Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise as the co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus in the Congress of the United States. This bill is terrible. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act should not be voted on.

As a may-issue State, New Jersey allows local law enforcement the discretion on issuing concealed carry permits. In order to receive a permit, applicants must demonstrate an urgent need to carry a concealed weapon and pass a safety course on par with firearms training required of police officers.

H.R. 38 would undermine the good regulations New Jersey has in place by forcing New Jersey and other States to recognize the concealed carry standards from every other State, even if their regulations are weak or nonexistent.

Allowing States with the weakest concealed carry requirements to set the national standard creates a race to the bottom. Aside from the outrageous fact that House Republicans are pushing a bill to weaken States' rights, this bill makes it harder for local law enforcement to do their jobs.

This bill does not establish a process for officers to easily verify that someone is carrying lawfully, because officers would be essentially required to know the permitting standards of every State, a heavy and unnecessary burden, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our nation's fire and emergency services lost an extraordinary leader on Thanksgiving Day. Retired Fire Chief Carl Holmes passed away unexpectedly in Dallas, Texas with his family by his side.

Chief Holmes was a ground breaker, a man of strong convictions who paved the way for African American firefighters to climb the leadership ladder in fire departments across the nation. A veteran of the Oklahoma City Fire Department, Chief Holmes began his career during a time when few opportunities were afforded in the fire service to African Americans. He achieved his ascent to leadership positions by training harder and working longer, a lesson he instilled in others who wanted to follow his path. In 1978, following 27 years of grit and determination, he became the city's first African American Assistant Fire Chief.

In 2016, Chief Holmes was awarded the Mason Lankford Fire Service Leadership Award at the 28th Annual National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner in Washington, DC. He was honored for an incredible career that spanned over 65 years . . . a career that left a profound impact on firefighters of different ethnicities and regions of the country, both career and volunteer. I had the honor of attending the dinner program and witnessing the presentation of the award to Chief Holmes. It was a special event that brought 1,500 national fire service leaders to their feet to pay tribute to a man of incredible courage and character. Chief Holmes was a leader who literally changed the complexion of the fire service as we know it today.

Chief Holmes was a very special person and the consummate fire service professional. He inspired people and demanded the best from them. But more importantly, he taught others about life and what is most important to us all: family and friends. He leaves behind a loving wife, Marvella, and daughter, Carla and

family. He also leaves behind countless fire service professionals who benefited from his teachings. It will be their responsibility to preserve Chief Holmes' legacy and carry forward his teachings.

On behalf of my fellow Co-Chairs of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I extend my sympathies to the Holmes family on the passing of a great fire service leader.

Mr. Speaker, the President himself will see a financial windfall. If the majority wasn't helping him hide his tax returns, the American people could see the truth.

The bill exacerbates dramatic and historic health inequality, wealth inequality. Adding $1.5 trillion to our national debt, as this bill does, without benefiting the middle and working class is legislative malpractice.

So while Republicans tout this as a middle class tax cut, some taxpayers at every income level will pay more on this bill. A middle- aged married couple with no children earning $80,900 a year who itemize could end up paying $4,330 more in 2018. Many of my constituents will see a big tax increase after losing the full State and local tax deduction. That is absurd.

The authors of this bill said all of the individual tax cuts will expire after 2025, as well as change the measure of inflation, which will slowly bump taxpayers into higher income brackets. Are we kidding, and who are we kidding?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the chairman, who has distinguished himself in law enforcement since he has been here.

As the co-chair of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus and an original sponsor of H.R. 2228, I rise today in strong support of the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act, and I want to join with so many of the organizations that are supporting this: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Officers, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association.

I was proud to have worked with my co-chair, David Reichert, and Representatives Susan Brooks, Val Demings, and Doug Collins on this important piece of legislation for the law enforcement community.

We all agree that the brave men and women in law enforcement put themselves in difficult--if not dangerous and sometimes life- threatening, situations every day.

We teach officers how to handle every different situation, whether it is a domestic dispute, whether it is a hostage dispute, or any other; but we need to think about the officer who comes away from that particular experience with himself; that is about it. He goes home to his family.

It is absolutely critical we provide our law enforcement officers with all the resources they need to effectively do their job. I have consistently fought for new equipment and advanced technology to provide physical protection for law enforcement when they are on duty. However, we must also ensure law enforcement has the resources and support and training to address mental health issues as well.

