Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Children's Cardiomyopathy Awareness Month this month.

Pediatric cardiomyopathy is a rare heart condition that affects the muscles of the heart in infants and children. According to the Pediatric Cardiomyopathy Registry, one in every 100,000 children under the age of 18 in the U.S. is diagnosed with cardiomyopathy. Approximately 40 percent of children with symptomatic cardiomyopathy undergo a heart transplant or die from cardiac complications within two years. Pediatric cardiomyopathy is a chronic disease that requires a comprehensive treatment approach.

Based in Tenafly, New Jersey, the Children's Cardiomyopathy Foundation (CCF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to raising awareness of pediatric cardiomyopathy. CCF works to raise awareness of cardiomyopathy in children and provides resources and supports to families struggling with the diagnosis of cardiomyopathy in their young children. CCF aims to encourage better detection, prevention, and treatment for patients, and I thank them for these efforts. I invite my colleagues to join me in commending this organization for their lifesaving work.

Last Congress, I introduced the Supporting Athletes, Families and Educators to Protect the Lives of Athletic Young Act, known as the SAFE PLAY Act, with Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. This legislation would provide school systems with resources to raise awareness for youth athlete safety, encourage the development of best practices to prevent, report, and address injuries, and educate teachers, students, and coaches on the risks of cardiomyopathy and other critical cardiac conditions. It would also allow students to learn CPR and how to use an automated external defibrillator (AED) to help prevent death in the event of sudden cardiac arrest. This legislation would increase school safety and help reduce the number of deaths from this condition on school property.

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues to take a moment and recognize the families struggling with having a child who suffers from this terrible disease, as well as the organizations working to provide them with the necessary support.

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem here. My record is very, very clear. I am providing assistance to any place in this country. In fact, my record is 100 percent. So I have some credibility to come to the floor to discuss this with my friend from Florida, and I hope he will listen.

My heart goes out to those impacted my Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria the past several weeks. I am committed to providing for Federal response and recovery.

I was pleased to support aid to those affected by Harvey and Irma, 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 or many are without water. However, this bill today does not provide that needed relief.

Let's be clear: we in New Jersey are not some Johnny-come-lately on disaster tax relief. This is not a question of you got yours and I want mine.

We have been working on disaster tax issues since 2012, based, in part, on how we addressed helping victims of Hurricane Katrina more than a decade ago. Let me remind you: Hurricane Sandy devastated the northeastern United States in 2012, cost 233 lives, and caused $75 billion in damage. At the time, it was the costliest storm after Hurricane Katrina.

While Congress, until then, had routinely provided tax relief to communities in the wake of our worst storms--tax relief, I am talking about--Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, victims of Hurricane Sandy did not receive the same treatment. In fact, we had to wait 3 months. We just

did it in 3 days. We seem to have short memories.

179 Republicans in this body and 36 Senators voted against aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy in 2013--that many. And today, those same Members asked us to support not only aid for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but tax relief provisions, which they never even considered after Hurricane Sandy.

I was a ``yes'' vote a week before last for your aid, unequivocally. Why should I take out on your citizens the foolishness that happened in 2013? That would be wrong. And I think you feel the same way, through the Chair.

This whole debate smacks of a certain hypocrisy, and I know I am not the first to point it out. In the weeks after Sandy, I worked in a bipartisan manner to draft a tax relief bill that would make permanent the most commonsense tax relief provisions to take politics out of the equation when it comes to disaster relief.

Over the years, I worked with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and from both Chambers of the Capitol.

Our bill, the National Disaster Tax Relief Act, led also by Congressman Tom Reed from New York----

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

The bill provides tax relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy and puts in place permanent provisions for all disaster areas going forward.

I am ready and waiting to debate these provisions and go through regular order. Let's have hearings, let's have a markup, let's have regular order on something that should be as noncontroversial as helping those in need.

Instead of taking a bipartisan approach, some in the majority have chosen to sneak in a few provisions taken from our bill and tack them onto an unrelated aviation bill and apply them to only this year's hurricane victims, leaving out all of the disaster victims that been have waiting for support over the years.

A front-page story in the papers in New Jersey today says people are still not back in their homes from Sandy, 2013. That is not fair. It is not the American way.

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

The specific provisions Republican leadership put in from our bill include bigger-than-usual property casualty loss deductions, penalty- free retirement withdrawals.

He may smile, but think about those people who are out of their homes since 2013. That is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker.

An increased threshold for charitable giving, a tax credit for impacted employers, and flexibility in applying for the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.

I would note that Puerto Ricans, despite being American citizens, are ineligible for the earned income tax credit, and I have a bill to correct this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jim Whelan, a friend, colleague, and accomplished public servant, who passed away Tuesday August 22nd at the age of 68 at his home in Atlantic City, NJ.

