Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to recognize all the teachers around the country who work so tirelessly to educate our children.

This is Teacher Appreciation Week, and Tuesday, May 8, is National Teacher Appreciation Day, but we should show them our appreciation each day.

We trust them with our most prized assets for many hours a day: our children. Most of us who go to work Monday through Friday entrust the teachers with the daily caretaking, development, and, of course, the education of our kids, and sometimes that task can take on a lot more, even parenting, when kids come from broken homes.

A teacher's job is indeed difficult. As parents, it can be easy to lose sight of the significance and influence teachers have on our kids' lives on a daily basis. I know this firsthand.

My wife is a teacher; my sister is as well. I know firsthand, my wife, the many hours spent after school, using her own dollars to help make her classroom a better learning environment for those kids, because it comes from the heart.

I want to thank her, my sister, and all those teachers all around the country for giving that extra that it takes when sometimes society falls short in its own ways.

Congratulations on Teacher Appreciation Week.

Mr. Speaker, April 28 is National Prescription Drug Take Back Day.

This is an opportunity to dispose of those expired or excess drugs that you may have in your home so that they are properly disposed of instead of ending up in a landfill, waterway, or, more importantly, the hands of children or other dangers that could affect people's health negatively.

For information about that, check with the U.S. Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Agency, or your local police or pharmacy to look for the information for where you should take your excess, expired prescription drugs so we don't have a health risk, the endangerment of our children, or risk it ending up in the wrong place in the environment.

Again, April 28 is National Prescription Drug Take Back Day. Please participate.

Mr. Speaker, today, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is already having an incredibly positive impact on our economy. Hundreds of companies have already offered billions in bonuses and raises for their employees, far from the crumbs predicted by some of my colleagues, or the predicted Armageddon.

The best part is, this is just the beginning, as the law won't even take full effect until next year, when we retire much of the current tax calculation process and the burdens of it. That is when taxpayers will notice the biggest difference when filing their tax returns.

Despite these early positive signs, some individuals claim people should still pay more in taxes. They also think they themselves should pay more, like our friend Bill Gates. He says: ``I need to pay higher taxes. I've paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require the people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes.'' Interesting.

Not to be outdone, Mr. Gates' fellow billionaire buddy and Berkshire Hathaway CEO, Warren Buffett, has offered similar ideas about the need for people like himself to pay more in taxes. Fine. But the amount of financial security established by people like this is obviously far from mainstream Americans and what they earn themselves.

Before they amassed their current fortunes, were they as considerably outspoken on the need for progressive taxation, long before establishing themselves as some of the richest men in the world?

I don't think so. Indeed, these days, much of their funds are stashed away in foundations and not voluntarily paid forward as taxes to the U.S. Government. I find that interesting. In short, no amount of taxation would truly impact their lives as it would for mainstream, middle-income Americans. It does impact everyone else.

What is more, I do hear some people in the mainstream who are middle- income folks saying they wouldn't mind paying more in taxes for this or that. What I don't get is why they demand that their neighbor does so, too.

In America, many middle-income families enjoying lower rates question how well their government is spending and managing what they tax them for now. For them, the government report card isn't so good. They don't wish to entrust government with more of their earnings and more of the hard work from the sweat of their brow to an inefficient bureaucracy, even if their neighbors demand that they do, or that the government demands it of them by its power of taxation.

So what I am proposing is a bill with my colleague, Majority Whip Steve Scalise, called the Donate Extra Money Against National Debt Act, or the DEMAND Act, for those who demand to pay more. This bill will allow those who want to pay more than required to simply check a box on their tax return and donate as much money to the Treasury as they would like.

Our bill would add to the 1040 tax form a check box and a line stating: By checking here, I signify that in addition to my tax liability, I would like to donate the included payment to be used exclusively for the purpose of paying down the national debt.

Before, there was no simple or obvious way to accomplish this. This makes it easy and obvious in how to do so. This way, anyone who feels the need to pay more in taxes has an easy way to do so. For millions of other hardworking Americans and business owners who suffered under our previous Tax Code and tax law, they will not be forced to do so under that Code any longer.

