Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are now joining Democrats in calling for Chairman Nunes to recuse himself from the House Intelligence Committee's current investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

By working hand in glove with the White House around an investigation that centers on the President and his administration, the chairman has blown the integrity of this investigation. Through his actions, he has shown he cannot lead an impartial investigation. His actions demonstrate why Congress must establish a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate President Trump's political and personal business ties to Russia.

The majority of the American people favor an independent commission, outside of Congress, according to polling done by the Associated Press. This is a serious matter. Our democracy is at stake. Our national security is at stake.

Congress must call a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate these troubling connections between President Trump and Russia.

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

H.R. 1343, Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2017, eliminates important disclosures that private companies must provide to their employees in the event they are compensating those employees with stock.

This bill would limit transparency. If companies want to pay their employees in stocks, they should have to simply disclose to their workers the risks associated with those investments.

Currently, private companies can provide up to $5 million worth of stock compensation annually to their employees and are not required to provide any financial disclosure. This bill would lift that cap to $10 million.

If companies choose to provide an employee with stock compensation, they should be required to inform that employee of the appropriate financial information, benefits, and the risks associated with that investment, including 2 years of company financial statements. All of this information is commonly available to typical investors.

Let's be clear: this stock is compensation for their work. Employees deserve to understand the value of their compensation prior to accepting it. They deserve the same protections that other investors would get.

I agree with Professor Mercer Bullard, who is a professor of law at the University of Mississippi School of Law, who testified before the Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee voicing his concerns about the bill. In his testimony, he noted that to take advantage of the terms of this legislation, an issuer would have to have at least $34 million in total assets. Surely, such minimal disclosures are not too burdensome for those sort of companies.

I do also understand that some proponents of this legislation argue that such an exemption is needed because disclosure of company information to employees runs the risk that confidential information could be leaked to competitors.

Employees with access to such information could simply be subject to nondisclosure agreements, which are typical today. Indeed, nondisclosure agreements are a simple solution that protects the company, but does not deny the employees the right to understand the worth of, or the risks associated with, the compensation they are receiving. Unfortunately, this bill would limit that transparency and those protections.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney), a member of the Committee on Financial Services, my classmate, and a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

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

I appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend. I do, however, disagree that the question here derives from a lack of understanding of the legislation. I think it is entirely possible--in fact, I would suggest that it is likely--that members of a body such as this, from 435 distinct districts and different experiences, can look at the same information, fully understand it, and come to different conclusions as to what sort of policy ought to be in place, and that is where I have landed on this particular subject. I fully understand.

I also think it is important to note that we can't on one hand say that this is not about disclosure and on the other hand mention that these disclosure requirements could have a negative impact and encourage or discourage companies from engaging in the practice of awarding employees with stock as a part of their compensation.

It is a question of disclosure. This legislation is about the disclosure requirements that should be applied in this case. That is really what we have heard from both sides of this argument: where should that disclosure requirement be, and at what level should it be incurred?

What I would say is--and I think this is important to note, speaking for myself--I know many other members of the Financial Services Committee and Members of this body that may oppose this legislation feel strongly that the direction toward awarding employees with stock ownership is a positive direction. It is something that my friend, Mr. Delaney, has not only advocated for, but has practiced in his own private sector experience. It is a positive thing for a company and it is a positive thing for the employees.

The only point that I continue to drive home and that others have reiterated is that it is important that employees understand the nature of the stock that is being awarded to them and that the disclosure requirements make clear employees are aware of the compensation and its true value. That is really the point of my objection.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter I received from Public Citizen, which articulates some of these same arguments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

I would just point out again that the position many of us are taking does not contradict the principles that are being articulated. In fact, the law does not preclude any company from awarding stock as compensation at any level. It simply requires that information be provided so that those individuals who are receiving that compensation have the information and have the resources to understand the value of that compensation. I just want to reiterate that because it is important that the position not be mischaracterized as one that wants to dampen the ability of companies to reward their employees with stock or use that as a form of compensation. It is just important that they have transparency in that process so people who are receiving that compensation understand its true value.