Jim was born in Philadelphia on November 8, 1948. His academic and athletic career is nothing short of extraordinary. Jim became a nationally ranked distance swimmer while pursuing a B.A. in English at Temple University, later leading to his induction into the Temple University Athletic Hall of Fame in 1995 and the International Swimming Hall of Fame in 1999. Always passionate about helping others, Jim went on to receive a Masters of Education at Temple University, taking a job as a teacher in the Atlantic City School District shortly thereafter.

This was only the beginning of Jim's lifelong dedication to public service in Atlantic City and New Jersey. In 1981, Jim was elected to his first seat in public office, as a member of the Atlantic City Council. In 1990, Jim was elected Mayor of Atlantic City in a landslide, a symbol of how beloved he had become in Atlantic City. Jim and I served together as Mayors in New Jersey for seven years.

Jim was an outstanding Mayor, fighting tirelessly to revitalize Atlantic City. His work will surely be remembered for generations to come as crucial to the growth and development of Atlantic City. Serving alongside him as a New Jersey Mayor was nothing short of an honor and a pleasure. An even greater pleasure still was his consistent friendship and support. Throughout our years of friendship, I knew I could always count on Jim as a confidant and for his measured, thoughtful perspective.

As a Mayor, Jim focused his support on not just Atlantic City, but on legislation addressing the needs of all New Jersey Mayors and their Municipalities through his active service in the New Jersey Conference of Mayors. Eventually, he served as President of the New Jersey Conference of Mayors from 2000 to 2001. This only speaks to Jim's consistent dedication to helping others in any way he can. His decade of outstanding service as Mayor led to Jim being recognized as the Mayor of the Year by the New Jersey Conference of Mayors in 2001.

After departing as Mayor of Atlantic City in 2001, Jim returned to teaching. Only four years later, he was elected to the State Assembly of New Jersey. Two years after that, he was elected to the New Jersey Senate. Jim brought the very same traits that made him such a wonderful Mayor to legislating on behalf of all of New Jersey. The New Jersey Conference of Mayors again recognized Jim in 2009 as Legislator of the Year.

After a life of service to Atlantic City and New Jersey, Jim's honesty, dedication, love for his constituency, and kindness will be missed dearly. Jim is survived by his wife, Kathy, and their son Richard. Jim Whelan's service and devotion to his wife Kathy and son Richard were remarkable in every way. He was truly an honorable man who made this place better. My sincerest condolences are with Kathy, Richard, Jim's entire family, his staff and colleagues during this trying time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Mr. Jim Whelan's colleagues, family and friends, all those whose lives he has touched, and me, in recognizing Mr. Jim Whelan's remarkable life of public service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 931, the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act. I want to thank my partner, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins), for introducing this bill. I thank as well Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, Dr. Burgess, and Mr. Green for helping to shepherd our bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee and onto the floor day.

As co-chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus and lead Democratic sponsor of this bill, I am proud to stand up for the brave men and women of our fire service. It is these individuals who put their lives on the line day in and day out to keep our communities safe.

In addition to ensuring that our first responders are prepared in advance of disasters and other emergencies, we must also ensure that they receive the necessary medical care and services after answering the call of duty.

When the courageous men and women in the fire services enter dangerous situations, they do not stop to ask whether they are subjecting themselves to long-term health risks.

Yesterday, across this Nation, we honored the first responders that answered the call of duty after the terrorists attacked us on September 11. Many of those brave men and women gave their lives, and many more are living with long-term health problems stemming from the time they spent at toxic Ground Zero.

As evidenced on that day, many before and since, our first responders do whatever is necessary to keep our communities safe. That is why we must have their backs.

While we know that firefighters are routinely exposed to a variety of known carcinogens in chaotic and uncontrolled environments, we do not have a good sense of the full picture of the negative impacts of the exposure.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, firefighters are at higher risk for certain kinds of cancer, including brain cancer, leukemia, lung cancer, and kidney cancer, when compared with the general population.

Despite the knowledge we have gained through these studies, many have been limited by small sample sizes and an underrepresentation of key demographic groups.

The first step to finding solutions is understanding the nature of the problem. Further public health research on this topic is needed so we can start working to find ways to alleviate this risk.

I am pleased that H.R. 931 is on the floor today. It would create a national cancer registry for firefighters diagnosed with this deadly disease. The creation of a specialized firefighter cancer registry will provide scientists and medical professionals with the detailed national data that will allow them to study the relationships between firefighters' exposure to dangerous fumes and harmful toxins and the increased risk for several major cancers. In the future, this information could also allow for better protective equipment and prevention techniques to be developed.