This bill, indeed, is one of those rare win-wins. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett or anyone who feels they are not paying enough can donate as much money to the Treasury as they would like, while everyday American businesses will thrive in a probusiness and progrowth climate, all this without Congress demanding more or people haranguing their neighbors.

After all, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is already working. U.S. companies are already paying out more than $4 billion

in bonuses, while over 4 million American workers have already received a pay raise, bonus, or other financial investment. Even Warren Buffett recently referred to the new law as being a ``huge tailwind'' for American businesses.

As much as Senator Schumer or Minority Leader Pelosi would like to trumpet tax reform as unpopular, bad for the economy, Armageddon, or just crumbs for people, they are missing the point. Tax reform grows more popular each day, especially as more and more Americans see more in their paychecks and begin to realize how they stand to benefit under this new law, especially when the full extent of the law has not yet been felt until next year.

Instead of taking away those savings and benefits, the majority whip and I are giving the people who feel so strongly the option to help pay down the deficit on their own accord voluntarily. I applaud the philanthropic work of Mr. Gates, Mr. Buffett, and others, but the DEMAND Act doesn't force anyone to do anything; it allows certain individuals who demand to pay more in taxes to put their money where their mouth is.

Indeed, Senator Biden, a few years ago, said paying taxes is patriotic, so let those who demand to pay more, who want to pay more, lead the way in the new patriotism.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and passing of Harold K. Graves, Jr.

A native of Kentucky, Harold later lived in Oklahoma, moved to California at a very young age, and eventually to Nevada County.

Throughout his life, he developed a reputation for being a natural born leader, whether it was as a young man leading his fellow mates in the neighborhood at playtime or carrying on through his service in Vietnam and in civilian life. He went through basic training at Fort Ord, California, was chosen for Officer Candidate School in Georgia, and then went on to Ranger School.

First Lieutenant Graves received many distinguished awards for his heroism in combat, including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and many more. He was a special assistant to a general for a time. When he learned after one day that one of his duties was setting out nametags for dinner, he requested to move on to a different type of tougher duty. That was his leadership. That was Harold.

Back home, Harold quickly became a leader in his community as well. He served as president of many community organizations, including the local chamber and Rotary. With his Hollywood actor looks, he charmed many, including his beautiful wife, Patricia. They went on to have two beautiful daughters, Jennifer and Kerry, and four wonderful grandchildren.

In his service to Nevada City and Nevada County, Harold was president of the local Vietnam Veterans of America chapter and became an honorary member of the Blue Knights Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club.

I was proud to have known him. Even in hard times, such as after he laid the motorcycle over, he still had that charm and presence even when he was recovering.

We will miss him. He was a great asset to our community and to the United States, as well as his family. God bless him and his family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the last year that Americans will ever have to file under our old, outdated Tax Code. Starting next year, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will take full effect. That means the annual hassle associated with filing taxes will be done away with for most Americans, who will be able to file on a form as simple as a postcard.

Most Americans will also find the new, simpler Tax Code will also be more beneficial to their families financially. For example, the standard deduction will be nearly doubled to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for families, and the child tax credit is doubled to $2,000.

Throughout this entire process, some of my colleagues have attempted to market this historic tax reform as Armageddon or the increase they are going to keep in their paycheck as crumbs.

Well, people are keeping more of what they have earned and will continue to do so as this bill takes full effect. The flood of bonuses and new investments in employees by companies across the U.S. is evidence to the contrary of that ``Armageddon'' or ``crumbs'' talk.

This time next year, the vast majority of Americans will have a simpler, more lucrative tax filing process to look forward to for themselves and their families.

Madam Speaker, tonight I rise to congratulate Pleasant Valley High School for sending both the boys and girls basketball teams to the State of California championship games for their division.

After incredibly successful seasons by both the girls and boys teams, I am very proud to say that both programs made it all the way to the finals played at the Golden 1 Center in Sacramento, home of the Sacramento Kings NBA team.

Though the two games had differing results, to be playing in the final game of the season in the State in your division while the rest of your opponents are home at spring break is plenty to be proud of. It says a lot about the students and the head coaches and their families on both teams.

The last time the Pleasant Valley girls made it to the State championship was 1985. This is the first trip for the boys to the State championship.

