Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Reverend Dr. Jonathan L. Weaver on his 30th pastoral anniversary.

As the pastor of the Greater Mt. Nebo African Methodist Episcopal Church, which was founded 140 years ago, Reverend Weaver provides outstanding spiritual leadership in Maryland's Fourth Congressional District and the entire region.

Pastor Weaver has a deep and active faith, and lives that faith not just with words, but with deeds. He has committed his life to lifting up people--to feeding the hungry and caring for the poor, comforting the afflicted and making peace--where there is strife. He has overseen not only the church's growth, but the charitable works of more than 50 ministries that serve its members and the wider community.

Pastor Weaver has led missions to Africa, serves as national president of a 500-church ecumenical association, and board chairman of the oldest and largest African-American community bank in the national capital region.

Mr. Speaker, as Reverend Weaver continues his service to our community, I am confident that he will continue ``to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God.''

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to tell where and in what direction Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are heading today. There is not enough food, millions are struggling to live without drinking water and electricity, and only 8 percent of the roads are open to traffic.

Containers with supplies, medical supplies, and food and other commodities are sitting in containers on the docks in the Port of San Juan and are not moving towards the people and the communities that need them the most. Struggles in the Virgin Islands are less heard about but no less real.

The question is whether we, as a nation, are doing all we can for the citizens of this Nation. Let's compare. After an earthquake hit Haiti in 2010, where the infrastructure was severely damaged, the U.S. military mobilized as if we were going to war.

The very next morning, after the earthquake hit, an Army unit was airborne. Within 2 weeks, 33 ships and 22,000 soldiers had arrived, and more than 300 helicopters were delivering millions of pounds of food and water, not just to the port, but the people of Haiti.

By contrast, today, there are fewer than 14,000 military personnel assisting in relief efforts in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and there are only 88 helicopters and only 4 naval ships, one of them the USNS Comfort that are aiding 3.5 million Americans--3.4 million Americans in Puerto Rico, 100,000 Americans in the Virgin Islands.

In Haiti, Mr. Speaker, we airlifted 15,000 U.S. citizens in 2010 after the earthquake, but in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, we are unwilling to evacuate a single American, even those who have relatives and friends in the many communities across the 50 States of this great country.

As Americans are starving and Americans are desperate, our response needs to be more vigorous.

Now, let's be sure, the military is doing what we are asking them to do. This is not a criticism of the military

not doing what we are asking them to do, but the White House is not asking the military to do enough.

Mr. Speaker, the President must lead on this issue. We have got dedicated members of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard who are willing, ready, and able to be in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to deliver the relief to our neighbors and our citizens.

We need to ask the Department of Defense to send more engineers, more transportation companies, and expeditionary sustainment battalions.

Yesterday, I asked a senior military leader: How many pontoon bridges have been erected in Puerto Rico to cross those washed out roads? Zero. How many miles of power transmission lines have been reestablished to get electricity out to more communities? The answer is zero.

We have military engineers on the ground, but they have not been asked to do that. We need to direct our military to provide the direct services on the local or, in military parlance, on the tactical level. I am not talking about long-term rebuilding of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands by the United States military. I am talking about directing the Department of Defense to establish the minimum infrastructure necessary to do the job that we should be asking them to do, which is to provide relief to 3.5 million Americans in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Strategic movements are good, military assessments and evaluations help, but what is needed is no less than what was done 7 years ago in Haiti.

Mr. Speaker, the President must lead on this issue, and the President must ask our military to do more.

Mr. Speaker, 3 days after Congress allowed the Children's Health Insurance Program to expire, this House once again passed a bill that restricts women's health and reproductive rights.

This should not be the time to prioritize politics. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their healthcare.

Over the past 40 years, the Supreme Court has affirmed a woman's constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose.

Not only is the 20-week ban imposed by this Congress not based on accepted science, but this ban disregards the role doctors play in making health decisions.

In States that have already passed this ban, young people, women of color, low-income women, and immigrant women are the ones who are most impacted by the ban.