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

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

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

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

I have heard a number of my colleagues point to the red tape and the unnecessary burdens that are placed on a company that wishes to provide stock compensation.

Let me be clear about what it is that we would require. This is what is required for a company that exceeds the threshold: That they provide a copy of the compensation plan or a contract, if they disclose that; a copy of a summary plan description, if it is an ERISA retirement plan or, if not, a summary of the plan's material terms; risk factors associated with the stock; and the company's most recent financial statements from the last 2 years, which don't need to be audited.

This is important information for anyone receiving stock as compensation in order to understand the value of that stock and not a burdensome requirement on a company, particularly a company of the size that would be required under the increased threshold that is being proposed by this law.

If there is any aspect of this debate which is common sense, it is common sense that a person receiving compensation ought to have information that tells them the value of that compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important debate and discussion. It is one that this body is well-served by taking on.

I do agree, as I said, that this is an important direction for us to take as a nation. And it certainly makes sense that, in order for us to fully all participate in the economy, employee ownership is a value. It creates more productive companies, more competitive companies. It provides better compensation, and, as has been pointed out, it creates more stable organizations less likely to lay people off, more likely to be sustainable companies. That is all good, and that is important.

It comes down to the question of transparency. Employees deserve to know the state of their employer's finances, if they are to accept stock in lieu of monetary compensation. They deserve no less protection than other investors in the company.

We shouldn't fear that kind of transparency. A company that wants its employees to accept stock instead of monetary compensation should embrace this sort of compensation. If they want to empower those employees and they want to make them a part of the company, they should provide them with

the information that helps them understand the value of that ownership.

Transparency is important for individuals to make informed choices, not informed choices coming from a dictate from Washington but information that they have the right to have. It empowers them with knowledge that allows them to make choices about the form of compensation that they would accept.

That is what this legislation really is about, and that is why I oppose the legislation and encourage my colleagues to join me in that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, when House Republicans withdrew TrumpCare, it was a victory for American families. It was a victory for 24 million people who would have lost coverage under that plan. It was also a victory for the millions of Americans who attended townhall meetings, who wrote letters and emails, who spoke up. Their voices were heard. But we have more work to do, Democrats and Republicans, in order to make sure that all Americans have access to affordable health care.

We need now to turn our attention to doing what we can to improve the Affordable Care Act in a bipartisan way. We have ways to make this work better. It is not a perfect bill; of course it isn't. Nothing we do here is perfect. It needs improvement, significant improvement. We have ways to make that happen that I think Democrats and Republicans can come together on.

For example, improving access to prescription drugs by reducing the cost of those drugs in the marketplace. There are so many things we can do, Republicans and Democrats. We have got to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Mr. Speaker, well, here we are. Today is the day when this House will vote on whether or not access to health care is a fundamental right in this country or should be limited to those of means who can afford it, whether access to lifesaving preventative care is something that Americans ought to be able to depend upon.

Now, we haven't seen the final language of the bill--it is still being worked on--although we are voting on it today, but here is what we know:

It will result in higher costs.

It will force families to pay higher premiums and higher out-of- pocket costs.

It will provide less coverage; and, in fact, just in the last couple of days,

even less coverage, by eliminating essential health benefits like preventative care, like hospitalization, like prescription drugs. Somebody might have a healthcare card, but it won't provide them health care when they need it.

It will have a crushing age tax. If you are 50 to 64 years of age, get ready. You will pay enormously higher costs as a result of this ill-conceived piece of legislation.

This steals from Medicare, undoes the promise.

This is a bad piece of legislation. It ought to be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, today is the day. In hearing my friends on the other side of the aisle describe their efforts to improve health care, I just wonder if we have the right bill on the floor. Because looking at all the external analysis--the CBO, which I know you want to discount, but there are many other organizations--what do they say about this legislation?

It is a terrible bill. It increases costs that Americans will bear. Despite the fact that we hear about decreasing premiums, all the reports say that this will increase premiums and increase out-of-pocket costs that Americans will have to put out in order to protect themselves from disease.

