Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted ``no,'' when I meant to vote ``yes'' on rollcall No. 285.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayers Require Urgent Mandatory Protection from Egregious Debt Act of 2017, also known as the TRUMPED Act.

Those of us representing south Florida have received numerous calls and letters since the election of Mr. Trump noting the burden on the budgets of local governments and small business owners as he has used his Mar-a-lago property as an almost weekly retreat--I am sure my friends from New York have fielded similar complaints.

Mr. Speaker, our primary law enforcement agencies are proud to provide protection for any number of dignitaries who visit our great state. However, their budgets have not, and cannot, sustain the weight of Mr. Trump's weekly in season trips to Mar-a-lago--nor should they have to as Mr. Trump is provided very nice accommodations here in Washington, D.C. and Camp David in Maryland, at the taxpayer's considerable expense.

Over just one holiday alone, the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office was forced to absorb $250,000 in unforeseen expenses--this is an untenable budgetary posture for our local Sheriff's Office as that number represents a $60,000 per day bill. They must cover overtime for their officers and deploy multiple units including their Motor Unit, Strategic Intelligence Unit, Marine Unit, Aviation Unit, as well as numerous other teams that provide the fabric for a secure trip to South Florida for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Speaker, the TRUMPED Act is based on a simple premise--if Mr. Trump wants to make continual use of his properties then he may do so, but he may not do so at the taxpayer's expense. And let us be clear about something else: Mr. Trump, while burning through taxpayer dollars during these trips, actually makes financial gains when he visits his properties as the U.S. Government must rent space from him during such visits.

Mr. Speaker, it is offensive that Mr. Trump insists on a budget that unequivocally, and without mercy, attacks hardworking Americans, and then has the audacity to turn around and insist that our local police officers, first responders and small businesses suffer under his insistence that he be allowed to enjoy a lavish lifestyle at taxpayer expense. I look forward to the support of my colleagues on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted no when I meant to vote yes on roll call vote no. 266.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act.

Mr. Speaker, law enforcement and first responders play an important role in the safety and security of our communities. I know about that because of the reason that, when I was a lawyer, I had the privilege of representing a firefighters association and a police officers association.

I have represented police officers in court, and I have been in situations where I have interfaced with them as a lawyer in other circumstances. They are an invaluable resource represented by the hard work of dedicated men and women across our Nation.

Most importantly, our admiration for police officers is not a partisan issue. We universally agree that those officers who diligently work to protect our communities warrant our praise as we honor them on this National Police Week.

They are our friends, our neighbors, our family, and they are even our colleagues. I am honored to serve in this institution with a number of persons who, in their other activities, were either police officers or police chiefs that served in that capacity in law enforcement.

We have a new Member here from my State, my good friend, Representative Val Demings, a career law enforcement officer herself-- 27 years she served--serving as Orlando's first female chief of police. I have just a footnote to add to that. Val's husband is the sheriff of Orange County.

It is because of this admiration and bipartisan support that, in some respects, I was dismayed to see that, as we celebrate National Police Week, my Republican colleagues decided now was the time to bring this, in my view, unnecessary messaging bill to the floor simply to score political points.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 would add the murder, attempted murder, or targeting of a law enforcement official, first responder, or firefighter as an aggravating factor when determining if a death sentence is warranted for a defendant convicted of murder in Federal court.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is this bill is unnecessary. It is, in short, really good messaging, but bad policy. Under current law, there is already an exhaustive list of 16 statutory aggravating factors for homicide for a jury or court to consider.

Having been involved in the justice system for a protracted time in my career, I am trying to think of a time that a police officer was killed and a person was tried and convicted; and I ask my colleagues to answer that question, that anybody that was convicted for killing a police officer didn't get the death penalty. I know in my State, in every instance that that occurred--and they were too numerous, and I regret that they occurred at all--all of those people got the death penalty.

We also remember that Federal prosecutors can and do seek the death penalty in the killing of law enforcement or first responders, as our friends from Massachusetts are well aware after a death sentence was handed down in the case involving the Boston Marathon bomber. And that was in Massachusetts, a nondeath penalty State.

Mr. Speaker, on this front, the system is working. Federal prosecutors already have the tools to seek the death penalty in cases where a first responder or law enforcement official was murdered. What's more, they are using these tools.

Given this duplicity, it is a shame that we are here today debating the need for a seventeenth new aggravating factor to keep members of the law enforcement community safe when we could be considering measures that would actually keep them and their communities they protect far safer.

Let's be clear. This legislation does nothing to keep law enforcement officers and first responders safe. By its own purported purpose, this bill addresses the tragic scenario in which the officer has already been killed. We need to be working together to create legislation that has a real impact on keeping our communities and police safer, as opposed to slapping a catchy name on an unnecessary bill and pretend we are doing something.