This bill enjoys strong support from major fire organizations across our Nation, including the International Association of Firefighters, the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, the New Jersey State Firefighters' Mutual Benevolent Association, and the International Fire Service Training Association.

Taking care of the brave men and women of the fire service is an important task. We cannot delay in getting them the help they need. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to pass this bill swiftly so we can work on getting it through the Senate and onto the President's desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, once again, to highlight the hypocrisy reflected here of the party that claims to be the law- and-order party, because, once again, the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill before us has zeroed out funding for the COPS Hiring Program.

This critical program provides Federal grants to local police departments for the hiring and retention of police officers. Despite the fact that this vital program helps ensure that we have enough cops on the beat in our communities, the House Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bills have cut or eliminated funding for the COPS Hiring Program since the Republicans took control of this House in 2011.

So every year, Representative Dave Reichert and I, co-chairs of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, come to the floor to offer an amendment to shift funding back to the COPS Hiring Program to show support for local police hiring programs. We do this dance every year, but no one seems to learn their lesson, because here we are again with a bill that zeros out funding for this program.

Our amendments pass with overwhelming support, often by voice vote. The Senate sees this strong support and ends up funding the program in the final appropriations package. In fact, both the Senate and President have proposed funding the COPS program at $207 million.

Typically, we have regular order in the House when considering appropriations bills. That means we would have an open rule to allow us to offer any amendment to shift funds in this bill. However, this is not the case this year, Mr. Chairman.

Our dance with the Appropriations Committee would have continued this year, but the Rules Committee prevented any substantive amendment to boost funding for the COPS Hiring Program from moving forward.

This amendment enjoyed the support of law enforcement organizations across America, including the Major County Sheriffs Association. They were dismayed at the decision to eliminate the COPS Hiring Program.

The amendment before us enjoys the support of law enforcement organizations, such as the National Association of Police Organizations, Fraternal Order of Police. In their letter of support, NAPO wrote that they are ``very concerned that H.R. 3354 does not provide funding for the COPS Hiring Program.''

The FOP writes: `` . . . we must continue to fund the COPS Hiring Program.''

Mr. Chairman, I include these letters in the Record.

Major County Sheriffs' Association,

Pontiac, MI, September 6, 2017.

Hon. Bill Pascrell,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Pascrell: On behalf of the Major County

Sheriffs of America

(MCSA), I write in support of your amendment to the FY18

House Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies

Appropriations bill which will provide critical funding to

the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program. The

MCSA is an association of elected Sheriffs representing the

Nation's largest counties with populations of 500,000 people

or more. Collectively, we represent more than 100 million

Americans.

The MCSA was again dismayed at the CJS Appropriations

Committee's decision to eliminate the COPS Hiring program--a

program helping to ensuring state and local law enforcement

have the personnel and resources necessary to protect and

serve their communities. At a time when agencies are being

asked to do more yet are still struggling to recruit and

retain law enforcement professionals, we are seeing a

pullback of federal support.

The MCSA applauds your understanding of the many challenges

facing local law enforcement today and we appreciate your

commitment to our profession.

Very Respectfully,

Michael J. Bouchard,

Sheriff, Oakland County (MI).

Hiding behind procedural shenanigans to dodge support for our Nation's law enforcement officers and then pontificating when you come to the floor, that doesn't settle right with me or a lot of other people.

You have done it year after year. You are not going to do it this year? I am sorry. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I want to say this in closing. I want all of my colleagues to reflect on how, on the one hand, you can claim support for law enforcement while, at the same time, cutting the resources you need to hire brave men and women who keep the neighborhood safe. I do not know the answer to that question, but I do know that, during this year's National Police Week, a week where we honor the brave men and women who lost their lives while serving in the line of duty, my friend and the chairman of the subcommittee--and I consider him a friend--stood on the House floor and said:

As the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science

Appropriations Subcommittee, it is and continues to be my top

priority to ensure that our law enforcement officers have the

resources that they need.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the outstanding achievements of Joseph R. D'Arco, whose family and friends celebrated his 80th birthday on August 31, 2017.

Joseph R. D'Arco was born on August 31, 1937, at Passaic General Hospital. As a child, he was raised in Clifton's Historic Botany Village and attended the Clifton Public Schools. In 1957, Joseph volunteered to join the U.S. Army. He was honorably discharged in 1959.

In 1961, Joseph joined the Clifton Fire Department. For the first half of Joseph's fire career, he graciously worked two jobs in order to provide for his four sons-Joseph, Michael, Steven, and David--to have the opportunity to attend private schools. During his 34-year journey with the Department, Joseph ascended through the ranks, and inspired many people, earning him the Clifton Jaycees' Fireman of the Year Award. During his tenure as Deputy Chief, Joseph served as the Department's Administrative Officer, his first assignment away from the streets of Clifton. Joseph represented Clifton with Passaic County's Mutual Aid and was additionally an instructor at the Passaic County Fire Academy. Joseph always kept the best interest of his men and the department in mind, which gained him the respect of his men and city officials.