The stresses on law enforcement have continued to grow in recent years. This can have a big impact on officers' physical and mental well-being; that is why officer mental wellness needs to be a priority from the day of hire to the day of retire. We know too many officers struggle with depression, suicidal thoughts, post-traumatic stress disorder.

As co-chair of the Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force in the Congress of the United States, myself and Dr. Collins, who was the Republican from Pennsylvania, started out 20 years ago; we could fit the number of people in a telephone booth. We just about knew what we were talking about, and that has changed how we approach our military forces on the field.

According to the Badge of Life, a group that studies post-traumatic stress disorder among police, we have heard tonight of how many suicides we are talking about. Tragically, many police officers with PTSD are not even aware they have the problem. Often they remain on their beat, doing the job without help or support.

By discussing the importance of improving an officer's mental health, we can reduce the stigma surrounding mental health issues in the law enforcement community. I think that this bill will bolster the connection between local mental health professionals and law enforcement. I urge passage, and, hopefully, the Senate will do it justice.

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I include in the Record two articles. One is a letter from the National Fraternal Order of Police, representing 330,000 police officers in this country coming out against this bill because it will affect their members in a very, very terrible way. The other is an article in The New York Times today: ``Republican Tax Plans Put Corporations Over People.''

National Fraternal

Order of Police,

Washington, DC, November 14, 2017.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles E. Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker, Senator McConnell, Representative Pelosi

and Senator Schumer: I am writing on behalf of the members of

the Fraternal Order of Police to urge you to protect the

State and local tax (SALT) deduction in the current tax code.

Our members put their lives and safety at risk to protect our

homes, schools and communities. Their salaries and the

equipment they use are paid for by State and local taxes on

property, sales and income. These funds are then invested in

our law enforcement agencies and the men and women serving in

law enforcement.

The FOP is very concerned that the partial or total

elimination of the SALT deductions will endanger the ability

of our State and local governments to fund these agencies and

recruit the men and women we need to keep us safe. In

addition, our members are also citizens of these communities

who work and pay these State and local taxes. The elimination

of the SALT deductions, in whole or in part, will be deeply

harmful to them and their families, effectively raising their

taxes as much as $6,300 according to recent studies. The SALT

deduction has been part of the tax code since it was

originally drafted in 1913. Our members would certainly

oppose any effort of the Federal government to tax their

income twice by eliminating the SALT deduction.

On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I urge Congress to preserve the SALT

deductions, to reject any effort to eliminate, in whole or in

part, these deductions and oppose the final bill if these

deductions are included. I thank you in advance for your

consideration of our views. Please feel free to contact me or

my Senior Advisor Jim Pasco if I can provide any additional

information on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, if it weren't bad enough, Mr. Speaker--and I come over to this side for a reason: I have got many brothers and sisters whom I love here--this is a terrible bill.

Unanimous consent here. The real price of this bill is hidden. $30 billion in interest on the debt every year. Who pays this?

If it weren't bad enough, the taxes that people have to pay today, as well as our children and our grandchildren, but beyond that, the real price of this bill is further hidden. The temporary family flexibility credit expires after 5 years. The temporary exclusion for independent care costs expires after 5 years.

Some have estimated that, if Republicans make these provisions permanent, as they claim will happen in future Congresses, the costs of the bill will increase to over $400 billion.

The Senate bill cuts off relief for families in 7 years. They are hiding over $500 billion in costs.

I am particularly interested in the SALT exclusion as a deduction. Folks in New Jersey, California, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, et cetera, are going to be paying the costs of this deduction being removed.

You can't make this up.

In fact, the increase mostly comes from eliminating the State and local tax deduction for individuals, but corporations can continue to deduct their State and local taxes. You can't, Mr. and Mrs. America.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, in this form, yes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would require the FEMA Administrator and the DHS inspector general to certify that all claims for victims of Superstorm Sandy are addressed before this bill takes effect.

Many in this Chamber should recall 5 years ago Superstorm Sandy caused widespread destruction throughout New Jersey and many States in the Northeast. Superstorm Sandy barreled up the East Coast, bringing death and destruction. Over 200 people in the United States and the Caribbean died, and the storm caused more than $71 billion in damage. Sandy swamped coastline communities. It knocked out power for millions of people and businesses, flooded public transit systems, and set neighborhoods ablaze.