If my Republican colleagues were serious about advancing protections for law enforcement during National Police Week, we would be discussing providing them with the tools, the resources, and the training to engage in beneficial community policing initiatives. Our law enforcement officers and the communities they police deserve more than messaging. They deserve real action.

I ask one more question. Ask police officers what their attitude is about assault weapons. I think you would find that, if we passed an assault weapons measure, we would be pleasing police officers a great deal more than messaging to them our concern for their safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will yield to a speaker to speak for the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, it may sound like we are getting ready to change the subject; and, to a relative degree, we are.

We are in very interesting and troubling times in this Nation, and we have some concerns that need to be addressed. One of the things that is allowed to the minority is an opportunity to present a previous question.

In this particular instance, we are deeply concerned by last night's revelations that, earlier this year, President Trump may have attempted to obstruct justice when he asked then-FBI Director James Comey to end the Bureau's investigation of former National Security Advisor Flynn's ties to Russia. This news came only days after the President acknowledged that he later fired Director Comey over the Bureau's investigation into the links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and only a day after we learned the President shared highly classified intelligence with Russian officials last week.

I served for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee in this Congress, and the kind of information that the President shared with the Russians--even as an Intelligence member, I saw secret, I saw top secret, I saw high secret, but I did not see code word information, the highest that is only shared with a few people in the congressional body--that is what was allowed to be transmitted.

It is time that the Republican-controlled Congress does its job and acts to defend our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bipartisan bill, H.R. 356, which would create a nonpartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in our 2016 election. This marks the seventh time we tried to bring this bill to the House floor. On the previous six occasions, the Republican majority regrettably refused the House to even debate this important legislation.

As more and more facts have come to light, I hope my colleagues will finally put country ahead of party and get serious about this investigation. My goodness, the allegation here is that people impacted our fundamental premise of our existence: our elections. We need to create this commission with legislation rather than just tweeting about the need for facts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, (Mr. Swalwell), a member of the Intelligence Committee of the House, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard that often. Will the Speaker direct me to what I said that was anything more than what is a fact here. Can the Chair tell me what I said that was dealing with the personality of the President.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be so kind as to advise my good friend and I what amount of time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend that I anticipate one more speaker, but at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am sure that my friends across the aisle have their hearts in the right place, but we need to be clear that these messaging bills do little to nothing to protect our police officers.

If we truly wanted to help our brave officers and first responders, we would pass sensible gun reform legislation. We would take guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and domestic abusers; not make it easier for them to acquire such weapons as my friends across the aisle have done on so many occasions.

If we truly wanted to protect our officers and first responders, we would work diligently to provide them with the best mental health and wellness programs money can buy rather than leaving them to mend unseen wounds on their own.

If my friends across the aisle truly wanted to help this country's law enforcement officers, they would champion funding for community policing initiatives because I think we all know that a community that trusts its police officers, and police officers who trust their community, will live a far safer and richer life.

I might add, my colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz and I, along with law enforcement officials in south Florida, have been about the business of trying to make that a reality, and funding for those programs is particularly important to all of our communities.

Mr. Speaker, we all applaud and thank our law enforcement officers and first responders for the brave and invaluable work that they do, day in and day out, in our communities.

But we cannot bury our heads in the sand any longer and believe that, by simply passing messaging bills, we are actually making our communities safer for our officers or the citizens for whom they swear an oath to protect.

We have heard outstanding comments from our friends and our colleagues who came to speak today. All of them spoke of heartfelt circumstances regarding fallen officers.

And toward that end, there is absolutely nothing that I disagree with that has been said.

I just simply ask that we take into consideration how we can best help and keep safe law enforcement officers.

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 of Coach Donald Thompson, the legendary coach of the Pahokee High School Football Team, who sadly passed away on April 10, 2017 at the age of 76. Coach Thompson was born in Harrisburg, Arkansas on Valentine's Day in 1941. He spent his formative years in Pahokee, Florida, where he made friends in classrooms and on the football field, many of whom remained close throughout his life.

Coach Thompson went to college and played nose tackle for the Citadel Bulldogs in Charleston, South Carolina. In his junior year, his team won the Tangerine Bowl. He was then transferred to the University of Arkansas at Monticello, where he played football for the Boll Weevils and graduated with a degree in education.

After college, Coach Thompson began his career, first in coaching and teaching, then as a regional sales manager for weightlifting companies, before he was offered the head coaching position at Pahokee High School. He coached the Blue Devils from 1984 to 1992, co-founded the famous Muck Bowl, an annual game that draws fans from throughout the Glades area and beyond. Coach Thompson guided his team to the first of many state championships in 1989. For these and many other exemplary accomplishments, on and off the gridiron, he was inducted into the Palm Beach County Sports Hall of Fame in 2008.

