Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) as it celebrates its fortieth anniversary. Founded by David Packard in 1978, SVLG advocates on behalf of Silicon Valley businesses in the interest of expanding the economy and maintaining a high quality of life in Silicon Valley. Under the superb leadership of CEO Carl Guardino, the approximately 400 member companies constitute one in every three private sector jobs in Silicon Valley.

The Leadership Group has built mightily upon David Packard's legacy by playing a key role in many critical undertakings, including: the establishment of a permanent U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Silicon Valley; establishing the Housing Trust Fund to create affordable housing; creating new employment opportunities for women; and advocating for comprehensive immigration reform. SVLG has been the unquestioned leader in the development of transportation improvements, including securing funding for the electrification of Caltrain to replace diesel trains with high-performance electric-powered trains; several successful efforts to expand BART to San Jose; and the enhancement of expressways, local roads, transit and highways to provide safer and more efficient commutes for Silicon Valley employees.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in expressing our collective gratitude to the premier organization of Silicon Valley for its extraordinary contributions to the economic health and quality of life in Silicon Valley. We offer our congratulations on the occasion of its four decades of accomplishments which have made our region the economic engine of our nation's economy and have strengthened our country in countless ways.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the Previous Question so that the House can vote on my bipartisan legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.

I first introduced the Presidential Tax Transparency Act exactly one year ago today, along with my Senate counterpart Ron Wyden. This bill would codify the longstanding tradition of presidents disclosing their tax returns. The bill is simple, it is bipartisan, and it has the support of the American people. A recent poll found that 80 percent of Americans believe the President should disclose his tax returns. Earlier today, a petition was delivered to Congress with over 4 million signatures calling on the House to take up this bill.

Since I introduced the Presidential Tax Transparency Act a year ago, candidate Trump and now President Trump has amassed serious ethical lapses, troubling connections to Russian officials, and countless potential conflicts of interest, all while hiding his full financial information from the public.

Mr. Trump is the first president in decades to refuse to disclose his tax returns as a candidate and as President. We know from his candidate financial disclosure filed last year that the President has 564 financial positions in companies around the world, and owes at least $300 million in debts to various banks. But there's no way for us to verify these claims without his tax return information.

Disclosure of the President's tax returns would provide answers to many of the troubling questions surrounding this Administration's connections to Russia. In recent weeks, the President pressured the FBI Director to stop investigating Michael Flynn's Russia connections and then fired him. There are near-daily revelations of undisclosed meetings with Russian officials, disclosures of classified information, and more evidence that the Russians sought to directly interfere in our election.

Only with full disclosure of his tax returns will we know the true sources of the President's income, the holders of his debt, and the extent of any business ties to Russia and other foreign countries.

I urge my colleagues to listen to the will of the American people and join our bipartisan effort to exercise Congress's constitutional duty to serve as a check on the Executive Branch. By defeating the Previous Question and voting to approve the Presidential Tax Transparency Act today, this body can start the process of obtaining the truth that the American people want and are entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 390, the Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and Accountability Act of 2017.

In March of 2016, Congress declared in unequivocal terms that the persecution of Christians, Yezidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria by ISIS constituted genocide.

This was a seminal moment in the U.S. Congress because it's only the third time in history that Congress has declared a genocide. Unfortunately, the conditions for the tens of thousands of survivors of these crimes against humanity grow worse each day.

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the systematic extermination of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities at the hands of

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a highly distinguished former colleague and dear friend, Senator Chris Dodd, who recently announced his plans to retire as Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) at the end of this year.

As the longest serving Senator in Connecticut's history, Senator Dodd brought accountability and historic reforms to Wall Street following the 2008 financial crisis. His extraordinary leadership resulted in the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the largest overhaul of our financial system since the Great Depression. His bipartisan, landmark legislative accomplishments covered a broad range of issues from civil rights, to families and children, and to foreign policy.

After retiring from the Senate in 2011, Senator Dodd followed in the footsteps of the legendary Jack Valenti, taking the reins of the MPAA. The challenges of representing the six major film and television studios during a time of tumultuous changes in technology were met head on by Senator Dodd, and his leadership brought about an unprecedented expansion of American films to the international market. He improved diversity and secured valuable state tax credits for filmmaking here at home.