Many Sandy victims have begun down the long road of recovery, but 5 years later, many victims and communities are still waiting for relief. They are still struggling to rebuild their homes and their businesses. It took years for the hardest hit communities in my district, Little Ferry and Moonachie, to receive the relief to build key pieces of public infrastructure.

In New Jersey, over 1,200 property owners are still moving through the recovery programs. Approximately 900 are still not back in their homes. Of all Sandy victims, there are over 2,000 people still awaiting final review of their flood insurance claims.

After victims faced delay after delay to start the claims process with FEMA, they then struggled with insurance companies which were and continue to be a major source of strife for Sandy victims.

Many of the residents of New York and New Jersey saw insurers intentionally paying out too little on their claims, which in many cases was not enough to cover the cost of repairing the damage. We heard stories of insurance adjusters making significant errors on reports because they misunderstood technical definitions, underestimated the extent of the damage done, or intentionally misrepresented the cause of the damage.

This is all documented.

The problems were so significant, we had to force FEMA to reopen the claims process for thousands of homeowners. Some ended up getting additional money. I have heard from many who say that it is still not enough to cover their recovery costs.

Mr. Speaker, on the heels of Hurricanes Harvey and Maria, we are now tasked with reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program. To ensure these victims do not face the same troubles as those in my State, we need to apply the lessons we learned from Superstorm Sandy in this reauthorization. Tragically, this bill does not.

We should not allow companies who profited off Superstorm Sandy victims while committing widespread fraud and failing to meet their basic obligations under the National Flood Insurance Program to sell their own flood insurance.

We should not reauthorize the program without reforming the claims process to ensure technical definitions of ``earth movement,'' ``basement,'' and ``mold damage'' do not cause delay for victims receiving their fair share.

This bill should ensure that victims have the time they need to file an appeal and require FEMA to respond so victims are able to move the claims process forward.

I submitted several amendments to the Rules Committee with my colleague Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey to address these issues and the lessons we learned from Sandy. We were denied a vote.

At the very least, Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that FEMA certifies that all victims from Superstorm Sandy have had action taken on their case before we make more changes to the National Flood Insurance Program. That is what a vote in favor of this recommit would do. Simply put, it would delay the implementation of the bill until the FEMA Administrator and the DHS inspector general certified that all claims for Superstorm Sandy have been addressed.

In order to support Superstorm Sandy victims, I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this recommit, because a ``no'' vote is a vote against the victims of Superstorm Sandy, no doubt about it, who, for 5 years have still not been made whole.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the outstanding achievements of the great City of Clifton as it celebrates its 100th Anniversary on November 4, 2017.

On April 26, 1917, the City of Clifton was carved out of Acquackanonk Township and incorporated by an act of the New Jersey legislature. Named after the towering cliffs of Garret Mountain, Clifton is composed of many endearing neighborhoods. They are Albion, Allwood, Athenia, Botany Village, Delawanna,

Dutch Hill, Lakeview, Main Mall, Montclair Heights, Richfield, Rosemawr, Styertowne, West Clifton, and Yanticaw Pond. Just as Clifton's geography is diverse, so too are are its citizens. Clifton's 84,136 residents speak over seventy languages and trace their heritage to all parts of the world.

Today, we thank those who played a part in the founding of the city, and those leaders who guided the city in the years that followed. Since 1934, Clifton has been governed by a City Manager and seven City Council members, one of whom is selected by his or her colleagues to be Mayor. The residents of Clifton are some of the most involved citizens, and make their voices heard by electing all members of the City Council.

Mayor James Anzaldi has served in his current position for 27 years, making him the city's longest tenured mayor. His love for his hometown and dedication to public service set remarkable examples for all Cliftonites to follow.

Students at Clifton High School boast their ``Mustang Pride'' in the classroom and at competitions throughout the North Jersey area. Mustang varsity sports teams have won multiple state championships throughout the decades, and the Mustang Band has been dazzling crowds since the 1930s. The band has earned such a reputation that it has been nicknamed, ``The Showband of the Northeast.''