Even after he retired from coaching, and despite deteriorating health, he continued to volunteer with the team, cleaning uniforms, fixing helmets and praying with players during practices and games. He loved being a part of the Pahokee High School Football Team and athletic program.

Although he was highly regarded as a football coach, his true passions were his faith, family and friends. His true calling was to be an example to his family and everyone he encountered, especially his fellow congregants at the First United Church of Pahokee, his football players and the children of Pahokee. In ``Coach T,'' many found a man who would happily be the father figure they wanted and needed. His calming voice, caring demeanor and strength of character endeared him to everyone.

Coach Thompson also loved sailing, spending countless hours on the waters of South Florida sailing his beloved Lake Okeechobee with his loving wife of 52 years, Alice, and his family. Coach Donald Thompson was truly one of a kind--a fine sportsman, a real gentleman and a credit to mankind. I was fortunate to know him and call him my friend. He will be dearly missed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017. As you know, this $1 trillion omnibus will provide discretionary funding for most of the Federal Government for the remaining 5 months of fiscal year 2017.

Before moving to the specifics of the legislation, we need to get a few things straight. It bears repeating that the appropriations measures contained in this bill should have been passed months ago. While I am glad that we have arrived at this compromise, and the words of my good friend from Oklahoma, I certainly support with regard to the extraordinary work of the chairman and the ranking member, and their respective staffs, as well as all the appropriators, generally, and their staffs, they have done a good job with reference to the measure, as far as compromise is concerned.

But the fact remains that the bill is 7 months late. The House Committee on Appropriations is already hard at work for fiscal year 2018, and yet this body is still trying to fund programs for the current fiscal year. The root cause of this disarray does not lie with the Appropriations Committee but with the majority's leadership, or lack thereof, in this Congress and in the White House.

I also need to level another critique at my friends across the aisle who have time and again brought us to the brink of a government shutdown. We needed months of negotiations and three continuing resolutions to keep the government funded. Much of the time, poison pill riders gummed up the works. Among other things, the majority continuously tries to strip funding from women's healthcare organizations, slash environmental protections, and end protections for Federal employees through the appropriations process.

Well, here we are, Mr. Speaker, 7 months later, with a bill that does none of these things. Yet we do it again and again, lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. I said yesterday or the day before in the Rules Committee that we will be back here with a stopgap measure and repeat this same crisis routine that we have done for many of the years that I have had the privilege of serving in this body. Mr. Speaker, maybe next time we will skip the grandstanding and start off with a commonsense measure from the get-go.

This brings me to the bill itself. The measure includes $1.07 trillion in base discretionary budget authority, including $551 billion in base defense spending, $518.5 billion in base nondefense spending, $62.1 billion in overseas contingency operations defense spending, and $16.5 billion in overseas contingency operations nondefense spending. More than 160 partisan toxic riders were floated but kept out of the legislation.

Despite Donald John Trump's insistence on draconian cuts, the omnibus includes $1.2 billion in additional nondefense budget authority. It provides funding to alleviate Puerto Rico's emergency budget shortfall and their underfunded Medicaid program. It increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion. It provides $1.1 billion in disaster assistance for regions affected by storms and flooding in 2015 and 2016, and it includes $900 million in humanitarian assistance to alleviate international famine.

Toward that end, with reference to famine in the world, we are witnessing a rising number of countries that are experiencing famine. Without identifying them all, it is estimated that some 20 million people in the world are at risk of dying from starvation. In this country, too many people are in a position of being hungry during the course of a day. In the land of plenty, we can do better.

In this vein, I was pleased to see the inclusion of language that will positively impact the district that I serve and every other district that faces the threat of natural disasters. Toward that end, my good friend from Oklahoma is absolutely correct. In the compromise measure, there are some things that will impact all of our districts, and that is, in my judgment, as it should be.

Additionally, I am one of few Members around here who continuously argues that Members should have earmark responsibilities so that they can be held accountable for things that are vital in their districts rather than allowing the bureaucracy to dominate that sphere.

The language clarifies a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, codifying the Department of Labor's views on lifting the work restrictions on insurance claims adjusters responding to disasters. When a natural disaster strikes, like a hurricane or a wildfire, insurance adjusters are there to help those affected piece their lives back together and get back on their feet. By ensuring that adjusters can quickly and readily respond to disasters, this codification helps them complete their important work.