During his working term with the Clifton Fire Department, Joseph received his Bachelors of Fire Science from Jersey City State College. Furthermore, he taught as an Adjunct Professor of Fire Science at Passaic County Community College to give back to the educational forum.

One of the greatest examples of Joseph's passion for ensuring the safety of our public servicemen is advocating for legislation that would allow E.M.T.s the use of portable defibrillation units. This piece of legislation passed, allowing the use of these units to become widespread throughout the state and now the country. The passing of this legislation has significantly helped save countless lives, which is ultimately Joseph's foremost concern.

Joseph and his wife, Patricia, currently reside in St. Lucie, Florida. Even during his retirement, Joseph continues his service for his community, remaining an active life member of the New Jersey State Firemen's Mutual Benevolent Association, as well as the Clifton Firemen's Mutual Benevolent Association. Joseph is also notably a member of both the Board of Directors for Deborah Heart and Lung Center since 1995, and the Deborah Hospital Foundation Board of Directors since 2002. He has continued to be a conscientious advocate for healthcare, spreading the word of Deborah's cardiac testing for First Responders, an initiative of ``A Gift from Captain Buscio'' program.

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. Joseph's commitment to public service is truly commendable.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues to celebrate the 80th birthday of Joseph R. D'Arco, in which we can appreciate his accomplishments.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3178, the Medicare Part B Improvement Act.

I am pleased that the bill before us today includes legislation that I introduced with my good friend Pat Tiberi from Ohio, the Medicare Part B Home Infusion Services Temporary Transitional Payment Act.

Listening to Mr. Tiberi and Mr. Neal, I believe what they say should resonate across the Hill. This can't be one and done. Bipartisanship is something that should be contagious, particularly as we are talking about a healthcare event which is important and may mean life or death to many of our citizens.

Home infusion is an essential treatment option for individuals suffering from many, many debilitating diseases like cancer, congestive heart failure, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law last year, correctly adjusted payments for home infusion drugs and would establish a new home infusion nursing benefit within Medicare beginning in 2021.

However, we have heard concerns that the payment adjustment going into effect before the nursing benefit is implemented could jeopardize access to home infusion in the interim. The bill that Congressman Tiberi from Ohio and I introduced would address that concern by creating a temporary nursing benefit until the new permanent benefit can be implemented.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3178.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and spokesman for the other side.

Before I give my remarks, I don't think this is an either/or proposition, Mr. Speaker. Some of the things that my friend from Alaska just talked about make sense. There is nothing more essential than life. But this is a bill that has been put in with other bills as well. So I rise in opposition to the rule, Mr. Speaker.

This week, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade held our first hearing of the year, which was on NAFTA. You would think, from the President's rhetoric on trade, that many on the other side in Congress would be focused on creating good-paying, middle-class jobs and boosting our manufacturing base. You would think that. But, instead, we are here debating a bill, a number of bills, that are an assault on private property rights and the environment in the name of corporate profit and expediency.

Lo, what happened in 1923 that led to a change in our Tax Code when we tried to privatize public property and public resources. It was the biggest scandal of the 20th century.

Where are the jobs that were supposed to be coming back from overseas under this administration? Where are the higher middle class wages? Where are the policies coming from this Congress that support workers and their families?

The majority of Americans, Mr. Speaker, agree that keeping United States jobs from moving overseas should be a top priority. Yet, despite the empty promises made by this President, the flow of jobs overseas has not stopped by any barometer.

This administration has awarded government contracts to companies that continue to offshore our jobs. Think about that. Our tax money is still going to corporate America that sends jobs overseas to help those companies send jobs overseas. Now, if that makes any sense, I will listen to the rationale.

We don't stop companies from offshoring American jobs by holding rallies. We do it by making good policy, an exercise this administration and this majority-led Congress have refused to engage in. If they want to change that, they can start right now.

Under current law, when companies move overseas, we give them a tax break for the cost--a tax break. That is the law.

We need to stop offshoring now. The Congress can defeat the previous question and bring up the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill eliminates this tax deduction and gives a tax credit of up to 20 percent of the cost to United States businesses that bring jobs back to the United States of America. The companies would have to add jobs to claim the credit.

I have also introduced legislation, the Jobs and Trade Competitiveness Act, that builds on the Bring Jobs Home Act and further strengthens enforcement against countries that cheat our trade laws.

I encourage my colleagues to look at it.