What these young men and women both did on the basketball courts this year was remarkable--even inspiring Pleasant Valley alum and Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers to contribute to their trip.

While the girls did lose a hard-fought contest, the boys pulled it out and won a 70-65 thriller in which they never trailed in the game.

Congratulations to the boys team on their first-ever State championship and to the girls team for again making another trip to the State finals. Indeed, a truly remarkable, outstanding season for Pleasant Valley High School for the boys and girls team. They have much to be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Mr. McClintock, to honor the life arid service of Timothy Holabird, a man well known for his dedication to the constituents of Northern California. Mr. Holabird served as Mr. McClintock's, and later as my, District Representative.

Mr. Holabird has been recognized by many of the citizens and leaders in our communities for his contributions while serving as the local Representative to Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, and Sierra Counties. In his capacity, Mr. Holabird worked for the people, finding resolution for the constituent wronged by our federal government. His tenacity to do good by the people, and his endless drive to ensure federal agencies were staying true to their objectives and mission, would quickly tire the average person out. But not so for Mr. Holabird. He was always available to hear the local citizen's concerns, walk them through possible solutions, and ready to fight on their behalf.

Mr. Holabird also had an in-depth knowledge of public lands policy, and a knack for understanding the appropriate role of an agency in relation to state and local needs. With his friendly demeanor, he could get all parties to the table, establish common goals, and ensure the actual problems were being resolved. One instance that comes to mind, was back in 2012, when four devastating wild fires burned through the District. Mr. Holabird personally bridged the communication gap with agencies attacking the fires and the communities immediately threatened, ensuring both homes and lives were saved. He pursued the concerns of local leaders, and addressed the shortfall of resources with federal agencies to the point of his own physical exhaustion.

It is with sadness for his loss of life I rise today. Tim was a friend who I will miss dearly. But I will always remember our drives through that amazing, soul-filling back country we are blessed to represent, where Tim knew most all the people, and could recite the history of each community we passed. It was more history than I could remember in one sitting but I loved it, as we all do in sharing his passion for our country and our NorCal home. God bless him and we know he will be missed by many.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the caregivers who support those living with Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia in our community.

Over 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, including 5,000 in my home county of Butte in northern California. It is also the most expensive disease in America. Medicare and Medicaid pay two-thirds of all the costs. This is unacceptable and unsustainable.

This is a tremendous burden to our country. From my perspective, if we are going to have a shot at reducing government spending, we have to advance the movement to cure Alzheimer's and do something to lower the cost of care and also reduce the burden on families who suffer as they watch their loved ones dealing with this disease.

This is why I joined 32 of my House colleagues in cosponsoring the BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer's Act. This would create a public health response to Alzheimer's and would help educate community members and doctors on dementia detection, diagnosis, symptom management, even brain health and prevention of dementia.

I will continue to fight for quality, affordable healthcare for seniors nationwide. We must do everything in our

power to preserve Medicare and Medicaid for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, as it is known, enacted in 1970--I am sure, well intentioned--but time and time and time again, issues that need to be resolved for the people and their assets in this country are thwarted by needless red tape, a lot of times coming from NEPA.

Our forests in the West suffer badly--and the people who live near them, from the smoke, from the danger, from the loss of homes, the loss of wildlife--because to do the slightest thing to improve our forest conditions requires NEPA delay.

In talking to forestry people just today, you can see illustrated in photographs private land that has been recovered right after a forest fire and, indeed, Federal land, because we have to do yet another NEPA on something we should already know and understand--delayed 1, 2, 3 years. And then you don't have the value left anymore of those trees that were left behind after a fire; therefore, there is never enough money to do the job.

Mr. Speaker, we must reform NEPA so it works for the people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge House leadership to include some very important forestry priorities in the upcoming omnibus funding bill.

We all agree that fire borrowing must be fixed. Raiding funds is no way to run a business. But we need much more than that. We need active forest management reforms in order to prevent another devastating wildfire year like we just witnessed in California, as we seem to do every year in the West.

There are over 100 million dead trees right now in just California alone, and they will only turn into tinderboxes if we cannot remove them as we should.

For example, my bill, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, would allow utility companies to clear a tree in danger of falling on a power line in these rights-of-way without months of paperwork and the liability relief they need in case the government doesn't give them the permission to do it timely.