I did say in the Rules Committee, and I have said for 20 years here, that this Congress needs a disaster relief committee that is constituted of all of the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction. It is not complicated. It is something that is done in other countries so that when these disasters occur--be they fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, or any disaster--we can respond more quickly than we do now, rather than allowing for the residual remains of the kinds of disasters that we experience in this country.

Just this past weekend, at least 16 lives were lost and many people were injured in tornadic activity in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas and floods in Missouri, and we need to respond to those.

Additionally, something else that I want to say that I consider to be important are the responsibilities of FEMA. While I believe they do an extraordinary job with what they are allowed to work with, I don't know what it takes to get across to people that FEMA can only react when there are a certain number of people that have lost their homes. Please know this: when 1 person loses their home to a natural disaster, it is just as important as if 1,000 or 100,000 lost their home; and we,

this Congress, need to be able to respond to that 1 the same way we do to 1,000.

Furthermore, I was glad to see that the bill includes year-round Pell grants to provide 1 million students in this country with an additional average award of $1,650, and it permanently extends health insurance benefits for retired mineworkers.

I might add that that has been and will continue to be a bipartisan effort to provide for the health of those mineworkers. Hopefully, in spite of all the talk coming out of the White House, we may, one day, find a way to help those that have lost their jobs because of the industrial changes transition to good jobs.

But what is included in this bill is just as important as what is not. In his first major budget negotiation, Donald John Trump made many demands that were defeated. He requested $30 billion in additional defense spending and $3 billion to fund construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall and is around crowing that there is money in this bill to do something about the wall, and there is not.

The President wanted policy riders to restrict sanctuary cities from receiving Federal grants. He wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and undermine health care. As I have already said, there were 160 riders that were floated here in this measure but are not included.

Rather than governing responsibly, Donald John Trump and the House Freedom Caucus have spent a good deal of time and energy pushing partisan interests, from repealing health care to gutting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and successful programs like community development block grants. All of these programs are fully funded in this measure.

As the President gets cozy with authoritarian strongmen around the world and revisits the history of the Civil War--and for your information, Donald Trump, it was slavery that caused the war--Congress has stepped up and asserted itself, and I am glad.

I have said repeatedly that the legislative branch has given too much authority not to this President but to the one before him, the one before him, and the one before that one. We have continuously ceded our authority. So it is understood by virtue of this action and, I hope, future action that the legislature is an equal branch of our government, and we need to act like it.

Funding the government is one of the most important responsibilities Congress has. There are, undeniably, differences in policy priorities between Members in this body, Democrats and Republicans, and differences between Democrats and differences between Republicans in this body, but holding the Federal budget hostage is not the way to work through these problems. This measure is a responsible compromise that serves the interests of the American public, and that is what we came here to do.

My good friend from Oklahoma, last night in the Rules Committee, said that the people that win in this measure are the American people, and I agree with him. That is why I was even dismayed and, quite frankly, disturbed at the irresponsible comment that Donald John Trump tweeted yesterday morning that what this country needs is ``a good shutdown'' in September.

I made it a point, when we were in the Rules Committee, to ask the fine young gentleman that works with me to learn the context because I just can't believe that this man comes out and says that this institution needs to have ``a good shutdown.''

Donald John Trump, there is no such thing as a good shutdown.

The President champions a government shutdown not only to his but to his party's peril. The hardworking and working poor Americans are at peril with that kind of undertaking. He does so to the peril of our men and women fighting overseas, to the peril of working families and their health care, to education, and to safe, clean, and secure communities.

Donald John Trump may think he can run the country on Twitter while daydreaming of taxpayer-funded jaunts to his private golf club, but he needs to wise up. We don't need a good shutdown. We need a good leader. If he continues and isn't prepared to get serious, then he needs to get out of the way.

As my colleague Congressman McGovern said yesterday, rather than a shutdown, the President ought to shut his mouth. I will put it another way from the vernacular: zip his lip, put that Twitter off somewhere on the side and let birds tweet while he talks sensibly to the American people.

Maybe the President thinks that if the government shuts down people suddenly don't need to pay taxes and that national parks become free. Maybe he thinks that if the government shuts down--if we have a good government shutdown--every regulation suddenly stops and corporations are free to run wild without complying to clean water or clean air standards.

I don't know what he is thinking. I don't think anybody else around here knows what he is thinking. I am not even certain he knows what he is thinking. And to be honest, I would be afraid to see what is going on in his head.

But here is what I do know. According to the financial ratings agency Standard & Poor's, the 2013 government shutdown cost the United States--the American people--$24 billion. According to a report from the Council of Economic Advisers, it sidetracked the creation of as many as 120,000 jobs.

I hope you are listening, Donald John Trump, because these aren't alternative facts.