The motion picture industry has benefited greatly from Senator Dodd's steady hand and his years of experience developing consensus between stakeholders. He advanced one of America's great industries that shape the meaning of America around the world with a record of exceptional leadership brought to bear on behalf of the studios, filmmakers and the thousands of men and women who bring the magic of film and television to screens large and small. He leaves an indelible mark on the MPAA, just as he did in service to our nation in the United States Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my House colleagues to join me in congratulating Senator Dodd for his brilliant leadership and countless achievements as Chairman and CEO of the MPAA, and wish he and his family every blessing in the next exciting chapter of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that the House can vote on my bipartisan legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.

Mr. Speaker, in the last week, the President fired the FBI Director who was investigating him. We then learned that the President also pressured the Director to end his investigation of Michael Flynn's Russia entanglements. These revelations, added to so many others, make it abundantly clear that we must have disclosure of the President's tax returns in order to fully understand his connections to Russia. The Presidential Tax Transparency Act would require this disclosure for the current President, all future Presidents, and Presidential nominees.

This practice has never been required by law. But if there were ever a time for Congress to codify this bipartisan disclosure tradition, now is the time.

The President's behavior has raised questions since before the election about what connections or exposure he may have to Russian officials. After the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA concluded that Russia did, in fact, interfere in our national elections; after several of the President's associates and staff lied about meetings with Russian officials during the campaign and transition; and after the FBI opened an investigation into these Russia contacts, the President still welcomed top Russian diplomats into the Oval Office for a closed-door meeting last week.

Holding the meeting itself raised many questions. But in the meeting, the President revealed highly classified, code-word information to the Russians. I believe that this is unprecedented. No President in the history of our country has ever done such a thing.

And on May 16, The New York Times reported that the President pressed the former FBI Director Jim Comey to end his investigation of Michael Flynn's ties to Russia before he fired him. This all begs the question: Why is the President so eager to please the Russians?

The appointment of former FBI Director Mueller, a highly distinguished public servant, as special counsel is most welcome. But I believe that Congress can act today to provide public disclosure of the President's tax returns, which would provide an immediate and important window into the President's potential Russian entanglements, and answer the critical questions of: To whom does he owe money? And who is the President doing business with? What are those entities?

We know there are 564 of them. The American people deserve to know. Only with full disclosure will we know the true sources of the President's income, the holders of his debt, and the extent of any business ties to Russia and other foreign countries.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a highly serious, bipartisan--I want to stress that--bipartisan effort to exercise Congress' constitutional duty to serve as a check and balance on the executive branch as a coequal branch of government.

As the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on May 14:

Our institutions are under attack, both externally . . .

and internally.

I want to thank all of the cosponsors of this bill and, most especially, the Republicans who have had the courage to do so. It takes courage to have courage. Now is the time to stand up and demonstrate courage so that the American people will have confidence--confidence in what takes place here and to answer the questions that are left unanswered.

So by defeating the previous question today and voting to approve the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, Congress can create a pathway to the facts, and then the truth, that the American people have a right to know.

Mr. Speaker, I think that today is yet another sad day here in the House of Representatives for the people of our country, because what is being brought forward is the same bill that we debated and that went down because of the weight of the problems and the cruelty of that bill. It is the same thing with a few more poison pills in it.

People are going to have to pay higher premiums and deductibles, and it is going to increase what comes out of their pocket; there is going to be less coverage; 24 million people will lose their coverage--that remains in this bill--and key protections are gutted, American people: emergency rooms, maternity care, opioid, mental health care, a string of things that you want in your insurance coverage, a crushing age tax for seniors.

Now, there is a real hypocrisy here. Every single Member of Congress has been enrolled in the Affordable Care Act. I want to know which one of you dropped out of it. It was good enough for you--one person, great. Two people, big deal. It was good enough for you, but it is not good enough for your constituents.

And you know what? Who is standing with you? Not the doctors in our country, not the AARP to seniors, not nurses, not the cancer association, not anyone. This bill violates the American people.

Mr. Speaker, include in for the Record a letter from common sense kids action:

Common sense kids action,

April 25, 2017.