If we care about women's health, we should work to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, and support maternal and children's health. Instead, the majority is slashing Medicaid, attacking Planned Parenthood, and passing bans.

Not me. I will remain committed to protecting women's health and supporting the constitutional right to choose.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding.

I rise in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget, which is a more responsible alternative than the GOP budget.

A nation's budget reflects its priorities, but the GOP budget continues to push the wrong ones, catering to the wealthy and the special interests.

The GOP likes to say that a rising tide lifts every boat, but that is only if every vessel is seaworthy. The GOP budget leaves too many Americans in dinghies, rubber rafts, and rowboats, subject to being capsized.

It includes trillions of dollars in irresponsible cuts, such as $5.4 trillion slashed from job-creating programs; $2 trillion cut from Medicaid and Medicare; $5 billion eliminated from investments in education, research, and infrastructure that will prevent us from competing globally.

The GOP budget would devastate our economy by balancing the budget on the backs of students, workers, seniors, the disabled, and vulnerable communities in Maryland and across our country.

And for what?

To provide tax cuts to the top 1 percent--people who make at least $900,000 every year.

In stark contrast, the CBC would create a fairer Tax Code and provide for much-needed investments in our communities. Our budget would boost our GDP by $329 billion.

I, too, Mr. Chairman, served on the House Armed Services Committee, and I stand here to say that the CBC's budget would end sequestration for our military so that we can improve military readiness and, at the same time, restore critical domestic programs that support working families and revitalize our neighborhoods.

Rather than giving the top 1 percent a $6 trillion tax cut, our budget would call for major investments here at home. We invest $665 billion to modernize highways and infrastructure, $120 billion in job- creating programs, $80 billion so that every child learns in a modern classroom, and $15 billion to rebuild our VA.

Perhaps, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we invest $300 billion over the next decade to eradicate poverty and provide basic standard of living to all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, our budget responsibly pays for all of our investments. Our budget is a credible alternative and a real plan for America, and I urge my colleagues to support the CBC budget.

Mr. Speaker, by ending DACA, President Trump made our immigration system less fair and just for our young people.

These DREAMers study in our schools and work on our Main Streets. They are Americans, and the United States is their home. It makes no sense to deport them simply because of the actions of their parents. This decision is so contrary to our American values that even business leaders and faith leaders called on the President not to do it.

My grandmother came to this country from Jamaica as a domestic worker and, for a period of time, was undocumented. She did this so that my father could become the first member of our family to go to college. He repaid his mother and this country by becoming a doctor and working in some of the poorest neighborhoods near where I grew up. My father pursued the American Dream and, in turn, contributed to the greatness that is America.

Kicking these DREAMers out won't create jobs or make our neighborhoods safer. That is why we must pass the Dream Act. It is the right thing to do for our economic competitiveness, military readiness, and public safety.

We have legitimate disagreements on how to fix our immigration system, but let's not hold our DREAMers hostage. It is time for Congress to pass the Dream Act now.

Mr. Chair, during rollcall Vote No. 493 on H.R. 3354, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 105 Offered by Mr. Grothman

Mr. Speaker, President Trump's immigration policies are unpopular. They don't protect our national security and don't promote our ideals as a nation.

Nowhere is that more apparent than his repeated calls for a border wall. This wall is so unpopular and nonsensical that the House has now resorted to funding it without even a straight up-or-down vote.

Why are they doing this? Not only to give the President a much-needed win, but to fool the American taxpayer who was repeatedly promised that Mexico would pay for this wall.

The border wall is expensive and unnecessary. It is opposed not only by a huge majority of Americans, but also by those living on the border.