The City of Clifton has been essential to the growth and development of Passaic County and the State of New Jersey overall. After the closure of the Morris Canal in 1924, Clifton began a mission to rapidly modernize. Over the next few decades, shopping centers, hotels, roads, and other vital infrastructure were built at a remarkable rate. By 1952, Clifton was designated as New Jersey's fastest growing city. The city continues to champion economic progress and development today.

It is my great honor to represent the residents of Clifton in the United States Congress. This is a city where people work hard to support their families, improve their community, and honor their history. When I visit my neighbors in Clifton, I never cease to be inspired by acts of ingenuity, compassion, and good will. I can always count on Cliftonites to be some of the friendliest constituents in my district, and the country as a whole.

The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is rewarding, yet little compares to recognizing and commemorating 100 years of rich history in Clifton, New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues in celebrating 100 years of service, dedication, and excellence from the residents of Clifton.

Mr. Speaker, there are some real terrible parts to this budget, but this, to me, is the worst.

This deduction has been part of our tax system before there was an income tax, going back to the Civil War, for the very reasons that my friend from Massachusetts just talked about. It wasn't just picked off the shelf. People count on it. People count on this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, the previous question, the budget, the weather, whatever.

We know that this budget resolution paves the way for a tax reform bill done through reconciliation. I am sure that is interesting. Reconciliation on Governor Street in Paterson, New Jersey. I am sure they want to know reconciliation when we are talking about their pocketbooks; a dubious maneuver that blocks us Democrats completely out of the process and allows Republicans to pass a purely partisan, juiced-up bill.

Comprehensive tax reform is a goal we should all share, and lasting tax reform should be bipartisan. My friend from Georgia, I think, believes that, but this ain't it.

While they are cutting deals behind closed doors, what we are pushing is eliminating the State and local tax deduction, and that is in the Senate budget. They wrote it right out, the Capito amendment.

Republicans are so adamant about eliminating this middle class benefit that they added an amendment to that budget before us today, the so-called Capito amendment.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. A vote for this rule is a vote for the budget, is a vote to repeal the State and local deduction.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues representing New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California, Minnesota, and so many other States, including Georgia, including Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, better think long and hard about their vote today.

The American people are watching to see if they vote to raise their taxes. This amendment, the Capito amendment, in the budget falsely claims that the SALT only benefits high-income taxpayers. Let's take a look at that.

The fact is that repealing it would hurt the middle class and working families. At the same time, how do you justify--through the Speaker, how do you justify keeping the deduction still viable for corporations? They can deduct the State and local taxes, but the families of America can't? How can you justify that?

I want to hear your justification of that. That is going to be a good one.

Forty percent of taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000, more than 70 percent of those making $100,000 to $200,000, claim the State and local tax deduction.

Mr. Speaker, I will make it short, but I could stay here all afternoon on this because I feel it in my bone marrow.

We are talking about tax cuts. We are increasing the tax burden on the middle class, and you cannot deny it. There is no place in that budget that you can deny it. None whatsoever. You could say: Well, we are going to do this over here and this.

Look, I am tired of that walnut trick. Okay? Have you figured out which it is under?

Groups representing realtors, mayors, teachers, firefighters, sheriffs, et cetera, all support retaining the State and local tax deduction. It is bad policy, plain and simple.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you, we have enough ammunition. We don't need this ammunition for next year. Let's think about the budget of the American people in a nonpartisan way.

Will the gentleman yield?

So, now that you have agreed to the fact the families are going to get shafted but corporations will continue to be able to deduct their local and State taxes, this is pertinent to the budget, my friend, through the Speaker.

Right in the bill, the budget bill we are talking about right now, the rule, previous question, related to changes in Federal tax laws, which may include reducing the Federal deduction such as this--this is right from the budget. Why do you say we are not discussing this?

Mr. Speaker, families in my friend's State, the great State of Georgia, will lose a tax deduction of $9,000, those families, on average. I think you are concerned about that. You cannot fib that you are not.

And the fact of the matter is you used the words--through the Speaker, you used the words that your States are subsidizing the donor States? Well, let me give you an idea of New Jersey.

States like West Virginia, the average SALT deduction claim is $9,463 per household; in Ohio, it is $10,445; in Wisconsin, it is $11,653.