Re H.R. 1628--OPPOSE

Hon. Diane Black,

Chairwoman, House Budget Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Black: On behalf of the millions of

American kids and families who rely on comprehensive,

dependable health insurance to stay healthy and to get

medical treatment when they need it, we are writing to

respectfully express our strong opposition to your bill, H.R.

1628, the American Health Care Act (AHCA). We have added this

bill to our Common Sense Legislative Ratings Tool as an

``Against Kids'' bill and will communicate our position to

our parent and teacher members.

Common Sense is the nation's leading independent nonprofit

organization dedicated to helping kids thrive in a rapidly

changing world. We empower parents, teachers, and

policymakers by providing unbiased information, trusted

advice, and innovative tools to help them harness the power

of media and technology as a positive force in all kids'

lives. The policy arm, Common Sense Kids Action, is building

a movement of parents, teachers, business leaders, and others

dedicated to making kids our nation's top priority by

supporting policies at the state and federal level that

contribute to the building blocks of opportunity for kids.

Access to affordable and quality medical care for kids is

certainly one of those key building blocks.

Thanks to current law, including the Affordable Care Act,

Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP),

95% of young children in the U.S. today have health

insurance. That's a remarkable achievement. With health

insurance, parents are more likely to seek medical care for

themselves and for their children, helping to prevent

illnesses from developing and shortening their duration when

they occur. However, the AHCA will result in 24 million fewer

Americans having coverage, including millions of children.

This jeopardizes the health and well-being of America's kids

and will alarm any parent who understands the importance of

health insurance for their children and family. The

Affordable Care Act certainly needs to be fixed, but if

Congress has the goal of making sure that all families and

businesses have access to affordable and comprehensive health

insurance, it could improve the law for everyone without

forcing millions of kids and their parents to lose access to

critical medical care.

As Congress continues to grapple with this issue, health

insurance programs, we think these facts about children's

health insurance from the Congressional Budget Office and the

Georgetown University Center for Children and Families are

important to keep in mind:

Ninety-five percent of children age 0-5 are insured today.

Forty-five million of those children access health care

through two programs: about 37 million through Medicaid (a

federal-state program) and 8 million through CHIP, the

Children's Health Insurance Program.

Children are the single-largest group of persons covered

under Medicaid.

Under the Affordable Care Act, as you know, many states

expanded Medicaid with help from the federal government,

increasing coverage for kids and families, including coverage

for mental health care.

Changes being considered, including under the AHCA, would

cut funding to Medicaid by as much as $880 billion over the

next 10 years.

The AHCA, when compared with current law, would result in

24 million fewer Americans with health insurance by the year

2026.

Even with changes recently suggested to your bill,

America's kids will be best served by strengthening the

Affordable Care Act and preserving Medicaid and CHIP, not by

repealing the Affordable Care Act and block granting or

establishing a per capita cap on Medicaid. We urge you to

keep our children's future foremost in your thinking,

withdraw your bill, and work on a bipartisan basis to support

measures that protect and strengthen children's health care.

Thank you for your consideration of our views and we would be

happy to talk with you at any time about this and other

issues that matter to America's children and families.

Sincerely,

Danny Weiss,

Vice President, Federal Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017. This misguided legislation would undermine nearly 80 years of federal employment law guaranteeing overtime pay to employees who work more than 40 hours in a week at a given job.

Income inequality in America has increased dramatically over the last four decades while the middle class continues to shrink. The average income for the top 0.01 percent of households grew 322 percent between 1980 and 2015, compared to a 0.03 percent increase for the remaining 90 percent of households over the same period of time. Rising household expenses like childcare, healthcare, housing, and education have made it even more difficult for families to climb the rungs of the economic ladder, while approximately 47 million Americans continue to live below the federal poverty line, including over 15 million children.

Congress should focus on policies and legislation that help middle- and low-income households achieve economic mobility. Instead, H.R. 1180 would short-change hourly workers by allowing private sector employers to offer compensatory time off in place of overtime pay. By weakening existing requirements for overtime pay, employers can choose to offer overtime hours to employees who agree to receive compensatory time, while nothing in the bill guarantees that employees will be able to use their compensatory time when they wish to. Although employers are required to pay employees for any unused compensatory time, they have up to thirteen months to do so, and there are no protections for workers if the employer declares bankruptcy or permanently closes its doors.

