting an arbitrary deadline of passing a tax bill by Thanksgiving, instead of focusing on thoughtful policy and getting the substance right in a bipartisan fashion?

Everyone agrees that we need to do something about the Tax Code. Democrats have been ready to work with Republicans on this effort, but have been shut out of the process at every turn. Why?

The only logical conclusion is that this has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. It has nothing to do with helping the middle class, but instead is a callous political maneuver aimed at salvaging a stalled and ever-failing Republican agenda.

We are about to end the year with nothing having been done of consequence. Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. This conclusion is not based on my own opinion. Some of my Republican colleagues have admitted as much.

When asked about the need to move on to tax reform quickly, one of my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle was heard to say: ``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever call me again.' ''

Likewise, on the other side of the Capitol, one Republican has stated that, if the Republicans fail on tax reform, just as they did on healthcare, financial contributions will stop.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think politics should dictate our efforts to reform something as significant as the Tax Code. Our guiding light should be to help working folks get a leg up. The only way to do that is to work in a bipartisan, deliberate manner, hearing from experts and the American people, as they did in 1986, and not as my Republican friends have done this time around, spending a mere 3 weeks, with no hearings, no bipartisan efforts, simply to give us something done before Thanksgiving.

That approach only gets you what we have here before us today: a bill that, in my opinion, does more harm than good to middle class Americans and puts our country further into debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee. He happens to be a Democrat, so he didn't have much input here. He is the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, I pointed out to my colleague from Alabama, whom I greatly admire, that he has a number of people claiming medical expense deductions who won't be able to do so under this tax measure. The number of them, in fact, is 22,052, and the total amount claimed under medical expense deduction by them previously was $186 million.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished colleague who I sit next to on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is like old home week from the Rules Committee people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a good friend who used to serve on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, it is old home week here with the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), another former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans), who served in the Pennsylvania Legislature and was chair of appropriations. He really understands this stuff.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a real champion and a mentor of mine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I will go home this week and tell people I voted against this horrible bill. And I will wonder if the last speaker would go home and tell the 11,249 people who utilize $131 million in medical deductions who will not have that under this bill, understanding that it could be different if they chose.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), a newfound friend and a rising star.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am prepared to close and would advise the chairman of that regard.

Mr. Speaker, a new Quinnipiac poll out yesterday shows the American people aren't falling for the Republican tax scam. Only 25 percent approve of this plan, just 16 percent think it will reduce their taxes, and only 24 percent said the Republican plan will help the middle class the most.

Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the American people, throw this dangerous plan in the trash can, where it belongs, and let's work together on a bipartisan plan to help all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment that will prohibit any legislation from limiting or repealing the State and local tax deduction, which prevents millions of families from being taxed twice on the same income.

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.

First, my Republican colleagues attempted to jam an abhorrent healthcare bill through Congress. They failed. After that failure, they moved on to today's attempt to jam an abhorrent tax bill through Congress. For the sake of middle and working class Americans, I hope my Republican friends ultimately meet defeat once again.

Mr. Speaker, we set the record with this particular measure of 51 closed rules in this session, the most closed rules in the history of Congress. What that means is a lot of the Representatives who had good ideas, more than 100 of them that offered amendments last night, were unable to be heard because of closed rules.

After this closed, disgraceful process, this Republican majority has presented, in this instance, a piece of legislation that skews tax cuts in favor of the ultrawealthy and rich corporations.

Now, let's make it very clear. Wealthy people shouldn't be disrespected for their wealth, but I don't know any wealthy people who are knocking down my doors, saying that they need a few more thousand dollars. But I know a lot of poor people who need a few hundred dollars, and this particular measure is not doing many of the things that would allow for them to be able to get on that last rung of that ladder and lift themselves up.

I heard the gentleman say a rising tide lifts all boats. They had the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show,

the largest one in the world, the week before last. All those yachts were lifted, but those little dinghies with the people fishing out in Lake Okeechobee were not lifted one doggone bit by this particular measure.

This bill does so on the backs of middle and working class people and future generations.