Mr. Speaker, 48th, 49th State, that is where New Jersey is in getting back the money we send down to Washington. Who subsidizes whom?

And Mnuchin, go back and tell the Secretary of the Treasury he doesn't know what he is talking about. He says New Jersey is being subsidized? Not these numbers; the numbers don't show that.

You can't defend this. You can't defend it under any circumstances whatsoever, and you have admitted that we are talking facts here today.

I rest my case.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Chairman Goodlatte, I start by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Goodlatte for acknowledging the actions that were taken by the Governor of New Jersey when he was the U.S. attorney back in 2006 to 2007.

By the way, the former Justice Department was not even in existence yet.

I agree with much, on both sides, of what has been said here, but I think we are missing the point. The legislation is needed to prohibit this from happening again.

Congressman Poe, the gentleman from Texas, wants to take the political preference out of the Justice Department. He is absolutely correct, I agree, but not just about where the money is going to go.

We have a major problem here. I have been shouting from the rooftops about the need to reform the Justice Department's settlement agreement process for almost a decade on this floor.

When we talk about lawsuits being settled, deferred prosecutions are to get rid of the defendant so that the defendant, at the cost of doing business, pays a fine. That is how it is done. This bill does nothing about that--zero.

Many of the corporations that stood before the courts--and I am not a lawyer, as most of you guys and gals are--they stood before the courts for 15 years, representing those corporations, and what they got out of it was: Look, we are going to slap you on the wrist. We are going to give you a little fine. At that time, you can give the money to whoever you wish. And then you go away. Nobody is prosecuted. Nobody goes to jail. Nobody is going to go to jail with these banks that cheated middle class folks. Nobody. Guaranteed.

But under the guise of ``ensuring accountability,'' H.R. 732 is a political exercise missing real reprimand for these practices, reforms to the system, or redress to actual victims.

For years, we have known deferred prosecution agreements get out of hand, regardless of whether there is a Democrat running the Presidency or a Republican. So for anybody to stand up there and just say this was Obama's problem, they don't know history.

I suggested a modest reform to improve the transparency of these agreements. I was rebuffed by some of the very people who are in this room.

There is much to be said here, but if we remember the Bristol-Myers Squibb case, they avoided prosecution for securities fraud in exchange for $5 million to the Governor's law school alma mater. Now, that is what is going on.

Mr. Chairman, you don't accept that. If you are on the Judiciary Committee, you can't accept that either. You have got to be kidding me. To allow the courts to do something like this--and any administration, Democrat or Republican, to go along with this--no wonder the people have little faith in the justice system in the United States of America.

I simply want fairness, Mr. Chairman. I have asked for it many times. This is not a new subject to me, and I will be back talking about it again.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution before us today.

You have got to get a charge out of what you are hearing and listening to today.

If one were to draw a chart from 2001 and 2003 to the present time, what contributes to the deficit and the debt?

I am glad to hear someone from the other side talk about that debt, because I thought you forgot all about it. This budget seems to think that you have amnesia.

If you look at the chart, what grows the debt? The tax cuts that you put into effect in 2001 and 2003, which helped the rich and brought us to an economic abyss 4 years later. You did it, and you are trying to do it again.

So we will see if Democrats are irrelevant, since you didn't include us, so far, up to this point. So much for our bipartisanship.

You asked for $203 billion in mandatory spending cuts across 11 committees. It will have to be reconciled with a Senate budget that explodes our deficit by $1.5 trillion. Good luck.

While this Republican budget claims to balance in 10 years, it does so with unnamed cuts, gimmicks, and magical thinking about the economic growth.

The budget is built on the same premise on which you tried to cut the ACA, the Affordable Care Act. Let's take $750,000, cut down on Medicaid, and we will give that money in tax cuts to the very wealthy. That was your plan. You saw how the country received it.

This budget cuts Medicare by $487 billion by eliminating the Medicare guarantee. How can you justify that and look into the eyes of seniors in this country?

It assumes repeal of the Affordable Care Act. You want to use the Affordable Care Act's money, but you want to dissolve it, choke it, and starve it. It assumes an appeal of that act, which would take 23 million Americans off their healthcare insurance.

It assumes a $1 trillion cut to Medicaid--it is in your budget--and $2.5 trillion in other mandatory cuts, with no specifics.