At a time when the American Dream has become more difficult to attain, it is more critical than ever for Congress to take action that will make it easier for working parents to meet their responsibilities both at home and at work. These policies include increasing the federal minimum wage; providing households with paid sick and family leave; and ensuring workers are guaranteed stable and predictable work schedules.

I urge my colleagues to vote `No' on H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his leadership and for yielding me time.

Here I am again. I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that my bipartisan--this is both Republicans and Democrats--this bipartisan legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in order for debate and a vote.

The Presidential Tax Transparency Act is very simple. It would require this President, all future Presidents,

and Presidential nominees from both major parties to publicly disclose their tax returns. Until recently, most Americans thought this disclosure was required by law, but it actually has been a tradition. It has been a voluntary disclosure by every President of both parties since Watergate.

This long disclosure tradition exists because, A, the American people demand a baseline level of transparency from the highest officeholder in the land, and each one of the Presidents wanted the American people to know that their first and top priority was the American people's interest and not their own financial interests. This last Saturday, April 15, thousands of Americans in 125 cities across the country participated in tax marches calling for the President to release his tax returns.

Now, why did they do this on holy Saturday?

Because they care and they are deeply concerned about the President's conflicts of interests and his foreign business entanglements.

The President's refusal to release his tax returns is just one example of his administration's historic lack of transparency as we near the 100-day mark of the administration. As questions about his associates' ties to Russia continue to swirl, yesterday, the White House refused to provide information about General Flynn's Russia contacts to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Just before the Easter holiday, the White House also announced that it will break with precedent and will not make its visitor logs public. This is added to the fact that the President's meetings and golf outings at his properties in Florida, New Jersey, and elsewhere--where he has so far spent one-third of his Presidency, according to The Washington Post-- are also off the books.

Who is the President meeting with? Who does he listen to? Do his personal financial interests come first, or do the interests of the country come first?

The President's business empire makes him more susceptible to conflicts of interest than any President in our history, yet he has done less to address these conflicts than any President in modern history. Since 1978, every President has placed their assets in a real blind trust. Instead of following this tradition, the President has turned his business over to his sons in an arrangement that the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics called ``meaningless from a conflict of interest perspective.'' It was later revealed that the President can draw profits from this trust at any time, and his son acknowledged that he will provide his father with periodic reports about the state of his family's businesses.

This is not right. This simply does not pass muster for anyone in the country. This is not Republican or Democratic. This is not partisan. The President should release his tax returns.

Now, as the gentleman said previously, this is, again, critically important because it is reported that the President is going to come out with a tax plan today and reportedly cut the tax rate on pass- through entities.

For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and all of these conflicts of interest, it is why the President needs to reveal his tax returns, it is why we have bipartisan legislation.

We should defeat the previous question and sign on to the discharge petition so that this bipartisan legislation can come before the full House to ensure that the President provides transparency to the American people now and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Robert F. Glockner by including in the Record the Memorial Tribute prepared by his loving family.

Bob Glockner died peacefully on March 26, 2017, surrounded by his family. A vibrant man, Bob will be remembered for his warmth and generosity, commitment to his family and community, and his boundless energy.

Born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1938, he was the third child of Paul and Stephanie Glockner. He moved with his family to Oakland, California, in 1947.

In 1956 Bob graduated from St. Elizabeth High School, where he enjoyed drama and sports. He served in the U.S. Army and later in the Army reserves.

He attended San Francisco State, graduating in 1961 with a bachelor's degree in Legal Studies. San Francisco is also where he met his wife of 54 years, Ginger Alfs. Together, they had four daughters.

Bob began his career as a salesman for Modernfold of Northern California. In 1970 he became a partner in Partition Specialties, Inc., serving as president before striking out on his own to found WestFour Construction and Whitney Investment Company in 1983.

He did not retire but more transitioned to the role of ``Volunteer Project Manager,'' helping his family as well as organizations that were close to his heart. Bob always had a project, and many knew him as the person you would turn to when you needed to get something done.

A dedicated and active member of his community, he was a member of the Board of Trustees for Sacred Heart Schools in Atherton, as well as a member of Sharon Heights Country Club, the Vineyard Club, and the Peninsula Investors Club. He was quick to offer his time or his counsel to assist a worthy cause.