Now, Members of Congress are being forced to choose between voting for the wall and voting to fund our military. I support our servicemembers. I spent 30 years in Active and Reserve Duty. I am a member of the House Armed Services Committee. I want to improve the readiness of our Armed Forces, but I cannot and will not support a multi-billion dollar wall that Members of both sides of the aisle now know is unnecessary and ineffective. I will not throw away $1.6 billion to feed the President's ego. On this issue, the American people deserve to know exactly where their representatives stand.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this House discriminating against transgender Americans and restricting their ability to serve our country, saying now is not the time for a social experiment. I firmly believe that the privilege and responsibility to defend our country should not be denied to anyone based on gender identification.

Prior to the 1950s, the ``not a social experiment'' argument was used to deny African Americans from fully participating in our military. Today there is a long history of service and heroism by African Americans, including Generals Colin Powell and Vincent Brooks.

Prior to 2010, the ``not a social experiment'' argument was used to keep gays and lesbians from full participation in our military. Today there is a long line of distinguished service by gay and lesbian servicemembers, including Generals Randy Taylor and Tammy Smith.

Today there is a long line of transgender servicemembers who are ready to distinguish themselves. I welcome their service and appreciate their willingness to sacrifice for our Nation.

As a Member of Congress, I will never deny that privilege and responsibility to those who want to serve.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me start by thanking Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith not only for their leadership but the bipartisan collaborative approach to the work of the committee.

Certainly as a new member of the 115th Congress, I find that very refreshing. From what I have seen, it is no surprise that 50-plus years in a row we have successfully passed the NDAA.

Mr. Chairman, the United States faces serious security threats: aggression from North Korea and Russia, long and costly campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and new battlefields in cyberspace and in outer space.

After years of sequestration, there is consensus certainly in the House Armed Services Committee that Congress must address readiness shortfalls and modernization challenges facing our military. So in the NDAA, we made greater investments in training and equipping the forces and prioritized projects that extend our technological and warfighting edge.

But increasing defense authorizations and appropriations, absent a clear national security strategy, will not make our country safer. We need a smart, strategic approach to national security that provides clear goals and objectives and that incorporates an all-of-government approach. That means not only increasing defense spending, but also ensuring funding for the State Department and USAID and reversing proposed cuts to nondefense programs that make the world more stable and secure.

We owe it to our servicemen and -women to provide them with both the resources to accomplish their mission abroad and to pursue the American Dream when they return home, and that is good schools, family- supporting jobs, and safe neighborhoods. We cannot do one at the expense of the other. The long-term success of our country depends on that.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3003, a partisan bill that seeks to punish so-called sanctuary cities, strikes at the heart of community-based policing efforts vital to public safety.

Under this bill, States and counties where local police focus on community priorities rather than immigration enforcement would be punished, losing millions of dollars that could be used to build up communities, improve our Nation's infrastructure, and strengthen local government.

Moreover, this bill would jeopardize public safety by discouraging people from trusting law enforcement, sharing information, or reporting crime.

Across the country, most police chiefs have expressed serious concerns about policies that may lead to racial profiling or requiring their officers to break up families.

They have said that immigration enforcement should remain a Federal responsibility. Instead of forcing local police to act as immigration officers, we should work on passing comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for aspiring Americans.

And if we truly want to makes the streets of America safer, Congress should act to strengthen bonds between community and police, invest in mental health and substance abuse services, reduce gun violence, and reform the criminal justice system.

Mr. Speaker, last year's Presidential election was the first in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. What was the result?

Fourteen States had new voting restrictions, including strict voter ID, cuts to same-day registration and early voting, and fewer polling places. This suppressed the vote, particularly among voters of color and in poor communities, and had a major impact in close races in North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

The Voting Rights Act once enjoyed bipartisan support, and Congress should, once again, come together to modernize the law and respond to the Supreme Court's objections. Yet despite calls to pass legislation for the past 4 years, nothing has happened.

Voting is a right, not a privilege, and there is no debating that point.

The Founders in Philadelphia, women at Seneca Falls, and marchers in Selma all recognized the power of the vote. When we protect the rights of voters to make their choices, whatever they may be, we do our part to build a more perfect union.

We can't wait for the next election. Congress must restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act now.