With this bill, the former deficit hawk Republican majority would add $1.5 trillion to the debt while potentially triggering $25 billion in cuts to Medicare. I might add that is where they are headed. Look out Medicare, look out Social Security, look out Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and 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, I thank Mr. Garamendi for bringing this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell you, in 7 minutes, I, along with the other members of the Rules Committee, will be meeting on what is described as an emergency meeting. That emergency is what you all have been describing. We were originally scheduled to meet at Rules tomorrow, and now, in an effort to jam this measure through, we are meeting in an emergency capacity.

What the American public needs to know is the substance of what you two gentlemen and others have been talking about, but please know this: every Member deserves the right to contribute to these bills when they affect all of our constituents and will lead to millions of Americans paying more in taxes.

You all will handle the substance, but I thought that I would add that in with my thanks to Mr. Garamendi. It is just atrocious what is going on, and not just Democrats or Republicans, but many persons who sent their Representatives here are not going to have their Representatives be heard.

Mr. Speaker, no hearings whatsoever, and yet the Speaker stood up and said that we are following regular order.

We are not following regular order at all.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to hearing from experts and from affected entities around the country, now we are doing it in 2 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I have to go to the Rules Committee, but I thank you all for what you are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my sincerest birthday wishes to Coach Herman ``Big Man'' Pittman, who will be celebrating his 90th on Sunday, November 19, 2017.

As a young man, Herman was a gifted athlete. He displayed great ability to play the game of basketball, and throughout his high school career at Tampa Middleton High School, he played as the team's point guard. Because of his success, he would go on to earn an athletic scholarship to attend Florida Agriculture & Mechanical University (FAMU), where he lettered on the football team, as well as played starting guard on the FAMU Rattler Basketball Team.

During his time at FAMU, Herman led his team to two Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (SIAC) Championships. He would go on to make First Team All-SIAC Conference and All-SIAC Tournament Team for two years. After graduating from FAMU with his Bachelor of Science in Physical Education, Herman joined the U.S. Army, where he was co- captain of the Fort Meade Generals in Maryland. Herman would go on to earn a Master's of Science in Health and Physical Education from Indiana University.

Herman began his career as a teacher and coach for the Dillard High School Panthers in 1955. He taught physical education and driver's education, and also coached basketball, football, and track during his tenure of 37 years. He also coached at Deerfield Beach High School, making a total of 18 years of coaching. His career as a basketball coach, record of conference participation shows seven Conference Championships, as well as being voted Outstanding Coach of the Conference five times. His teams won six District Championships and were runners-up two times. His teams also qualified for the state tournament seven times, having won four state titles, they qualified for participation in the National High School Tournament held at Tennessee State University in 1959, 1963, 1965, and 1967. His coaching records and contributions earned him the title of ``One of the Winningest and Most Outstanding Coaches in the Nation.''

For Herman's outstanding contributions and commitment to youth and other service involvements in Broward County, he has been awarded numerous honors. The Community and School Board have likewise renamed the Dillard High School Gymnasium as the ``Herman Pittman Gymnasium.''

As an educator, Herman once stated, ``I feel I'm out here trying to educate a child for life. I try to teach them to be able to make adjustments in a changing society. I do the same thing in the classroom that I do on the basketball court--you have to teach young people how to live.'' This is something that Herman has been committed to his entire life.

Outside of teaching and coaching, Herman has continued to dedicate his time to serving in a wide array of organizations that include: Kappa Alpha Psi, Inc. Fraternity, First Baptist Piney Grove Church, ``Meals on Wheels,'' The Kiwanis Club of Central Broward, FAMU Alumni Association, F Club, and the Dillard Task Force.