So let's stop subsidizing companies that ship jobs overseas and start bringing jobs back to our shores. It doesn't get much simpler than that, Mr. Speaker.

This is not a new idea. President Obama and Democrats in Congress have raised this bill for years. The Republican House has blocked our bill at every turn. Senator Stabenow of Michigan leads this bill in the Senate, where it cleared a procedural vote in 2014, 93-7.

President Trump has declared this week Made In America Week. I challenge you today to stop the small talk and put your money where your mouth is. Take up and pass this bill to stand up for American manufacturing and the workers here at home who need it.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can bring up the Bring Jobs Home Act and start bringing jobs back to the United States.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the bipartisan amendment I introduced with Congressman Tom Rooney from Florida. The amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress within 180 days on the implementation of recommendations from a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled ``Actions Needed to Ensure Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury Are Considered in Misconduct Separations,'' which was released in May 2017. GAO found that some of the service branch policies related to the consideration of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in ``other than honorable'' discharges were inconsistent with Department of Defense policy. To remedy these inconsistencies, DOD issued five recommendations.

As the co-chair and co-founder of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, I have worked to address the effects brain injuries have on both the military and civilian populations. TBI and PTSD have been recognized as the signature injuries of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Estimates from the RAND Corporation in 2008 estimated that nearly 20 percent--or 320,000--of the 1.6 million men and women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan sustained a brain injury while in the line of duty. Additionally, between 11-20 percent of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom have PTSD in a given year, according to the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA).

Given the impact that TBI and PTSD have on an individual's behavior and decision-making skills, it is imperative that these conditions are accurately diagnosed in a timely manner. It is also important that these conditions receive appropriate consideration when a servicemember is discharged for misconduct. According to the GAO's report, in the case of 16 percent of the separations for misconduct that the GAO examined, the servicemembers suffered from PTSD or TBI. Additionally, the GAO found that two of the four branches of the military have policies inconsistent with DOD's policy on the impact of TBI and PTSD on separations for misconduct. It is troubling that the Army and Marine Corps may not have adhered to their own screening, training, and counseling policies related to PTSD and TBI. That is why it is imperative that DOD's policies are implemented consistently across all of the military services and that there is adequate oversight of adherence.

When an individual receives an ``other than honorable'' discharge, he or she may not be eligible for health benefits through the VA. A lack of health coverage is problematic for anyone, but especially so for individuals suffering from TBI or PTSD. DOD policy requires that servicemembers requesting separation in lieu of trial by court-martial be counseled on the negative consequences of this type of separation. However, of the 48 separation packets the GAO examined, 11 had unclear or undocumented evidence that counseling took place. If servicemembers are agreeing to less than honorable discharges, they need to understand the consequences of that decision.

After the release of this report, I sent a letter to DOD Secretary James Mattis urging him to give due consideration to the recommendations made by the GAO. We must ensure the department provides accurate and timely diagnosis of PTSD and TBI in determining separation for misconduct, consistent policies across all branches of the military with accountability, and adequate counseling for servicemembers about the consequences of separation for misconduct, including the loss of health benefits.

This amendment is supported by the Brain Injury Association of America, the National Association of State Head Injury Administrators, and the U.S. Brain Injury Alliance

Mr. Speaker, because I listened very carefully, I hope that, while I am opposed to the rule, we are debating a bill, in my estimation, to reinforce negative stereotypes about the immigrants.

I have listened to the response, perhaps, to that. Are you impugning through the Chair the record of Democrats on fulfilling our oath of office, the first part of which is to defend America from within and from without?

That is the oath of office. As co-chairman of law enforcement in the Congress of the United States for over 14 years, I am very close to the law enforcement community.

I think we ought to hesitate a second before we start pointing fingers. We are good at it, all of us, on both sides.

While we are doing that, most of our constituents are concerned about how to defend middle class jobs and bolster our manufacturing base. The majority of Americans agree that keeping U.S. jobs from moving overseas should be a top priority. Yet, despite the empty promises made by this President, the flow of jobs overseas has not stopped.

Mr. Speaker, the administration had awarded government contracts to companies that continue to offshore jobs. This is worse than empty words. These are the facts.

In fact, we use our tax money to help those corporations go offshore. I hope that makes you feel really good.

In December, then-President-elect Trump told hundreds of workers at the Carrier manufacturing plant in Indiana that he would save their jobs. Six hundred union jobs from that plant are moving to Monterrey, Mexico. This is happening despite Carrier receiving $7 million in tax incentives from the State of Indiana to keep the plant open.

Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers Local 1999, which represents Carrier employees, said that the President ``lied his'' you know what ``off.''

Layoffs at the company start July 20. We don't stop companies from offshoring American jobs by holding rallies. We do it by making good policy, an exercise this administration and this Congress has refused.