The furloughs amounted to more than 5.5 million days' worth of Federal employment lost spread across dozens of agencies. Businesses that relied on tourism lost out on more than a half-billion dollars. The Small Business Administration couldn't process some 700 applications for $140 million in small businesses loans.

According to the U.S. Travel Association, the 16-day shutdown cost $152 million per day in lost travel spending. According to CNBC, 2 weeks into the latest shutdown, the Internal Revenue Service reported a backlog of 1.2 million verification requests that could not be processed.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need a good government shutdown. We don't need a shutdown at all. We just got through a 7-month negotiation to keep the government open.

Naturally, the media picked up on the fact that Donald John Trump got virtually none of his priorities. When the report started to air, he threw a political temper tantrum and took to Twitter to undermine the compromise.

I will be honest at this point: it is nothing new, so it shouldn't surprise anyone; nor should the backlash that ensued or his sudden change of heart. In just a few hours, Donald John Trump went from condemning the deal and whining about the rules of the Senate to hailing it as a great compromise. I must have missed that chapter in his ``The Art of the Deal.''

So let's leave it at this: we need to do more, not less, to strengthen our communities and help working families. I urge President Donald John Trump to move past the campaign rhetoric and get serious.

I hope you are listening, sir, because you can put that in a tweet.

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

Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to advise how much time remains?

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

Mr. Speaker, news flash here for those that might have been trying to make plans for leaving here tomorrow morning: it appears that House Republicans are intent on trying to bring TrumpCare back to life.

The Republican healthcare bill was bad the first time, bad the second time, and its latest iteration is even worse. In addition to kicking 24 million people off their health coverage, gutting Medicaid in order to give a trillion-dollar tax cut--mostly to the richest Americans--and dismantling the requirement to provide the essential health benefits, the latest proposal completely guts protections for people with preexisting conditions and imposes an unlimited age tax on older Americans.

Now we see in the press that the Republican leadership is trying to cut yet another backroom deal on expensive, high-risk pools to try and muster enough votes to pass this monstrosity.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has not gone through regular order from the start. There have been no hearings. There is no CBO score. We are reading in the press that even more changes are on the horizon.

I wish I could start reading in the press or looking at television and just have people that have the responsibility and leadership to inform those of us that are in the minority just what the plan really constitutes and when it will be put forward. Every single Member in this institution should be as outraged as I am, regardless of party. This is a bill that will affect every American.

Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule that would change the rules of the House to prevent any healthcare-related legislation from being considered if it does not have a CBO cost estimate; or if it would deny health coverage or require higher premiums due to preexisting conditions; impose lifetime limits on health coverage; prevent individuals under age 26 from being covered under their parents' plans; reduce the number of people receiving health care under the Affordable Care Act; increase costs to seniors by reopening the doughnut hole and raising prescription drug costs; require people to pay for preventive services, including cancer screening; reduce Medicare solvency or change the Medicare guarantee; or reduce Federal taxes on the 1 percent of the population with the highest incomes or increase taxes on the 80 percent of hardworking Americans earning moderate to low income.

Every American deserves affordable, high-quality health care. This amendment would ensure that the Republican bill can't sacrifice that goal in favor of giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to discuss the proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts an additional 2 minutes.

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

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

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

The President has said that Americans would win so much, they would be tired of winning. I think for once he and I may be in agreement.

Today's measure advances medical research, protects coal miners, fights back against the opioid epidemic and international disasters, and protects funding for science, education, and health care. It should not have taken us 7 months to get here. But I hope this measure will give the Appropriations Committee a springboard for fiscal year 2018.

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 41 high school seniors from Florida's 20th Congressional district, who have chosen to enlist in the United States Armed Forces.

Of these 41 fine young people, 14 have joined the United States Army, to include: William Bethel, Cameron Clayton, Javier Hernandez, Cassidy Anderson, Mack Cromer II, Derly Dormeus, Benjamin Gacel, Clayton Gibson, Ryan Golubovic, Tyler Grove, Ryan Julien, Corey Pritchett, Sean Riley and Julio Alvarez.

Seventeen have joined the United States Marine Corps, to include: Jason Marquez, Cristal Verdugo, Patrick Rhoden, Maikel Suarez, Kathy Sylvestre, Henry Rivera, Albert Londono, Lindel Coffie, Maya Colson, Weston Boyd, Nicolas Franco, Errohl Cruz, John Osegueda, Jonathan Thompson, Caitlin Silva, Melissa Edwards and Pierre Chery.

Five have joined the United States Navy, to include: Jade Apolo- Hecker, Miguel Scott, Brittany Stewart, Shinequah Stone and Ofelia Velasquez.

Four have joined the United States Army National Guard, to include: Cobe Pate,

Adamary Hernandez, Melissa Gutierrez and Moises Fernandez.