On Friday, November 3rd, Herman was honored at the 23rd Annual Mount Olive Development Corporation (MODCO) Community Service Awards Gala, entitled ``A Celebration of Savvy Senior Citizens & Committed Military Servants.'' Among the things that he said was ``the world is always evolving,'' in his 90 years he has evolved with the world. And, he has stood the test of time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to wish a very happy 90th birthday to my very good friend, Coach Herman ``Big Man'' Pittman, whose service and dedication to the State of Florida and our nation is truly admirable. Herman will celebrate his birthday with his lovely wife Nielza, their three daughters Linda, Lisa, and Lavette, and their four grandchildren Chelsey, Colin, Mika, and Cody, as well as so many in our community, who love and respect all that he has contributed. I wish him many more years of happiness and success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Keiser University on the commemoration of their 40th anniversary, which they will celebrate on November 10, 2017.

Keiser University was founded in 1977 by Dr. Arthur Keiser and his mother Mrs. Evelyn Keiser, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. By establishing Keiser University, Dr. Keiser and Evelyn sought to provide individuals the necessary educational tools for successfully navigating their chosen careers.

Over the past 40 years, Keiser University has been a shining example of what one can achieve through hard work and dedication. It has grown to become the third largest not-for-profit university in Florida, bolstering 66,000 alumni, over 100 degree granting programs, and 18 campuses across the state. Keiser University has even stretched beyond U.S. borders, establishing campuses abroad in Nicaragua, Moldova, and China.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have watched Keiser University grow and expand its reach. Today, it has an annual economic impact of approximately $3 billion in Florida, while benefiting our residents with over 30,000 direct and indirect jobs each year.

Keiser University's philosophy of putting students first and treating them as individuals is to be commended. Their diverse student body includes veterans, first-generation students, parents, caregivers, and students who have already joined the workforce. Keiser University provides the skills necessary for students to be successful within our global economy, while maintaining flexibility through an impressive online curriculum, which allows non-traditional students the ability to access the quality education they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Keiser University's co-founders and family, Dr. Arthur Keiser, his mother Mrs. Evelyn Keiser, and Ms. Belinda Keiser, and the independent Keiser University Board of Trustees, for their enduring commitment to providing students with a superior education. Over the past 40 years, Keiser University has proven itself to be a home for quality higher education, and a source of great pride to the people of Florida. I am truly honored to represent Keiser University in my Congressional district, and wish them many years of continued success.

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

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks, I would offer condolences to the grieving families who lost loved ones in yesterday's terrorist attack in New York City, and to have the people of New York know--and I know I speak for all of us, and there will be a more appropriate recognition at a time in the future, I am sure, but to have them know that all of us grieve with them and are concerned not only for those who lost their lives, but to assist in preventing measures of this type in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

This bill is a sweeping attack on responsible forest management policy that upends key environmental safeguards, limits public participation in land management decisions, and prioritizes commercial timber harvest over transparent, science-based management. In other words, this is business as usual for this Republican majority when it comes to protecting our environment.

A footnote right there, my friend from the State of Washington does highlight, rightly, concerns not only for his congressional district, but areas throughout the country that have experienced wildfires.

Many of us have talked about this in conjunction with other disasters and a need for this Congress to be able to address the shortfall in funding for such important measures.

During this Congress alone, my Republican friends have brought to the floor bills that undermine the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue independent and objective scientific conclusions, weaken regulations of pesticides, and repeal rulemakings aimed at effective, science-based management of public lands, just to name a few things.

Repeatedly, my Republican friends ignore science and attack environmental protections all in an all-too-obvious attempt to help commercial interests over sound conservation policy. This focus not only undermines our public lands, but it also harms the health and safety of the American people.

This bill continues the assault on our Nation's environmental protections, and it may be one of the most irresponsible examples yet.

Under the guise of responding to the recent tragic wildfires in California and elsewhere in this Nation, this legislation attacks the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, which requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their actions.

The bill also attacks the Endangered Species Act by requiring redundant and unnecessary reporting requirements. It blocks access to the courts and limits recovery in environmental justice cases. Just for good measure, this bill effectively overturns President Obama's administration's monument expansion.

The bill does little to fix the true problem of wildfire management, namely the chronic underfunding of wildfire management. Any serious proposal must address the constant funding shortages at the U.S. Forest Service by increasing the amount of Federal funding available for wildfire suppression. A successful solution needs to provide advanced access to emergency funding.