Mr. Speaker, I take to the floor of the House today in opposition to H.R. 10, the so-called Financial CHOICE Act, which is more appropriately called the ``Wrongful'' CHOICE Act.

Nearly a decade since the beginning of the financial crisis, my district is still dealing with the consequences of irresponsible, underregulated financial institutions targeting toxic subprime loans to unsuspecting borrowers. In Prince George's County, one-quarter of all mortgages were subprime.

Nationally, Black homeowners were disproportionately affected by the foreclosure crisis, 80 percent more likely to lose their homes compared to other families with similar incomes and lifestyles. We later learned that several big banks had deliberately given people of color subprime mortgages. One such scandal-ridden bank, Wells Fargo, offered cash incentives for loan officers to peddle these, what they called ghetto loans to who they called mud people; in other words, Black customers, often single mothers.

For families in my district, it wasn't just about losing your home. An entire

generation of wealth was wiped out. The financial foundation for future generations collapsed and may never be rebuilt. Families can't start a family, save for college, or set aside for their own retirement.

In the wake of the crisis, Democrats in Congress said, never again, and we took needed action to ensure that this sort of abusive behavior would never be repeated. We passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect American consumers from the types of practices that led to this crisis.

Now, even as the big banks, the creators of the financial crisis, are making record profits, the Financial CHOICE Act would once again give Wall Street permission to swindle working families and destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This would be extremely harmful for hardworking Americans across the country.

Since its founding, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been a powerful ally of the little guy. It has delivered nearly $12 billion in relief to more than 29 million consumers harmed by predatory lenders, big banks, abusive debt collectors, and outright scammers.

Our Nation's veterans and military families have been some of the major beneficiaries of the agency's work. The agency worked with state attorneys general to secure debt relief for 17,000 servicemembers tricked into taking out high-cost loans. It ordered Navy Federal Credit Union to pay $28.5 million for using illegal debt collection practices. It is suing Navient, the Nation's largest student loan company, for illegal practices against millions of borrowers, including severely injured veterans.

The Bureau has also addressed the discriminatory practices that impact communities of color in the financial system head-on. The agency acted against Ally Bank, Honda, and Toyota for charging higher interest rates for African-American, Latino, and Asian borrowers regardless of their credit score. It strengthened protections for families who depend on prepaid debit cards for their wages and often fall into a spiral of debt from payday and auto title loans. The Bureau continues to target banks who are denying loans to qualified borrowers of color across the country.

Let's be clear: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is truly living up to its name.

Mr. Speaker, nobody should want to return to a system that failed us and produced the financial crisis that damaged so many lives. Too many families and communities still carry the devastating scars of 2008, but that is exactly what the Financial CHOICE Act is trying to do. A rigged system is what led to the financial crisis, big banks got bailouts and sweetheart deals, and ordinary people suffered. That is why I am determined to oppose the Financial CHOICE Act, which seeks to roll back Wall Street reform and eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Voting against this bill is the right thing to do for my district and it is the right thing for America.

Madam Speaker, Richard Wilbur Collins III was ready to graduate from Bowie State University yesterday. He just finished Army ROTC, was airborne qualified, and was just commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Army's intelligence branch. His father is a Navy veteran, and Richard wanted to follow in his footsteps and commit his life to serving our Nation. He was ambitious and driven. His calling was to protect our country and to do what is right and just.

He loved soccer and lacrosse. He was the top runner in his ROTC unit. His Facebook page was filled with selfies with his friends. He was active in his church. His friends and family said that he had a loving and giving heart and would go out of his way to try and help others.

On Saturday morning, while waiting for an Uber ride with two friends at the University of Maryland, he was approached by another student who demanded that he ``Step left. Step left if you know what is best for you.'' Richard simply replied, ``no.'' The other student stabbed him in the chest and fled. Richard died in the hospital. His bright future was stolen. His parents were robbed of their son. Our hearts are broken.

This tragedy exposes a dangerous rising tide. This incident was not some random act of violence. It was a heinous, despicable, and unprovoked crime of hate.