The gentleman from Michigan needs to study the facts. You have got to get him the facts.

The greatest contributor, as I said, were the two tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. We know the breakdown of where that went to.

This is not a serious budget. It is a desperate attempt to enact deficit-exploding tax cuts.

I am making all my remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, 1 percent would be the recipients of 80 percent of the Republican tax cuts within 10 years.

This budget, like the phony tax plan, is a joke and is insulting to us as Members of Congress. I know you have some problems with your own Conference. I don't know how you are going to figure that out. Don't expect us to bail you out.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Joseph Cheff, who has celebrated his retirement from Passaic County Education Associations this past Friday.

Expressing how much Mr. Cheff meant to Passaic County is a delightful task. As a fellow official in the education system, as an admirer, and as a Patersonian, it gives me great pleasure to add my personal appreciation and commendation.

Mr. Cheff served in the school district at the peak of his memorable career. In 1982, he was a mathematics instructor for the Paterson Public School borough. Joseph Cheff's mission statement was to prepare each student for success in the collegiate institution of their choice and in their careers. His role in education and leadership leaves a positive mark on New Jersey's youth.

Throughout the course of his life he has been involved in numerous organizations such as Paterson Education Association, where he resides as delegate assemblyman. One of his most prominent affiliations was as president of The Passaic County Education Association, where he believed that every student should have an extraordinary educational experience.

As president of Passaic County Education Association, his mission was to extend an opportunity for representation of various education groups to confer about problems affecting public education in Passaic County. Ultimately his desire was to facilitate the dissemination of information from national, state, county, and local educational associations.

Joseph Cheff continued to strive for the efforts of the teacher's union rights, tenure reform, and teacher evaluations on NJSBA (New Jersey School Boards Association). The services provided by the NJSBA allowed teachers and members of the New Jersey schools to carry out their daily responsibilities, tackle difficult situations, and realize the rewards of successful boardsmanship. By standing up for teacher's rights, Cheff knew that teachers with a less strenuous work life would not only become more relaxed in their workplace, but also outperform expectations and truly interact with their students, so as to contribute to the reformation of a poorly established educational program, and create informative methods of educating students for their futures.

It is an honor to commemorate the outstanding career of Mr. Joseph Cheff. Your hard work and tireless advocacy for both students and teachers, has impacted the community of Passaic for years to come. You are a wonderful person with a caring heart and your work will live on.

The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing and commemorating over 30 years of the contributions and services you have contributed to the residents of Passaic County from Mr. Joseph Cheff.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues in extending our gratitude towards a humanitarian who has planted the seed for aspiring students. Let us celebrate over 30 years of his dedicated service to not only the Paterson Public School System, but also for his tireless, hard work and amicable efforts as President of the Passaic County Education Association, Mr. Joseph Cheff.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the extraordinary efforts and dedication of the Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth, who were honored on Saturday, September 23, 2017 during St. Joseph's Healthcare System's Charity Ball on Ellis Island, where they celebrated 150 years of service to the community.

The Sisters of Charity in the United States were founded by Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton, in the spirit of Saint Vincent de Paul and Saint Louise de Louise de Marillac in Emmitsburg, Maryland, in 1809 by Mother Mary Xavier Mehegan. After the establishment of the Convent Station in 1860, Mother Mehegan swiftly established educational programs amongst other community outreach programs and institutions to address and assist with services to the public. In 1886, the Sisters established St. Joseph's Hospital in Paterson, NJ.

During the 1860's, the Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth had difficulty gathering funds for the fledgling hospital. The Sisters petitioned the city for its support and reached out within the community, such as, local factories, workers, owners, and some of the wealthier residents in the community for financial assistance. They farmed their land to feed the patients and would sell the remainder in order to support their hospital. They depended on the generosity and kindness of the community to help the infirmed citizens find comfort and care. Through all of this dedicated hard work, support and effort, the Sisters slowly expanded the hospital and began to build the large healthcare system that we know today.

Throughout the majority of St. Joseph's history, charismatic and determined women guided the hospital, turning challenges into opportunities. In 1875, Sister Mary Clare Reilly became the first of several influential leaders who would shape the essence of St. Joseph's.