Unfortunately, today's legislation does no such thing. Yesterday, the administration offered its statement of administration policy, and, at best, it is tepid. It says, ``The administration appreciates the intent of H.R. 2936 . . . and is supportive of land management reforms like those outlined in the legislation,'' and then comes the however. ``The administration, however, has concerns about the legislation's revisions to the Stafford Act, which would force competition for funding between wildfires on Federal land and other disasters already covered by the Stafford Act, including hurricanes.''

It goes on to say, `` . . . the administration supports a separate, annual cap

adjustment for wildfire suppression operations, which will resolve concerns about the sufficiency of funds for wildfire suppression and avoid unnecessary competition for Stafford Act funds.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy.

Statement Of Administration Policy

H.R. 2936--Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017--Rep. Westerman R-AR,

and cosponsors

The Administration strongly believes that funding for

wildland fire management must be addressed in order to enable

the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to

better manage the Nation's forests and other public lands.

The Administration's second disaster funding request,

submitted to Congress on October 4, 2017, underscored this

belief. The request also noted the Administration's belief

that land management reforms are critical to solving the

problem of ``fire borrowing''--taking funds from forest

management programs to cover fire costs that exceed

appropriations--in a comprehensive manner, rather than

through a funding-only appropriations approach.

The Administration appreciates the intent of H.R. 2936, the

Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, and is supportive of

land management reforms like those outlined in the

legislation. The Administration, however, has concerns about

the legislation's revisions to the Stafford Act, which would

force competition for funding between wildfires on Federal

land and other disasters already covered by the Stafford Act,

including hurricanes.

Wildland Fire Management Funding

Last year, Federal wildfire suppression spending reached

$2.9 billion, an amount that signals clearly the need for

Congress to address the rising cost of fire suppression

operations. The dependence on ``fire borrowing'' to cover

funding shortfalls in times of severe wildfire impedes the

missions of our land management agencies, including by taking

critical funding from programs that help reduce the risk of

catastrophic fire, restore and maintain healthy functioning

ecosystems, and yield timber production.

The Administration, however, has concerns with re-purposing

the Stafford Act to address wildfires. The purpose of the

Stafford Act is to assist State, local, tribal, and

territorial (SLTT) governments that become overwhelmed when

responding to and recovering from natural disasters affecting

their jurisdictions. H.R. 2936 would modify the Stafford Act

by creating a new type of disaster declaration to address the

cost of wildfire suppression on Federal land, thereby

changing long-standing principles governing Federal support

to SLTT governments. As we have seen in this year's historic

Atlantic hurricane season, the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) must continue to be focused on its existing

mission, and the Stafford Act's Disaster Relief Fund must

remain dedicated solely to that mission.

Instead of the approach outlined in H.R. 2936, the

Administration supports a separate, annual cap adjustment for

wildfire suppression operations, which will resolve concerns

about the sufficiency of funds for wildfire suppression and

avoid unnecessary competition for Stafford Act funds.

Improving Forest Management

The Administration appreciates H.R. 2936's recognition that

fixing the funding component of fire borrowing will not, on

its own, stop the worsening trend of catastrophic wildfires.

Meaningful forest management reforms to strengthen our

ability to restore the Nation's forests and improve their

resilience to destructive wildfires must be a part of any

permanent solution. H.R. 2936's provisions that expedite

environmental approval for proactive forest management,

including hazardous fuel reduction and post-fire timber

salvage and reforestation actions, are important steps

forward. The Administration supports and will continue to

work with Congress on the details of the forest management

reform proposals.

Although the Administration has concerns with H.R. 2936's

modifications to the Stafford Act, the Administration will

continue working with Congress to enact a sustainable

solution to ``fire borrowing'' that does not adversely affect

FEMA's critical disaster relief funding and that recognizes

the need for a comprehensive solution to the problem of

wildfires.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the bill does little to fix the true problem of wildfire management. Any serious proposal, as I have said, must address the constant funding shortages, and that is what, among other things, the administration suggested.