It will provide less coverage. Twenty-four million Americans will lose coverage. But even for those who might be able to have health insurance without essential benefits assured, that will just be a health insurance card, but not access to an emergency room, not access to maternal care, not access to prescription drugs, not access to hospitalization. Basically you will be able to get diagnosed, but you won't get health care.

This is a terrible bill. We ought to reject it today.

Mr. Speaker, thousands of my constituents have contacted me very concerned about the Republican healthcare bill--TrumpCare-- which would mean higher costs and worse care for hardworking families.

On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump promised that ``everyone would be covered'' under his plan. We now know that is a broken promise, that under TrumpCare 24 million Americans will lose their health insurance--24 million people.

What kind of promise is that?

Then-candidate Trump promised that there would be no cuts to Medicaid, but he will cut $880 billion from Medicaid.

What kind of promise is that? A broken promise.

Seniors overwhelmingly voted for President Trump, but he has already forgotten them, imposing an age tax on them. If you are 50 to 64, fasten your seatbelts. You are going to pay five times what a younger, healthier person would pay for worse coverage.

This is a terrible bill. Democrats and Republicans should reject it.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents have been calling all weekend. They do not support the Republican health care bill, TrumpCare.

Over the weekend, we received 750 calls or emails. Ninety-three percent of those have contacted me to say that they are against TrumpCare, and here is why:

Higher costs for less care; $2,400 annually for an average American family.

Millions kicked off health care. The Congressional Budget Office says 24 million. Some might say they are way off. So maybe it is 20 million. Maybe it is 30 million. Lots of Americans lose health care as a result of this plan.

An age tax. If you are age 50 to 65, fasten your seat belts; $6,971 in increased costs for lesser health care.

And huge, huge tax breaks for millionaires. The 400 richest Americans would get an average $7 million tax break.

This is not the right direction for this country. It is not the right direction for health care. We should reject it.

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

I am opposed.

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

My motion to recommit is quite simple. It exempts class action lawsuits that are brought to protect public water supplies.

I know some of you have heard me speak of this. I am from Flint, Michigan, and we know, in my community, what happens when we fail to protect drinking water.

In the course of the day, most Americans take for granted that water that comes from the tap is safe. But for my community of 100,000 people, that is not true. It hasn't been true for years. Since the State government switched to a corrosive water source, the Flint River, they have not been able to drink water out of the tap.

This terrible decision poisoned the city's water supply with corrosive water, resulting in high levels of lead leaching into their water system, going into their pipes, into their homes, into their bodies, 100,000 people, 7,000 children under the age of 6. Nearly 3 years later, those same families are still reeling from this crisis. It is unacceptable. It is an injustice.

Lead is a potent neurotoxin. There is no safe level of lead. Lead exposure can lead to serious health effects felt for years.

But the impacts are not limited just to health. Those high levels of lead also damaged Flint's infrastructure, and we now have to remove thousands of pipes in order to provide safe water.

Thankfully, this Congress, Democrats and Republicans, came together to provide necessary help for my hometown to fix those pipes. But Flint residents will continue to suffer. That was important, but not enough. There are lots of health effects.

Just recently we learned that many cases, in fact, many deaths that we thought were attributable to pneumonia, were, in fact, Legionnaires' disease, traceable to the bacteria caused by this terrible crisis. A dozen people have already died as a result of Legionnaires' disease, and others, whose deaths may be reclassified, could bring that number much higher.

The corrosiveness of that water not only had health impacts, but it literally destroyed people's homes from the inside out. So, in addition to those service lines, people's plumbing in their homes, their water heaters, their washing machines destroyed, ruined, and their lives potentially ruined as well.

So where does the support, where does the funding come for those losses experienced by residents of my hometown?

It comes from the justice system. This bill would create more barriers for people in my hometown to access that justice system, to seek justice for what happened to them. They have suffered a terrible crisis, and they should be able to seek justice and restitution.