Richard Collins' murderer--who was from a middle class family, who hung out at the student union and library--was a member of a racist neo-Nazi group called Alt-Reich Nation. He was not some outsider. He was a homegrown terrorist who was radicalized on the university campus.

What is most troubling is this isn't the first incident of hate at the University of Maryland. This academic year

alone, there have been anti-immigrant chalkings, racist fliers, threats, and, less than a month ago, there was a noose found inside a campus fraternity house.

But this isn't just a troubling trend at the University of Maryland. There has been an unprecedented spike in racist and hate activity on campuses since November. Posters at the University of Texas implored students to report any and all illegal aliens, that America is a White nation. Another flier, with swastikas, at UCLA read, in part: ``the hordes of our enemies from the Blacks to the Jews are deserving of fates of violence.''

Hate watch groups have tracked 150 racist incidents on college campuses in 33 States since the fall. Just a year ago, it was such a rarity that no one was even counting.

Peddlers of hate are specifically targeting college campuses, declaring that their time has come, and trying to lure students with slogans like ``serve your people'' and ``our destiny is ours.'' They are working to translate their online activism to real-world action, and young people are prime targets, in part, because they are still figuring out who they are and what they believe.

One would have to be purposefully obtuse to not see a direct line from the recent elections to the emboldening of these perpetrators across the country. Longtime White supremacist Jared Taylor described the November election result as a ``sign of rising White consciousness'' and that ``now is the time to press our advantage in every way possible.''

So, today, I am calling on the administration--that has repeatedly failed to denounce the hate crimes directed at Jews, members of the LGBT community, or immigrants--to denounce the hate-fueled killing of a Black soldier, Second Lieutenant Richard Collins.

The reaction to Collins' murder is often formulaic. We extend our condolences and sympathies, call the killing a senseless tragedy, and proclaim that we won't tolerate these incidents. That is not good enough. If this escalation of hate is going to end in Maryland and across the country, it will be because all of us take a stand not only against the hard right and hate festering on campus, but to leaders who have been too content to remain silent and look the other way.

Hate speech is not protected. Encouraging open academic debate cannot lead to inaction that creates a breeding ground for prejudice, discrimination, and violent hatred on our college campuses or anywhere.

Campuses should adopt successful strategies:

Consider zero-tolerance policies for hateful speech and acts of racism. Maybe if students know that they will be expelled for spreading racial slurs online, they will think twice;

Replicate the University of Massachusetts. They have a hate SWAT team that counters hateful messages through an early alert system, a counter-messaging response team, and counselors on call;

Or promote more diverse voices in the faculty and staff.

Pretending that the murder of Richard Collins in cold blood is an isolated incident will only make the situation worse. Diversity and unity--that American melting pot that is the foundation of our Nation-- can only happen when the country does a better job confronting hate in all forms. We cannot simply start when students arrive on campus.

In the absence of real change, we take to the streets; we protest; we hold vigils. But Richard Collins deserves better. Our children deserve better. Let us work together, and let's not wait for another tragedy.

Farewell and Godspeed, Lieutenant Collins.

Mr. Speaker, why did President Trump fire FBI Director Comey? He called Comey a ``showboat'' and ``grandstander'' and said he was going to fire him regardless of the rationale outlined by the Deputy Attorney General. He justified firing Comey, who was leading the investigation into Michael Flynn and Russian interference in our elections, by saying it ``is a made-up story.''

But the President's political removal of Comey without any legal or ethical reason shatters the idea that the FBI is independent and insulated from partisan politics. The President should not be able to fire the FBI Director for political or personal reasons.

That is why, today, I introduced legislation to raise the standard for the President to dismiss the FBI Director. Congress placed similar restrictions on the President's power to remove members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Director of the CFBP, and special counsels. The FBI should be no different.

Congress cannot continue to be a rubberstamp for this administration. Let's uphold our constitutional responsibility to hold the President accountable.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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