Bob loved travel, art and music. He was an avid sports fan, skier, golfer, and lover of the outdoors. Later in life, he tried his hand at growing grapes and winemaking, and enjoyed producing wine under his own ``Four Sisters Vineyard'' label.

Above all, Bob loved and was loved by his family. He will be remembered by his wife, Ginger; his daughters and sons-in-law Jennifer and John Whitcomb, Ellen and Fred Eder, Julie Morris, and Whitney and Peter Glockner Black; his 10 grandchildren, Stan, Mackenzie and Brooke Whitcomb, Elizabeth and Fred Eder, Kyle and Hannah Morris, and Axel, Jasper, and Hugo Black; as well as his sisters, Audrey Glockner and Mary Akey; his sister-in-law, Diane Orsellini, and their families.

I had the privilege of knowing Bob Glockner for decades. He was a gentleman and a man of great faith. He loved his family and was devoted to his church, his community and his country. It was an honor to have known him and call him my friend. Because of all he did in living a worthy life, our country has been bettered immeasurably. Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in expressing our collective sympathy to the great love of his life, Ginger, their children, grandchildren, and entire family on the loss of a great and good man.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding the time to me.

While I support the underlying bill, I want to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this bipartisan legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in order for consideration and a vote.

The legislation is very simple. It is not pages and pages and pages. It simply states that there will be a requirement that the President of the United States, all future Presidents, and Presidential nominees of the major parties publicly disclose their tax returns. For decades, Republican and Democratic Presidents and Republican and Democratic candidates of both parties have voluntarily disclosed this information, but not this President.

Now, this tradition began in 1973, with President Richard Nixon who, while under audit by the IRS, publicly released his tax returns and submitted them for review by Congress because there was a mini scandal at that time regarding his claims of charitable giving. He released his tax returns and, shortly after, gave what became a famous speech: ``People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook.''

The Joint Committee on Taxation, at that time, ultimately found numerous errors in the President's return, and that he owed about a half a million dollars in back taxes, and he paid them.

Now, since then, every President has voluntarily released their tax returns. But this tradition is now being tested by a President who continues to hide his finances and faces an unprecedented number of potential conflicts of interest relating to his business empire.

Now, through his financial disclosure forms, we know that he has some 564 businesses around the world and inside the United States. This is a legitimate question being posed by the American people, and that is: If we don't know, whose interest is he operating under? Who is he there for?

Is he making decisions relative to trade that will benefit his business? We don't know. Why? Because a tax return is highly instructive. Tax returns disclose to whom you owe debt, what the debt is, where your businesses are, whether they are in the United States or in a foreign country, whether you have made charitable donations, whether you have paid taxes, whether you have avoided taxes, whether you have used loopholes, whether you have dollars in offshore areas. So this is an essential.

I want my Republican friends to think of something. This is not a partisan issue. This should concern you just as much as it concerns your constituents. The American people across the country, 74 percent, say that his tax returns should be disclosed.

We are now moving into an area of questions about national security.

Who is the President doing business with?

Whose interests come first? Is it the national security of the United States of America by the Commander in Chief, or is it for some Trump business?

These are very serious questions that you should want answered.

In a democracy--in a democracy--transparency is essential. They go hand in hand. We are not a banana republic. We don't have people in charge of the government that stand above the law or just disregard it.

In this case, it is not the law. It is a beautiful tradition that patriots on the Republican side and the Democratic side honored. Why did they honor it? I think they honored it because they wanted to honor the American people. That is what this effort is about.

Now, it is important to note that the President wasn't always opposed to this important transparency. As far back as 2011, he said that he would release his tax returns if he ran for President.

In 2012, he criticized Mitt Romney for not releasing his returns until late in the campaign. In 2014, Mr. Trump told an Irish television network: ``If I decide to run for office, I'll produce my tax returns, absolutely.'' In 2016, he said repeatedly that he would release his returns ``over the next few months'' and ``before the election.'' It hasn't happened yet.