Unfortunately, this bill could prevent people from Flint, and other Americans, from seeking justice, and that is what my motion intends to correct.

In order to receive justice from the harm that they have experienced from this public water source, residents have filed class action suits. This bill severely curtails their access to the courts to seek redress, to seek that restitution. This bill would weaken their access to justice.

My motion is simple. It would allow lawsuits that are brought to protect our precious public water supplies to be exempt from the additional hurdles, from the additional barriers that this underlying bill sets out.

Having safe drinking water is a human right, and the access to that and the access to justice related to that basic human right ought to be completely unfettered. My motion to recommit would assure that, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to have Dr. Mona Hanna- Attisha, the daughter of Iraqi-American scientists, the physician who helped expose the Flint water crisis, as my guest at the joint session and the address by the President tonight.

Simply put, Dr. Mona, as her patients call her, is a hero. Her persistence exposed a terrible manmade crisis that poisoned my hometown, and she has been an incredible partner in the fight for resources to help fix the problems in Flint. Her personal story of coming to America from Iraq reminds us of the many important contributions that immigrants make.

In Donald Trump's world, though, Dr. Mona may not have been there for Flint kids. She is an Iraqi immigrant. In Donald Trump's world, she would actually have been turned away. She would not have been the hero to thousands of Flint families.

She is the epitome of what makes America great and what it means to be an American citizen. She stood up for what was right. She exposed the facts in Flint, Michigan. In the face of bullying, she spoke truth to power, and she persisted. She is a hero. She is what makes this country great. She is what is good about the United States of America-- an immigrant to this country who stood for the people of my hometown.

She is a message, and her presence here today is intended to send a message to the President of the United States and to the rest of the country that that is what makes America great. She adds to the fabric of this country, and I am grateful to have her here today.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for her incredible leadership on this issue.

Rather than working across the aisle with Democrats to grow our economy, to rebuild older communities, to create new jobs, Republicans are, again, focused on attacking women's health, undermining healthcare programs that provide preventive care for over 4 million Americans, many low-income women who would otherwise be uninsured.

Eliminating this rule makes it harder for women and families to have access to lifesaving cancer screenings, for example, birth control, and other vital health services. These funds are providing necessary health services, Madam Speaker, and everyone in this debate knows what this is about. These dollars do not support abortion. We know Federal law prohibits these dollars from being used for that purpose, but to hear our friends on the other side, they would imply that is the case.

Now, there is and should be a legitimate debate on that subject, but it has been the law and it continues to be the law that these dollars are not used for abortion services. This is about health care. This is about lifesaving health

care for women, and it ought to be preserved.

Mr. Speaker, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's resignation is no substitute for answers to the serious questions that remain over President Trump's questionable connections to Russia, to Vladimir Putin.

Federal investigators believe that Flynn, who held secret communications with Russia's Ambassador, could have been compromised, or even the subject of blackmail. The Justice Department disclosed this danger to the White House weeks ago, yet the President allowed Mr. Flynn to continue in his position as National Security Adviser, after having that information disclosed to them.

This conduct could only be the tip of the iceberg. There are serious, unanswered questions that remain, and our

national security is at stake. Americans deserve answers.

Did the President or others know or direct Flynn's secret communications with Russia?

Why did the White House sit on its hands for weeks, even after being told its National Security Adviser could have been compromised?

Were Trump campaign officials colluding with Russians?

These are questions that the American people deserve answers to. We need a bipartisan, independent commission to examine these questions. The credibility of our government is at stake. Congress must act.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are moving ahead with the repeal of ObamaCare--but years later, after all the talk, they still have no replacement. Six weeks into control of this Congress and of this government--all branches--there is no plan.

From today's Politico, it reads: ``House conservatives . . . are plotting a major push to repeal the law immediately without simultaneously approving an alternative.''

The consequences of Republican repeal without replacement are devastating: 30 million Americans would lose health coverage. People could be kicked off their coverage. They would not be allowed coverage if they have a preexisting condition. Young people could be kicked off their parents' plans.