But congressional leadership on the other side of the aisle refuses to budge when it comes to meaningful forestry management reforms to remove these hazardous dead trees, which is even worse for forest health when we continue to have these fires for no good reason.

I urge them to come to California, come to the north State, come breathe the dirty air each summer when we see firsthand the damage these wildfires cause. Listen to the people who are impacted, who are endangered, and who have to breathe that bad air each year because of these forest fires that are allowed to happen because the government will not manage its land.

Why do we continue to allow this to happen?

I don't know.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my displeasure that the House was unable to pass the Right to Try Act this week. This bill would have allowed very sick or terminally ill patients to request access to drugs and treatments that have yet to be approved by the FDA.

For any patient dealing with a serious, life-threatening illness, a sliver of hope can go a long way. Yet, for some reason, even after the Senate, of all places, passed this proposal nearly unanimously, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked this measure from passing.

Sick patients deserve the right to utilize every possible tool at their disposal, even if it is still experimental. The government really has no business telling a terminally ill patient they cannot pursue a certain avenue of treatment, and, as its name suggests, this legislation gives them the right to try.

I thank Mr. Rutherford for his work on this legislation. I urge the House to bring this back to the floor and pass it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased to join with Dr. Harris in this effort. Now, at this point, 130 of our colleagues have signed on to the petition to the Supreme Court to let them know that we believe this is morally wrong.

What we have: Again, as a California legislator, I have experience with the efforts our State legislators have done in the past and currently with Assembly Bill 775, which is known as the Reproductive FACT Act--fact, indeed--as Dr. Harris mentioned, requiring licensed medical centers that offer free pro-life help to pregnant women to then have to post written advertisements promoting the availability of free or low-cost abortions subsidized by the State of California.

It also requires nonmedically licensed centers to note, in multiple languages, that they do not have a medical provider on staff, which is kind of interesting due to the places that provide abortions having lower standards for medical care and standards for the doctors on staff to have to be overseen. It is very interesting, the double standard for that type of healthcare, as you would call it, versus other healthcare centers at abortion clinics. Yet they want to point out that there wouldn't be a medical provider on staff at these pro-life places, which aren't required to have them anyhow.

So the court will consider whether these disclosures required by the Reproductive FACT Act, by the California Legislature, violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Indeed, it is a blatant violation. The government has no business forcing private citizens or anyone else to promote an ideology that violates their beliefs.

The whole purpose of these pregnancy centers is to provide free pro- life help to prospective mothers, not to serve as a billboard for abortions. If anyone needed further proof of the moral degradation in California's State government, this is exhibit A.

The Supreme Court must set a precedent, as lower courts have already done, as Dr. Harris mentioned. They must set a precedent that we will not watch, we will not stand by and watch as California's liberal elites bully anyone into giving up their constitutionally protected freedoms under the First Amendment.

Indeed, I want to thank Dr. Harris and all of the rest of my colleagues you will hear from here tonight for standing up on this issue, helping to not only bail out California's irresponsibility, but, more importantly, to stand up for the rights of people who are trying to save lives and provide positive counseling to those who find themselves in crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Harris for this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to commend and welcome President Trump to California, where, amongst other things, he is looking at the technology with which to control our borders, an obligation we have as a State, but more so as a country whose jurisdiction it is.

We welcome legal immigration to our State and to our country, not illegal immigration or the other euphemisms that are used, undocumented immigrants, what have you.

Indeed, if we don't have borders, we don't really have a nation. So let's get cracking on controlling our borders and having a legal immigration process. It is better for the immigrants, it is better for the security of our Nation, and it is better for its people. That is all it is about. It is really that simple.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I wish to commend Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration for finally taking action against California's lawlessness on sanctuary cities and immigration practices.

California is clearly violating Federal immigration laws. States don't get to dictate to the Federal Government when and where these laws are enforced.

California needs to be held accountable for their willful defiance of Federal immigration law and its sanctuary State insurrection.

Several laws have been passed by the Federal Government over the years on immigration. Actually enforcing a law on the books, arresting and deporting illegal immigrants shouldn't be shocking. The Supreme Court has held that immigration regulation was a Federal responsibility exclusively in 1876.