So all of these issues should concern all Members of Congress because, as I said a moment ago, transparency is essential in a democracy.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time this year that I have offered the Presidential Tax Transparency Act as the previous question motion, and today I filed a discharge petition on the bill, which I encourage all of my colleagues to sign at the desk. If we defeat the previous question today or if we reach 218 Members of the House on the discharge petition, we can vote on this bipartisan legislation and ensure-- underscore ``ensure''--that the President of the United States provides transparency for the American people now and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Colorado for his leadership and for yielding time to me.

First of all, I would like to respond to the gentleman's presentation about the underlying bill.

Make no mistake about it, what the underlying bill does today is it wipes out--it totally wipes out--privacy protections for consumers on the internet. That is what it does. There are not duplicative regulations. I know that it was stated on the floor that there are duplicative regulations.

There are two agencies--the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission--however, it is only the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, that can actually protect consumers by enforcing the protections. The FTC does not have that authority.

What happens today if these privacy protections are ripped away from the American people? Well, all the information that you give to your internet service provider, whether it is Comcast, whether it is cable providers, Charter, AT&T, the one that you pay a pretty big bill to, they can take all of the information that they have--my account, your account, your account, your account--and use that information to sell it to the highest bidder to make money off of it.

Now, there is an additional charge in this thing, alleged charge, and that is,

well, what about Google and Netflix and Facebook? What about them? Why aren't they subject to what the FCC did? Well, they are edge providers. They are edge providers.

You don't have to go to Google. You don't have to go to Facebook. You don't have to go to Netflix in order to get your internet service. That is why the FCC did not apply these rules to them. Maybe there should be a debate about them. But to equalize and say that Google and Facebook are equal to your internet service provider suggests to me that some people just don't know what they are talking about.

This is a subject that the American people feel very, very deeply about. In fact, I think it is in the DNA of every American: ``I want my privacy, and it should be protected.'' We all feel that way.

What is being done today is a ripping away. It is like taking a bandage, just stripping it away. Who do you go to? Who do you go to complain to? No one. No one. Because there isn't anything left to enforce.

I think it is a sad day if the underlying bill passes. I think it is shocking that my Republican colleagues, either out of a lack of understanding of how the internet works, how their constituents--all of our constituents benefit from these protections of our privacy, and our information is private. I don't want anyone to take my information and sell it to someone and make a ton of money off of it just because they can get their mitts on it. That is why the privacy protections were adopted.

May I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I will close that one off and go to the other reason that I am on the floor today. I thank the gentleman again for yielding me the time.

I rise in opposition to the rule and, obviously, the underlying resolution; and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that my bipartisan bill, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in order for immediate floor debate and a vote.

Mr. Speaker, my legislation would require the President and all future Presidents and Presidential nominees to publicly disclose their tax returns. It is a very simple bill.

This is the third time this year that I have offered this bill as the previous question motion, and for the last several weeks, Members-- including Mr. Polis, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Lofgren, and myself--have offered privileged resolutions directing the House to request the President's tax returns. Nearly every day we give the majority the opportunity to demonstrate leadership on this issue, and nearly every day they continue to help the President hide his tax returns from the public.

Now, every President of both parties, since Gerald Ford, has voluntarily made their tax returns public. The President has 564 financial positions in companies located in the United States and around the world, according to the Federal Election Commission, making him more susceptible to conflicts of interest than any President in our history. Without disclosure of his tax returns, the American people are prevented from knowing where his income comes from, whether he is dealing with foreign powers, what he owes and to whom, and how he may directly benefit from the policies he proposes.

There are daily revelations about previously undisclosed meetings between the President's staff and Russian officials, as well as a steady flow of troubling information about The Trump Organization's ties to state-connected businesses and individuals in Turkey, Azerbaijan, China, and other countries. Last week, The New York Times reported that The Trump Organization is finalizing an agreement to build a hotel in partnership with a firm that has ``deep Turkish roots'' and business ties in Russia, Kazakhstan, and two dozen other countries.

Without the disclosure of the President's tax returns, there is no way for the American people to know the full extent of his foreign entanglements and possible conflicts of interest on this or other deals that his family business is engaged in.

I think the House is failing, Mr. Speaker, to exercise our constitutional obligation to conduct effective oversight and operate as a check on the executive branch. We can change that today by taking up and passing this bipartisan bill, which will ensure that the President, and all future Presidents, will be held to a baseline level of disclosure. That is why I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, so we can hold an immediate vote on the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Doyle, for both his leadership and for yielding time to me.