In recent weeks, Republicans have been bombarded with messages from their constituents sending a clear message that the Affordable Care Act repeal would be devastating to their family. It would be devastating to real people like Jia Ireland, my constituent, who, before ACA, had no health insurance. Because of Medicaid expansion, she and 600,000 other Michiganders have coverage.

We cannot lose access to health care in this country. We ought not do that.

Madam Speaker, this is not who we are. The executive order that the President is executing does not reflect our American values. It is not consistent with a clear statement in our Constitution that we do not discriminate on the basis of national origin, that we do not discriminate on the basis of religion. Read the executive order. It does those precise things.

But there are other foundational documents that contradict what the President is executing. Matthew 25: ``I was a stranger, and you invited me in. . . . '' This policy is morally bankrupt. It is an attempt to pander to narrow voices to which this President promised a Muslim ban. He went to Rudy Giuliani and asked how to do a Muslim ban, and this is what they came up with.

Make no mistake. This is not who we are. Not only is it morally wrong--against everything we have been taught about who we are as a country--but this administration has been dangerously incompetent in how it is even implementing this misguided policy--secretive. I saw a White House spokesman this morning admit that they kept this secret from the very people who are going to be asked to implement this wrong- headed policy. It is morally wrong, and it is being administered in a dangerously incompetent way.

Most importantly, this policy will not make us safe. This unconstitutional executive order will make us less safe. What is the message we are trying to send--that we are an intolerant Nation? that, if you happen to have different beliefs, you are not welcome here? People who are literally being handcuffed are people who have a legal right to be in the United States of America.

We cannot normalize this. We cannot accept this as simply a difference of opinion over how to secure our borders. It makes us less secure to send a message to the world that we are this narrow and-- yes--bigoted Nation. We are not that. Even for many of those people who supported this President, this is not what they voted for. I ask my colleagues to, for God's sake, speak up.

Join the faith leaders who are speaking up against this terrible, unconstitutional policy. Join the business leaders who are saying this is wrong. Join your own Republican colleagues--many in an increasing number--who are having the courage to stand up against the President of their own party and say ``no.'' This is not who we are. This does not reflect who we are. This is morally wrong. This is constitutionally wrong, and this is dangerous.

History will judge where people who sit in this House stood on this day on this question.

Stand with your fellow Americans. Stand with the Constitution. Stand with those who are willing to speak up and speak truth to power and say this is wrong, that this is not America. This must end now. Add your voice to that chorus. Be on the right side of history.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, like many of us this past Saturday, I marched in Washington with millions of women across the country claiming their human rights and claiming their basic individuals rights. Madam Speaker, the previous speaker on the other side made mention of the fact that the Hyde amendment is the law of the land and that it has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. We know. We get it. That is not what this is about.

This is about going well beyond that and actually limiting what women can do and what individuals can do with their own money when acquiring health care that includes the reproductive health services that are the subject of this debate.

How many times do we have to come to the floor to make the point that choices about women's health care should be made between a woman and her doctor, not somebody in Washington dictating to women what they can do with their own money and with their own bodies?

Do you know what else is the law of the land? Do you know what else has been upheld by the Supreme Court almost a half a century ago?

That fundamental right that women have over the determinations they make for themselves about their own bodies. That has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court as well.

Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed that, on his first day in office, President Trump took action through executive order to make it more difficult for hardworking families to own a home.

With this executive order that the President signed, again, on day one, he canceled a scheduled FHA directive that would have saved American homeowners hundreds of dollars a year.

Under President Obama, millions of Americans were set to receive hundreds of dollars in reduction in those fees, saving on their mortgage payments, saving on their monthly payment.

Under this executive order, not only will Americans with mortgages pay more than they would have, but it will also prevent many Americans from being able to own a home.

In fact, according to the National Association of Realtors, 40,000 American families who could have purchased a home will not have access to that part of the American Dream because of this executive order by President Trump. This has a real impact.

Rather than obsessing about the size of crowds at inaugurations, we ought to focus on this. This is real news.