So what we haven't settled for--and we can't--is empty words and pyrrhic victories while we undermine our values. If they want to change that, my friends on the other side can start right now, and we will help them.

Under current law, when companies move overseas, we give them a tax break for the cost. That is unbelievable. We need to stop offshoring. This Congress could defeat the previous question and bring up the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill eliminates the tax deduction.

Mr. Speaker, this bill gives a tax credit of up to 20 percent of the cost to U.S. businesses that bring jobs back to the United States. The companies would have to add jobs to claim the tax credit.

Let's stop subsidizing companies that ship jobs overseas, and start bringing jobs back to our shores. In fact, we used it in the last campaign as a reason why we have a problem with employment, because the immigrants take these jobs. That has been an empty fact. No details. No facts. No science.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't get much simpler than this. This is not a new idea. President Obama and Congress raised the bill for years. The House blocked it on the majority--on the other side.

Senator Stabenow of Michigan leads this bill in the Senate, where it cleared a procedural vote 93-7.

I challenge you today to stop the small talk, put your money where your mouth is, take up and pass this bill to stand for American manufacturing and the workers here at home who need help.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can bring up the Bring Jobs Home Act and start bringing jobs back to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to upholding the law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome President Moon Jae-in of the Republic of Korea to the United States. This visit presents the United States and the Republic of Korea an opportunity to strengthen our relationship and advance cooperation on mutually beneficial economic, energy, cultural, and global security issues. Our shared commitment to upholding the rule of law, democracy, and a free market economy is rooted in our two countries' historic friendship. Our nations have a long history dating back to when the United States and the Republic of Korea established diplomatic relations in 1882. This vibrant connection between our nations and New Jersey's prominence as a home to immigrant communities from all walks of life, Koreans have always found a place in my home state. In my congressional district we are proud to have a strong and engaged Korean-American population that has attracted several North American headquarters of South Korean businesses. Because of our nations' connection, I am thankful President Moon has found time to visit the United States. I hope this visit allows our nations the opportunity to broaden and deepen our partnerships and alliances.

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting issue with the canvas in the back of the entire immigration laws that need to be addressed.

This body--not the body at the other end of the building, this body-- didn't have the guts to address it 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago, nor this year. This is something that we need to address, even though it is not the bill itself.

I am a strong supporter of law enforcement. As co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, I rise in total opposition to this bill and the rule. Here is what the misguided goal of this bill would do:

You are going to prove a point by penalizing law enforcement for immigration policies politicians in their city have to implement. That is what you want to do. So it absolves us down here in Washington.

This bill threatens the central Federal funding streams for law enforcement. You have heard all of those programs that are being endangered. Any grant administered by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security that is substantially related to law enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, or naturalization you are putting on the chopping block if this bill becomes law.

This bill would not make our communities safer. In fact, it undermines public safety.

The funding this bill puts at risk allows local police departments to purchase equipment and hire and provide training for officers. This actually jeopardizes the security--read my lips--of communities in order to perpetuate a false narrative about immigrants.

I just received a letter from the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association. I think it says it better than anything I could say. It says: ``Politics should not interfere with the safety of our members or our ability to do our job.''

The police are telling us that, and you are asking them to go out and do the job of protecting our citizens day in and day out--which we all are, I hope--and then you are telling them: But I am sorry, because we have a disagreement on this issue, you are going to suffer the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association.

New Jersey State Policemen's

Benevolent Association, Inc.,

Woodbridge, NJ, June 28, 2017.

Re H.R. 3003.

Hon. William Pascrell, Jr.,

Paterson, NJ.

Dear Congressman Pascrell: The New Jersey State Policemen's

Benevolent Association (NJSPBA) represents over 33,000 law

enforcement officers throughout our state. It is no secret

that law enforcement officers risk their own safety every day

to keep our

communities safe. And as a strong supporter of law

enforcement on the floor of the U.S. House of

Representatives, we would like to thank you for all your

efforts on behalf of the men and women that serve within the

law enforcement community.

It is our understanding that this week the House is voting

on H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' which

adds additional obstacles to funding for the hiring of

additional police officers in certain communities throughout

our state. Specifically, the bill restricts municipalities

from receiving grants administered by the Department of

Justice or the Department of Homeland Security if municipal

officials fail to notify the federal government with regard

to the presence of individuals as it relates to information

regarding citizenship or immigration status.

While we strongly agree that state and local law

enforcement should work closely with federal law enforcement,

cutting off funding for law enforcement to already

underfunded and understaffed police departments and law

enforcement entities undermines our collective efforts to

keep our members and the communities they serve safe.

Politics should not interfere with the safety of our members

or our ability to do our job.