Thanks to the dedication of patriots such as these, we are able to meet here today, in the United States House of Representatives, and openly debate the best solutions to the diverse issues that confront our nation.

On behalf of myself and all my constituents in Florida's 20th Congressional district, I thank them for their service. I wish them the very best of luck now and in their future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and work of my good friend and a most dedicated public servant, Dr. Abraham ``Abe'' Fischler, who, sadly, passed away on April 3, 2017. He was 89 years old.

For 22 years, Abe Fischler was President of Nova Southeastern University (NSU). There were only 17 students enrolled when Abe joined NSU. He became President in 1970 and oversaw NSU's growth into the large and well-respected institution that it is today.

Abe was born in Brooklyn on January 21, 1928. He was a member of the ``Greatest Generation,'' serving in the United States Navy during the Second World War. He married his beloved wife of 68 years, Shirley, in 1949 and in 1951, graduated with a degree in Biochemistry from the City College of New York, eventually earning a Doctorate in Education in 1959 from Columbia University.

Among the many innovations Dr. Fischler brought to NSU was the development of a long-distance learning program. Abe thought there should be a way for professionals who wanted to pursue advanced degrees to do so without having to leave their jobs. We didn't have the prevalence of internet technologies we do now at the time, so Abe would actually have the university fly adjunct instructors to various spots around the country to teach small groups of students outside of regular business hours. At the time, this was very unusual, but today, long distance education is both common and expected at most institutions of higher learning. Abe Fischler was one of the first to do it.

In 1992, Abe retired from NSU, but he did not spend his retirement idly watching the world go by. By 1994, he was back in the thick of it, and got elected to the Broward County School Board, where he would serve for four years. He continued to be involved in educational issues, as well as his involvement with Nova Southeastern as President Emeritus until his passing.

Dr. and Shirley Fischler have four children, four grandchildren and one great-grandson. My own son holds a Doctorate from, and is part of, the Nova Southeastern Family I am honored to have worked with Abe Fischler and to have represented him in Congress. He was a wonderful friend and will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate a rule for a piece of legislation that many on this side of the aisle do not necessarily have a serious issue with. The attempt here today is to ensure that a thing that is already happening continues to happen.

I suppose that, the next time we meet, we will take up a bill that declares that the Moon is not the Sun. Doing so is a complete waste of time, but that does not seem to necessarily be dispositive when deciding whether we should legislate on an issue these days.

Look, I get it. My friends across the aisle took one on the chin the other week when their Affordable Care Act repeal bill--a bill they spent 17 days working on, even though they had 7 long years to prepare for it--went down in flames in a most public and spectacular fashion, and now they need some time to dust themselves off and become reoriented.

The problem is, while they are doing that, while they are recovering from the miserable failure that was their attempt to strip 24 million Americans of their health care, they are burning valuable time--time that should be used to tackle more pressing issues like addressing the debt ceiling and fixing our crumbling infrastructure.

Let me also take this opportunity to remind my Republican colleagues that, while we spend our time here today debating these filler bills, there are only 7 legislative days, including today, remaining before the government runs out of funding. But are we tackling any of these importance issues or ensuring the government remains open? No.

Instead, we have before us a bill that addresses an issue that is not an issue. On top of that, this legislation was actually supposed to be the third bucket of their three-bucket strategy to end health care for millions of Americans.

We saw how sturdy the first bucket was a couple of weeks ago. In fact, the bucket we are talking about today was actually referred to as the ``sucker's bucket'' by Senator Cruz. That is not exactly a glowing endorsement.

Indeed, some, like Senator Cotton, have referred to all this bucket talk as simply a bunch of political spin. Whatever it is, it is certainly a bucket that has a hole in it.

In all of the uncertainty facing my Republican friends, one thing becomes crystal clear: they have no plan whatsoever to help working Americans achieve the American Dream. They are adrift, in general, and most particularly when it comes to health care.

What do they really want? At first, it was repeal, then it was repeal and replace, then it was repeal and delay, followed finally by access to coverage, and would you believe another one: patient-centered.

That is repeal, repeal and replace, repeal and delay, access to coverage, and patient-centered. We still don't have a plan. Then it turned toward a three-bucket strategy that makes little to any sense, let alone to the American people but even to powerful elected leaders in the Republican Party.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, do you know what all this talk was?

Exactly what Senator Cotton said: nothing but political spin.

My fear is that it will all come down to whatever it takes to win in the eyes of the other side of the aisle, regardless of the consequences to the American people.