Mr. Speaker, this year has been a wake-up call. We must do more to respond to the natural disasters that face our Nation. After three major hurricanes and devastating wildfires in my friend from Washington's State, in California, in Montana, and even in the Everglades of Florida we have experienced some wildfires, albeit not at the magnitude of loss of life or property as existed in some of the others, our resources and agencies are stretched to the brink.

Weeks after the storms, millions of people across the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are without power and without reliable access to clean drinking water. FEMA Administrator Brock Long testified just yesterday that the response to these storms and wildfires and other disasters--we have had tornadoes that have come along as well--is costing the Federal Government $200 million a day.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Office of Management and Budget is currently working to send a proposal to Congress for a third supplemental spending package to address the recovery needs in the affected areas. I urge them and my colleagues here in Congress to act swiftly to provide the resources that so many people desperately need. In the meantime, what have we gotten from Republicans? Bipartisanship? Sound science-based proposals? No. Instead, the Republican majority has ignored bipartisanship, and, yesterday, in the Rules Committee, a bipartisan measure was offered that was a thoughtful proposal on this topic, and was rejected, and presented this bill that we have here now that doesn't address the real issues facing public land and wildfire management, but, rather, guts environmental protection and overturns President Obama's monument expansion.

Mr. Speaker, this is business as usual for House Republicans. But if we are going to seriously address natural disasters and how we respond to them, I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to put aside their partisanship, reconsider their denial of climate change and its effects on our environment, and join Democrats in working together to address this and other important issues faced by all Americans.

There were two amendments that were offered yesterday by my colleagues from California. Both of those amendments were not made in order. I don't think it is right when people offer legislation, particularly those that have just been damaged, as our colleagues, Congressmen Thompson and Matsui, and others in the northern California region. They at least should have had an opportunity to offer up their amendment and have it voted against if people felt so here in this body.

I would hope, in the future, we would make a correction of that kind of undertaking. I would hope all Members of this body would have an opportunity to present their ideas on any legislation, and something as important as this could have allowed for an open rule, rather than for partisan activity to reign supreme.

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

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

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

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 might add, attendant to this, on yesterday, my colleagues, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Carlos Curbelo, Frederica Wilson, and myself, introduced legislation calling for giving 300,000 migrants in this country, from a variety of countries, an opportunity for permanent residence--those from El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), my good friend, to speak to the issue that I just talked about, the Dream Act.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would advise my good friend from Washington that I have no further speakers and I will be prepared to close whenever he is. Until such time, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend that I am prepared to close. I have no additional speakers, and I will go forward with your permission.

In the wake of the worst wildfires, as have been mentioned here by so many

of our colleagues, that the U.S. has experienced in quite a while, House Republicans, however, have responded by bringing to the floor, really, a tired bill passed last Congress that went nowhere in the Senate, a bill that does not fix the true problem of chronically underfunding wildfire prevention but, instead, doubles down in creating an unworkable system for wildfire suppression funding, a bill that rolls back environmental protection and limits access to the courts.

It is dismaying to see the response to natural disasters in this country hinge on the same thing so many other important debates do: partisanship and ignoring facts and science.

Despite a year in which we have seen historic hurricanes and wildfires, my Republican colleagues have yet again resorted to continuing to push policies that repeal environmental regulations, all the while denying the effects climate change is having on our communities and our country's economy.

My friend from Oregon, a moment ago--and he is my friend--spoke about the thunderstorms that we receive in Florida. In his version, it is accompanied by rain, and that is true a lot. But we, too, have droughts in Florida, and Florida is known as the lightning capital of the world. Very occasionally, particularly in central Florida and in the Everglades, those lightning strikes produce wildfires in the congressional district that I serve and many others. Our response to these events needs to improve, and it needs to happen quickly.

These disasters do not recognize congressional districts. These disasters do not target one area of our country over another and do not care about Republican or Democratic partisan gamesmanship. If we are going to adequately respond to the needs of millions of American citizens in the wake of these and future storms and future wildfires, we need to be advocating for sound policies based on science. This is the only way to protect future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation, and 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.