On behalf of our membership, we appreciate your ongoing

efforts and hope you will continue to work with your

colleagues in Congress to assure funding for law enforcement

and prevent our government from punishing our membership for

something that is completely out of our control.

I am available to discuss our opposition to H.R. 3003

further, at your convenience. You can reach me at our NJSPBA

offices, if you have any questions.

Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the men and

women of law enforcement.

Sincerely,

Patrick Colligan,

State President.

Mr. Speaker, congressional Republicans are doing that right here. They are playing politics with our Nation's security.

To quote the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association again--these words are from the police, not me--`` . . . punishing our membership for something that is completely out of our control.''

Why are the police opposed to this legislation?

The Fraternal Order of Police you have heard about. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk the talk when it comes to supporting law enforcement until it either costs money or we are going to have to deal with the bigger factors. That is a fact.

You may laugh all you want, but that is a fact. I can cite you chapter and verse if you want. This is no laughing matter. This is business. This is the lives of the police.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very pathetic way to look at our police officers in this country. ``If you don't like it, don't take the money.''

You must be kidding me. I urge my colleagues to find a different tactic to penalize political decisions that you don't like.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

Here we are again. We are debating a bill to roll back regulations that protect the public, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker. I think we are a little bit tone deaf.

Here is a news flash: The whole country is focused on defending blue- collar jobs, bolstering our industrial manufacturing base. Americans broadly agree that keeping United States jobs from moving overseas is a top priority. Yet despite campaign promises, the administration has awarded government contracts to companies that continue to offshore.

You can't make this up. So we say one thing and then we do another. Now, look, both parties do it. Neither party is privy to virtue. But let me tell you something, there is a plethora of these before us on saying one thing when you are campaigning and not following through. That is not good.

The flow of jobs overseas is not stopping. Just this week, it was announced that Ford is canceling plans to build the Ford Focus in Mexico, ending North American production entirely and making the model almost completely in China beginning next year, as soon as its output ends at a plant in Michigan.

Yet, right now, when companies move overseas, as the gentleman from Colorado just said, we actually give them a reward. We give them a tax break for the cost of moving. Do you think that is going to impede or help people deciding whether they should stay or go? A tax break for leaving. The average citizen never gets that kind of a break. I mean, that is the law. I am not making it up. I will stand corrected, if need be, Mr. Speaker.

We need to stop offshoring these jobs. And this Congress should start by defeating the previous question and bringing up the Bring Jobs Home Act.

Around 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1994. Just ask folks in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania who have seen steel mills and rubber factories shipped overseas.

Come to my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, formerly the hub of the textile manufacturing industry.

My bill eliminates this tax deduction to those companies and those corporations who want to bring their jobs overseas, and it gives a tax credit of up to 20 percent of the cost to U.S. businesses that bring jobs back to the United States of America. The companies would have to add jobs to claim the tax benefit.

So let's stop subsidizing companies that ship jobs overseas and start bringing jobs back to our shores.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't get much simpler than that.

This is not a new idea. President Obama and Democrats in Congress have raised this bill for years, and the Republican Congress has blocked our bill at every turn. Senator Stabenow of Michigan leads this bill in the Senate, where it cleared a procedural vote 93-7 in 2014.

I challenge you, today, to take up and pass this bill to stand up for American manufacturing and the workers here at home. Talk only goes so far. Let's act.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it good to hear good news? I just got this on my electronic device here.

The MedStar: ``Congressman Steve Scalise continues to make good progress. He is now listed in fair condition and is beginning an extended period of healing and rehabilitation.''

Isn't that good news?

Mr. Speaker, how are you today?

Yes, I do, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to define a few terms here what we are talking about. We are talking about tax returns. What does that mean? It doesn't mean the 1040. It doesn't mean the 278.

In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about close to 12,000 pages of tax returns; that is what we are talking about, the integrity of the House, the integrity of myself and you. I know you are a person of integrity. And I say it like it is, so I am not blowing smoke. That is why this is important.

So a 2-page, 3-page 1040 doesn't mean anything to what we are doing; 12,000 pages, just on this President's tax returns.

The stunning potential conflicts of interest are piling up. Every day, we

all read about it. The President was told by the Ethics Commission, divest yourself of your holdings. That doesn't mean you give your money away, your assets away. It means what it says, you divest.

But I think that there is nothing more of a threat to the integrity of our House than ignoring our duties, to provide a check and a balance to the executive branch. To restore the dignity of the House, we must use our authority to request the President's tax returns. Give the American people the transparency that they deserve.

In addition, it is reported that the President's hotel in Washington received $270,000 from Saudi Arabia when they were here to lobby against the bill allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi Government.