While we were told there was no plan B, we now hear there is a plan B. Donald John Trump ``doesn't lose,'' and doesn't like to lose. So I guess they are going to pass something, even if it is just this bill that does absolutely nothing, just so our Republican friends can say they did something. I am sure Donald John Trump will tweet about this great victory.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans must end their secretive plan B option and embrace the opportunity to do what is right, which is to pursue a path that strengthens and builds upon the strong foundation that has been set by the Affordable Care Act.

Democrats stand ready to work with my friends in the Republican Party on this task to continue to provide affordable coverage to millions of American citizens.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Donald John Trump signed into law a measure that eliminates Americans' internet privacy. With Trump's signature, internet service providers will now be able to sell your personal information to the highest bidder.

Mr. Speaker, we stand here ready to fight for the privacy of the American people.

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation which would reinstate the Federal Communications Commission's internet privacy rule.

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 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), a member of the Armed Services and Science, Space, and Technology Committees to discuss our proposal.

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

It is time for my friends on the other side of the aisle to end their self-proclaimed political spin designed to bewilder and confuse average Americans, making them believe that their Republican representatives are fighting for the future of their health care and the health care of their families, when what they are really doing is fighting for powerful corporate interests.

Now is the time for us to face facts and accept truths.

Fact: House Republicans made an attempt to replace the Affordable Care Act with a bill that caused such an outcry from their own constituents that they were forced to pull it.

Truth: There are serious issues in health care that need to be addressed for the betterment of all Americans, and it is going to take the effort of both parties in both the House and the Senate working together to strengthen our healthcare system.

No more smokescreens, no more political rhetoric, only collaborative discourse using only the well-being of the American people as our compass. It is this approach that will steer us back onto course for the betterment of this and future generations. Unfortunately, this bill does not further that effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of National Pet Day, which takes place every year on April 11th. While loving our pets is something we do every day, National Pet Day encourages us to give special care to pets who may not get that extra attention. This day was founded in 2006 by Pet and Family Lifestyle Expert and Animal Welfare Advocate Colleen Paige, to help raise public awareness about the plight of many different kinds of animals. This is a common sentiment among animal rights activists, and I want to give recognition to all the organizations we have worked with personally in the mission to protect our beloved pets. The Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation, the Humane Society of the United States, and Social Compassion in Legislation have worked extensively to better the lives of our four-legged friends. Together, we introduced H.R. 1406, the Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of 2017, which prohibits the slaughter and trade of dogs and cats for human consumption in the United States.

On January 6, 2017, I reintroduced H. Res. 30--Condemning the Dog Meat Festival in Yulin, China, and urging China to end the dog meat trade. This horrific festival dates back to 2009 through 2010, when it was launched by dog meat traders as a commercial enterprise to boost flagging sales of dog meat. More than 10,000 dogs are reported to be captured, transported and slaughtered every year for this Dog Meat festival, with more than 10 million dogs killed annually in China for the dog meat trade. Animal welfare groups have found that a number of these dogs are stolen pets taken from their homes, still wearing their collars when they reach the slaughterhouse. Many dogs die during transport to the slaughterhouses after days or weeks without food or water, and others suffer illness and injury during transport, such as broken bones. These dogs suffer mentally from watching other dogs being disemboweled and blow-torched in front of them.

Yulin's dog slaughter takes place in residential areas and public marketplaces, imposing scenes of extreme animal cruelty on local residents, including young children who may, as a result, suffer psychological trauma and desensitization. The capture, transport, and butchering of dogs and the consumption of dog meat poses a risk to human health by exposing people to a multitude of diseases, including rabies and cholera. This practice, in my opinion, is completely unacceptable, and can be stopped by the diligent efforts of members of the Chinese government. Although the Yulin city government withdrew as a sponsor of the Dog Meat Festival, it has taken no meaningful action to enforce China's existing laws and regulations on animal disease control, food safety, trans-provincial dog transport, or youth protection, all of which are breached by the dog meat trade.

Activists from across the globe have continued the fight against this barbaric practice. I have been honored to work with Humane Society International, the Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation, the Vanderpump Dog Foundation, Duo Duo, the Animal Welfare Institute, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Citizens Lobbyists for H. Res. 30, as well as countless other organizations to bring awareness and hopefully change to this inhumane practice and torture of dogs.

Next month, I will be introducing a resolution denouncing the global dog meat trade, by urging all countries that allow this cruel and barbaric practice to end it once and for all. Furthermore, in the lead up to the Yulin Dog Meat Festival and after the introduction of my global dog meat trade resolution, I do plan on holding another Congressional Briefing on Capitol Hill to provide an opportunity for animal rights activists to speak on behalf of the voiceless.