A champion for the hospital for more than four decades, ``Mother Clare'' as she was called, was renowned for her strength of judgement, business sense, and ability to be flexible and progressive.

In more recent times, we appreciate the significant contributions that Sister Jane Frances Brady made to the success of St. Joseph's. Sister Jane remains an icon in The State of New Jersey as a passionate advocate for the needs of the sick and the poor. Sr. Jacqueline Burns, SC, also a dynamic leader and immediate past Chairperson of the Boards of Trustees of SJHS, led the integration of the Healthcare System and revitalization of our organization.

The Sisters provide an inspirational leadership presence throughout St. Josephs Healthcare System, with 30 sisters ministering within SJHS. Today, the sisters sponsor one college, two academies, three hospitals and one women's center. The Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth remain focused on the heart of their calling: service and advocacy through their work including research and dialogue on major issues of social and global significance.

The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing and commemorating individuals who have dedicated their lives to serving the people. The Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth's commitment to public service is truly commendable.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues to celebrate the long record of service to their community by the Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth.

Mr. Speaker, on September 28, 2017, I missed four Roll Call votes because I was attending a funeral for my cousin in New Jersey. Had I been present, I would have voted:

YES on the Democratic Motion to Recommit on H.R. 3823, Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017 (Roll Call No. 541). This amendment includes the full, bipartisan National Disaster Tax Relief Act, which I introduced with my colleague Representative Tom Reed from New York. The Reed-Pascrell bill would help victims of natural disasters recover faster with tax relief to alleviate cleanup and rebuilding expenses. The bipartisan bill would provide tax relief to communities across the country devastated in a presidentially- declared disaster in recent years. The amendment takes nothing away from the underlying bill, only making tax relief more robust for victims of recent hurricanes, and adding tax relief for victims of Sandy and other disasters.

NO on final passage of H.R. 3823, Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017 (Roll Call No. 542). I was pleased to support aid to those affected by Harvey and Irma and will continue to do so. We urgently need to deliver relief and assistance to those currently impacted by Hurricane Maria in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, where the

entire island has lost power and many are without water. But, I would have cast my vote in opposition to this legislation before us today, which does not even come close to providing the robust relief that Puerto Rico needs. The Congress and this Administration need to step up and help Puerto Rico recover. However, this bill includes extraneous provisions that provide limited tax relief to 2017 hurricane victims while omitting natural disaster tax relief for victims of disasters from 2012 through 2016. The bill before us today completely circumvented the committee process, despite the fact that Representative Reed and I have had legislation on comprehensive disaster tax relief for years.

NO on final passage of H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017 (Roll Call No. 543). This bill would harm vulnerable seniors and individuals with disabilities by cutting off their live- saving Supplemental Security Income benefits without due process, and in many cases for offenses with low monetary values, probation violations for misdemeanor offenses, and unpaid court fees or fines. I voted in opposition to this bill when it was considered by the Committee on Ways and Means on September 13, 2017, and I would have opposed it again today.

YES on the Journal Vote.

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out, as all of us, to those impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. I am committed to providing the resources necessary for Federal response and recovery.

We all voted for the money a week and a half ago. That took 3 days. Other storms in the past took 3 months, so let's set the record straight.

I am pleased to support aid to those affected by Harvey, Irma, Maria, and I will continue to do so. We urgently need to deliver relief and assistance to those currently impacted by Hurricane Maria in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, where the entire island has lost power and many are without water.

I can't support a bill before us today which is not even close to providing the robust relief that Puerto Rico needs. You know it, and we know it. The Congress and this administration need to step up, help Puerto Rico recover.

I plan to reintroduce legislation to extend the earned income tax credit to residents of Puerto Rico, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

The bill before us today completely circumvented the committee process. I am not a process person, but this bill did not have any hearing, despite the fact that myself and my Republican colleague from New York, Mr. Reed, have had legislation on comprehensive disaster relief for the last 5 years.

I want to address something my good friend from Texas, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, put out yesterday in response to my position and others. He said that Democrats were using hurricane relief as a ``bargaining chip'' and ``playing politics'' to enact our own agenda. He also tweeted that we were ``sick,'' which I can only hope was tweeted by an overzealous staffer.

This is where I usually fly off the handle, but I am going to keep cool, I am going to keep calm, and I am going to make sure that I am a real American, not judging people on where they live. I promised myself I would stay calm for the rest of what I have to say.