Now, last week, the District of Columbia and Maryland filed a lawsuit against the President, arguing that he is violating the anticorruption clauses in the Constitution by allowing his businesses to accept payments from foreign governments and other government entities. We have no way of knowing whether the President or his firms have received Russian income or loans or entered into Russian-linked partnerships. In fact, you are going to read a lot about that this week. There are hearings going on as we speak. A certified letter from paid attorneys does nothing to assuage these concerns.

Two weeks ago, we heard from the former Director of the FBI, James Comey, who confirmed that the President tried to influence him to stop the Russian investigation.

Isn't it great that we live in a body where they can't stop us? The President can't stop us. We can only stop ourselves.

The legislative branch has the responsibility and authority to check the executive branch, and section 6103, you have heard me say that number many times, section 6103 of the Tax Code, which allows for the examination of tax returns--that authority, put in place specifically so Congress could examine conflicts of interest following that scandal which we all know about in 1923.

Nothing could be more of a threat, to me, to the integrity of the House and our Members, than ignoring our duty to fully examine the personal financial entanglements of this President or any President, and particularly those, at this time, which we are reading about, that he may have with the Russian entities and individuals or whether he abused the tax laws of this country.

We have a right to know who our public officials are and what investments they have made, and every member of the executive branch of government--and this was made clear in the decision in 1924, particularly Interior Secretary Fall at that time, to examine his tax records, and that is how people were brought to justice in 1924.

It also protects the privacy of the very taxpayer. And we are having exceptions. We have exceptions to that. Three years ago, we had an exception in the Ways and Means Committee.

Yes, it does constitute a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker. May I continue?

Very good. Thank you.

Just let me say this in conclusion: if and when, if and when such conflicts are revealed, I don't want to say to you, my constituents, that we had the power to review the conflicts, but we chose not to. I, for one, do not want my integrity or the integrity of my brothers and sisters on this floor to be demeaned by a shameful failure. To restore the dignity of the House is what this privilege is all about.

I have a question of the Speaker at this particular time, if I may.

I think that I would like to present today what Congress should do immediately about the question of privilege before us. May I proceed?

The Chair is good on that answer, Mr. Speaker.

I think that we should do this. I think we should require the President and the Vice President, whomever that will be in the future, for now, and their families, to resolve their conflicts of interest by selling their assets, using a truly independent asset manager.

I don't believe so, Mr. Speaker.

But I am compelled to follow your direction.

Well, my final comment is this: I know you don't take the question of integrity lightly. That is not a joking matter at all. Nor do I take the integrity of the President of the United States lightly. I have an obligation and a responsibility.

As I said on February 1, I will not yield. This is important to all of us, and it is not partisan. Read my letter of February 1.

I thank the Chair for his indulgence.

Mr. Chair, prior to 2010, banks lending to consumers operated with too little oversight and often exploited the lack of rules to turn a profit at any cost. We saw the dire consequences in the 2008 financial crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to enforce laws and protect consumers in the marketplace. Their mission is to root out deceptive and abusive practices. And so far, the agency has returned $11.8 billion to consumers from enforcement against abusive practices from banks, lenders, and financial companies.

I challenge any member of this body to go to one of their constituents and ask whether or not they would like a consumer watchdog to stand up for them against abuses from big banks, or if they'd like us to leave them to go it alone.

The CFPB has already returned $11.8 billion to more than 29 million consumers. That is $11.8 billion dollars that went back into the pockets of 29 million of our constituents. A vote for this legislation is a vote against those 29 million consumers who have been helped by the CFPB's actions.

In my home state of New Jersey, one resident held a mortgage with Citibank, who failed to report accurately the status of a closed account and incorrectly reported it as late. A complaint was submitted to the CFPB and when they intervened, the issue was resolved and the late mark removed.

Stories like these are not uncommon. Decisions like these can impact a consumer's credit for life and cause tremendous distress. Before the CFPB, consumers facing deceptive practices could go ignored by mega- banks and lending institutions. But when a government agency with enforcement powers gets involved, these banks pay attention. They can't ignore the CFPB.

When the cards are stacked against the everyday consumer, the need for the CFPB is a no-brainer.

The New York Times this morning reported that the President's pick to oversee the nation's largest banks, Joseph Otting, formerly ran OneWest, which has been criticized for ``robo-signing'' foreclosure documents in the wake of the financial crisis. If Mr. Otting didn't protect consumers when he ran a mortgage lender, why would he protect them as Comptroller of the Currency?

Especially in this Administration, we need an independent consumer watchdog that can act without the influence of politics on behalf of consumers. Some would choose to erode this bulwark of protection against the big banks but it is needed now more than ever. Mr. Chair, this vote is a clear marker of who you stand with: I stand on the side of my constituents in urging a no vote.