I also want to recognize and thank the animal welfare organizations in Palm Beach and Broward Counties, whose tireless efforts each and every single day are to be commended. In Palm Beach, the Animal Rescue Force South Florida; Peggy Adams; Palm Beach County Animal Care & Control; Justin Bartlett; Second Chance; Big Dog Ranch Rescue; Gaisha, Tundra & Spirit's Place Husky Rescue; Adopt a Cat Foundation; Tri- County Animal Rescue; South Florida Rabbit Rescue, and the Everglades Golden Retriever Rescue. In Broward County, the Florida Humane Society, Humane Society of Broward County; Broward County Animal Care and Adoption Center, Animal Aid, Inc.; and Abandoned Pet Rescue.

The work that all of these organizations do for animals is truly heartwarming and the lengths that they go to ensure their welfare is inspiring. National Pet Day reminds us to do all that we can to make certain animals are taken care of everywhere. Whether it is taking supplies to animal shelters, volunteering, helping a friend with his or her pets who is recovering from an illness, or adopting a pet.

Mr. Speaker, in honor of National Pet Day, I once again want to reiterate my heartfelt gratitude to those who have dedicated their lives to help, protect, and save animals not only here in the United States, but also across the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution Celebrating the Importance of the 15th Anniversary of the Arab Peace Initiative as a Meaningful Effort by Arab Countries to the Commitment of Peace in the Middle East.

I recently travelled to Israel for the 18th time as a Member of Congress. While in Israel and Jordan, I attended a number of bilateral and multilateral meetings focused on security and the outlook for the region in the coming year. I always welcome these opportunities to meet with senior leaders on such a wide range of issues, and our conversations touched on political developments, regional security in the Middle East, the peace process, and strengthening the bilateral relationships between the United States and these nations.

Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be a major challenge, I believe we must stay actively involved in peace negotiations. I am happy to say that recently, Israel and some Muslim- majority Arab nations in the Middle East have made progress in regional cooperation. I believe that, using the Arab Peace Initiative as a baseline, these recent developments present a renewed opportunity for progress--one that we cannot afford to miss.

Mr. Speaker, my resolution highlights the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative and urges the nations to continue the hard work of fostering stronger relationship. Under the right circumstances, the Arab Peace Initiative allows for gradual progress towards the normalization of bilateral relations between Israel and its neighbors. We all know that the relationship between America and Israel is paramount, and I have faith that, in time, the relationships between Israel and other nations will also strengthen. I commend the regional countries that have taken steps to facilitate the end of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, while simultaneously strengthening regional security through discussions with the State of Israel. I urge all parties to continue these important dialogues.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's ascension to the Presidency of the Arab League. The United States established relations with Jordan in 1949 and our countries have a long history of cooperation. Jordan has taken on an important role in pursuing progress for the region. I congratulate my friend King Abdullah II and wish Jordan the very best as it assumes this new leadership role for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this resolution today, and recommend its expeditious consideration and passage.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to honor Mr. Brenden Shipley of West Palm Beach with the Congressional Award of Bronze and Silver Medals. Since 1979, the Congressional Award has inspired our nation's youth to set and achieve personally challenging goals that build character and foster community service. Recipients are committed to bettering themselves and to giving back to the communities in which they reside. It is the fulfilling of that commitment, which makes these young people so extraordinary.

Mr. Shipley took on the challenge of earning two medals: Bronze and Silver. Earning these awards requires a minimum of 400 hours of community service. He served his community by volunteering at the Kids Cancer Foundation, tutoring kids in math, cleaning the football field at school, and helping one of his friends move into his new home. In addition, he learned how to build a house and commercial buildings, and improved his physical fitness for his senior year football season by weightlifting and boxing. Furthermore, Mr. Shipley planned a seventeen day trip to France, England, Ireland, and Wales to immerse himself in an unfamiliar culture and to develop a spirit of adventure.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that: ``The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character--that is the goal of true education.'' I believe that Mr. Brenden Shipley is a remarkable young man who exemplifies that true character. I am honored to present him with the 2017 Congressional Award for Bronze and Silver Medals, and to recognize him for all of his hard work in the West Palm Beach community. I wish him much success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I say good morning to America.

This is not a health bill that we are readying ourselves to vote on. It is a tax bill for wealthy people.

I just left the Committee on Rules. We started our session there at 7 this morning. I have in hand a closed rule that will allow for 4 hours of debate. Later on this afternoon, the Republicans will accomplish what they set out to do.

The bill provides $274.9 billion in tax cuts for the highest income Americans. Over half of the tax cuts in the bill go to millionaires. In the year 2020, 61 percent of the cuts go to those earning more than a million dollars.

At the same time, Republicans cut Medicaid by more than $880 billion. That is money for poor people that will not have those benefits. Republicans cut Medicaid by that amount for working families.

Donald Trump's people and his Cabinet will do very well.