My only agenda, Mr. Speaker, is to help those who have been hurt by disasters, regardless of where in the United States they live, regardless of what they look like, regardless of how they cook their food. If that is a political agenda, I don't know what world we are living in.

As for ``playing politics,'' as I mentioned, the gentleman from New York and I introduced the National Disaster Tax Relief Act to take politics out of the process, to avoid having to have debates like these.

Congress shouldn't pick and choose who gets disaster relief and who doesn't based on political whims. Tax relief should not be reserved only for victims of a storm that happened to impact the home district-- --

Mr. Speaker, this bill needlessly pits residents of Texas and Florida against residents of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Louisiana, West Virginia, Utah, and other States. We should treat everyone fairly, and the Reed-Pascrell bill would do that.

Tax relief provisions would kick in automatically for federally declared disaster situations, even in Montana, even in Alaska. We should not play favorites when it comes to helping those in need.

Mr. Speaker, so let's be clear about who is playing politics here. New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut continue to feel the effects of Hurricane Sandy, just as Carolinians, Utahns, people from West Virginia and Louisiana still feel the effects of the major floods of 2015 and 2016. This is true in many other States.

So while this bill takes a few provisions from our bill, it does not get into the real meat and potatoes as to how we can help everybody. This bill doesn't do enough in the first place, and it doesn't include victims of other disasters.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to demand robust and fair disaster tax relief. And if that is politics, so be it. I plead guilty. I want fairness.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would strike the provision in the bill that would add increasing employment and earnings to the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, or MIECHV, as it is generally referred to.

I, obviously, share the goal of increasing employment and earnings across the country. However, home visiting is not an employment program. It is a program to strengthen families to make kids healthier, safer, and more ready to learn when they start school. Those are the outcomes home visiting models strive for, and those are the outcomes they achieve.

I mentioned the other day in the Ways and Means Committee that I know the good that these programs do firsthand. In Passaic County--because most of these programs are run through counties throughout America--our home visiting program worked with a pregnant mom expecting a child with a heart defect.

The baby required open heart surgery shortly after being born last July. After the surgery, the newborn continued to have health complications. At times, his mom felt depressed and hopeless and feared that her child was not going to survive.

The home visiting program's family support worker was able to assist the mom by connecting her to services, providing her with emotional support, and acting as a liaison with the hospital where her son was.

We know the negative impact that postpartum depression can have on new moms and their babies. The home visiting program was able to connect this mom to supportive services and resources and alleviate her depression so that she could be a healthy and pleasant mom. I am happy to report that, after nearly 3 months in the hospital, this little boy was finally able to go home, and his mother continues to work with the home visiting program in northern New Jersey.

I don't think anyone can hear that story and not see value in the services that were provided. The home visiting program helped a mom, like so many other mothers across America, navigate her newborn son's healthcare crisis and manage the mental health issues associated with it.

But under the provision that my amendment is seeking to strike from the bill, this outcome would not be measured as a success. There is something wrong with that.

Most home visiting models focus on families with newborns or very small children and focus on building a parent-child bond. That is a fact. Many home visiting programs focus on teen parents and young mothers, and the priority is to keep them in school and make sure they continue their education.

There are currently 18 evidence-based home visiting models. None of them

provide employment services, none of them measure employment and earnings.

Home visitors have raised concerns that having to ask families about employment and earnings would be intrusive when you know what the focus of the program is, and would undermine the relationship they are trying to build with families.

Even if the data is collected without specifically asking families for it, knowing their performance is being measured based on their client's labor force participation--here is the kernel of the issue-- will likely make home visitors feel they have to press their clients to work even if, like in the case of the mom in Passaic County, that should not be the main object.

Additionally, this bill provides no new funding. We are not asking for any new money here. Any resources devoted to supporting work would have to be diverted from MIECHV's core purposes.

I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to support this amendment to make sure children and families served by this program get the support and service that they truly need.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I said, there are currently 18 evidence-based home visiting models. Also, there is nothing added to the budget; no extra currency I am asking for.

I would ask the sponsor of the bill what he would tell this woman from Passaic County, New Jersey, one of many examples that I have. I ask him what his answer would be to that woman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.