Under the Obama administration, Arizona, in order to try to fix the immigration problem in this country, passed a bill called S.B. 1070, but the Supreme Court ruled that they couldn't enforce the border themselves.

Now we have California going the other direction, trying to cause no enforcement to be done on immigration in our State. The Federal Government is ruling and working to overcome that as well.

So I commend Attorney General Sessions for taking action on California's lawlessness.

Mr. Speaker, I am, indeed, pleased to join my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) tonight, who has been a very strong, tireless leader on this issue and many other important ones for our Congress and our country. So I thank him for that and for letting me be here to be a part of this tonight.

Obviously, this is a very important issue and we need to have a much better discussion than we have had in a long time in this country.

The moral of the Heartbeat Protection Act is extremely simple to understand. It is against the law for a physician to perform an abortion after detecting a heartbeat, other than to save the life of the mother.

Mr. King was speaking a moment ago about this. For anybody who uses common sense, life begins at that moment of conception. At that moment of conception, you have a life. If you don't have a conception, obviously, you don't have a life.

So how is it that it is even a debate? How do people hide on the sidelines, in the shadows, somehow debating it as something like, ``Well, is it really a life,'' or, ``At what line do we draw that point at?''

That is an important point Mr. King made as well with all the different ideas of when an abortion is appropriate.

We have a 20-week mark. We have the end of the first trimester, the end of the second trimester.

What date is appropriate?

We have people these days talking about partial-birth abortion not being a problem at all. Even in some extreme quarters, some people are saying that post-birth is somehow an acceptable way and that it isn't really a person with rights at that point.

We are talking about a much narrower thing here, with the heartbeat being a true detectable moment of life. When prospective mothers go in for those ultrasounds, it is a very moving moment for her, and, hopefully, her mate there with her, to see what is going on inside there with all those little baby parts that are being formed and the miracle that life is.

But it is really a telling moment when that prospective mother hears that heartbeat. That is what is so important in this debate about having the tool of an ultrasound to show what is really going on here, for those who try to obfuscate what is happening with the pregnancy. Let that prospective mother make an informed decision, not one that is hidden, not one that is obfuscated by, ``Oh, it is just a tissue mass or something.''

The crime about a lot of this is that a lot of these women are not being allowed to make an informed decision about what is really going on.

So this Heartbeat bill that Mr. King is championing here is an important moment in time for a prospective mom and her mate to be able to have an informed decision and really contemplate this life that is happening and the downside of what that abortion might mean.

So, indeed, is it not a crime to murder a human being with a heartbeat?

It really shouldn't be any different for babies that are yet to be born.

Arguably, since they are innocent, isn't it more important we protect their rights?

They don't really have someone to speak for them, except for those of us who realize what we are truly taking about here: an innocent life with a heartbeat that will become a life outside of the womb and walk amongst the rest of us humans with dignity, with passion, with ideas, with dreams. That is what we are defending here.

It really mystifies me how legislation like this is so difficult to move through this body, the Senate, the Congress as a whole, or State legislatures in other types of bills we have tried in order to preserve life, to preserve the value of life.

Indeed, if we are not a country that is going to value life in all of its human forms, then what are we?

Our Founders placed a great value on those liberties that have formed this country. Indeed, right above the dais it says: ``In God we trust.''

I think God watches what we do here. He is watching what is happening to these babies and he wants us to tell the truth and know the truth and be able to project the truth on what is really going on with a pregnancy or those who are contemplating a very serious decision.

This bill will go a long way toward shedding the light on a quantifiable moment when there is a detected heartbeat that anybody around that ultrasound can hear. That should be a reality moment. I think more times than not, a prospective mother will make a decision for life, given that.

I commend my colleague, Mr. King, for battling this for those who have lost their lives so many millions of times in the past and had nobody to defend them. But he is building momentum on this legislation and his effort with so many pro-life groups around the country, so many pro-life legislators that are onboard with this. We need a couple more of these national groups to get involved and not see the fog, but, instead, see the clear path that this is.

I implore people to contact their legislators and contact the organizations that are supposed to be standing for life and make sure they get onboard with this effort, because a heartbeat is a true indication of life.

I thank Mr. King for his effort with this.