America, listen up today. There may not be that many people on the floor of the House, but this is a big one. This is really a big one. Congress is poised today to betray the American people on one of the issues they care the most about: their privacy--their privacy. Every single one of us cares about it, and so do the American people. I often say that every American has it in their DNA: Keep your mitts off my privacy, what I consider to be private.

Now, the consequences of passing this resolution are clear. Broadband providers like AT&T, Comcast, and others will be able to sell your personal information to the highest bidder without your permission, and no one will be able to protect you, not even the Federal Trade Commission that our friends on the other side of the aisle keep talking about. It is like open the door and there is no one there. That is what this thing creates.

The Republicans are blowing a gaping hole in Federal privacy protections by barring the FCC from ever adopting similar protections in the future. So, if it is gone today, it is gone, period.

The FCC rules are simple. They require broadband providers to get the permission of their customers--including all of us--before they can sell their web browsing history, their location information, and other sensitive data to third parties.

The majority claims that we need to repeal these protections because they treat broadband providers differently than other online service providers, edge providers. Broadband providers are in the unique position of seeing everything we do on the internet. This is the reason, and it is reason enough, to put privacy protections in place; but it is also important to keep in mind that consumers, all of us, pay a high monthly fee to broadband providers, and they face serious barriers if they want to switch. If I want to switch, if you want to switch, you have to, many times, pay early termination fees.

This is completely different from other online services that collect consumer data. Consumers don't pay to use search engines or social media applications like Google and Facebook. If they don't like Google's privacy policy, they can switch over to Bing without paying any fees. But consumers can't do this with broadband providers, and therein lies the difference.

Last week, we heard the Republicans bemoan the lack of choice in the healthcare market. They should take a closer look at the state of the broadband market, particularly in rural America, where only 13 percent of consumers have access to more than one high-speed broadband provider.

So the majority is telling Americans today, particularly those in rural areas, that they need to choose between their privacy and their access to the internet. If this resolution passes, people across the country will certainly not have both.

This resolution is--excuse the phrase--repeal without replace. The Republicans have not put forward any privacy proposal at all to replace the FCC's rules, despite knowing that repealing these rules will leave a gap in the Federal protections.

So the message to the American people is clear: Your privacy doesn't matter, and your web browsing history should be available to anyone who will pay the highest price for it.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to stand up for privacy rights and oppose this joint resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are very smart. They listen up. They kind of knit their eyebrows together. They listen to the debate. They want the facts, and then they make up their mind. What our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have brought forward today is a disaster for the American people, and the American people know it.

You have 17 percent of the American people that are for your plan, and the reason why? They know there are going to be higher costs. Families are going to have to pay more and get less--pay more for their premiums, more for their deductibles, and more in their out-of-pocket costs.

You are taking health care away from 24 million Americans. That is more than the entire population of Australia. Who comes to Congress to hurt people?

The promise of the Affordable Care Act was no one--no one ever again--will be able to take away your insurance the way the insurance companies did 7-plus years ago. Now it is only the Republican Party that can take away Americans' insurance.

There isn't one developed country in the world that has your plan. It is a combination of all kinds of things to get votes.

What free markets? What are you talking about? There is hypocrisy here because you all have the Affordable Care Act insurance. Every single Member of Congress does. So I guess it is good enough for you but it is not good enough for your constituents.

This is a matter of life and death. You are playing with people's lives. It is a profound issue. This doesn't deserve one vote in the House of Representatives. Vote it down.

Mr. Speaker, I never thought in coming to Congress that I would be voting on legislation that would take away health insurance from 24 million Americans, including my own constituents.

The Speaker said that this legislation is an act of mercy. I think it is merciless. Every human being has a spark of divinity in them, and we dishonor that with this legislation. It is not worthy of the American people. There is less coverage, higher costs, elimination of essential services--not only for what people need day to day but for the unexpected. That is what insurance is all about.

There is a crushing age tax for people between the ages of 50 and 64. What has happened to the GOP? Is it now ``get older people''?

This does not deserve one vote in the House of Representatives. It is shameful, and it is immoral.