Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be on the floor here this afternoon with my friend and colleague, Congressman Walden, who is going to talk at great length--maybe not, but he could.

This represents, hopefully, the culmination of over 12 years' work. Congressman Walden and I spent a good deal of time with stakeholders back in Oregon focusing on what needed to be done to protect the treasure that is Mt. Hood and the surrounding wilderness area.

It culminated with a hike that we took around Mt. Hood--a 3-day camping trip with Congressman Walden, his

family, our staff, having a series of meetings with people who cared about the work. It was, for me, one of the most memorable experiences I have had as a Member of the House, both in terms of the delightful experience we had enjoying that wilderness area, but also being able to focus on things that were concrete, that would make a difference.

This is the remaining piece. In fact, it was 8 years ago in the first hours of the first Obama administration that the legislation that we worked on as part of the Wilderness Act was signed into law. And as has been referenced by our friend from California, we have been here before trying to complete this last piece.

The land exchange is necessary to be able to fully realize the benefits of the hard work of the stakeholders, to preserve the recreational benefits, to preserve the water, to be able to have a true win-win situation. All that remains is this little exchange.

I know my colleague is frustrated, as am I, that we have to be back here again with a piece of legislation. I am hopeful, as it was in the past, the House will approve, that our friends in the Senate will follow through, and that, somehow, this time it won't be a casualty in conference. It is important to be able to finish this land exchange to realize the potential of the hard work that people back in Oregon have done with us to be able to realize the benefit of this hard work.

I actually will just stop at this point. I look forward to hearing from my friend. I look forward to making sure we get this across the finish line so that this important, bipartisan piece of legislation is finally enacted into law and that we have the Forest Service follow through on the last elements of this critical land exchange.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and I appreciate his leadership on this.

I just heard my friend talk about these imaginary practices. If they are, in fact, imaginary, what is the problem in terms of having Fish and Wildlife moving to bring hunting standards in Federal lands in Alaska more in line with standards for other Federal lands across America?

The fact is that these practices can, in fact, occur, and it is the judgment of the professionals in this field that developed this proposal for the Fish and Wildlife Service. These are the people who are charged with understanding the dynamics, who understand the interaction, based on sound science going forward. The majority of people in Alaska do not support such practices. These are basically the rules that the rest of America deals with in terms of our wildlife refuges.

I spent a lot of time working in the area of animal welfare. It is something that I find is one of those rare areas in Congress where there is far more agreement than disagreement. We find, across the country, 25,000 organizations that are dedicated to animal welfare. This is an area that I am sad to see we are breaking down now with, I think, unnecessary controversy.

Being able to deal with wildlife management and protection, being able to deal with humane hunting practices, to be able to allow the professionals in the Fish and Wildlife Service and elsewhere to be able to help in developing uniform standards is something that should not be unnecessarily divisive. I am hopeful that we give the Fish and Wildlife Service the authority and responsibility to manage these refuges and that we respect the fact that they took public input into account; they weighed the comments; they put forward a thoughtful rule.

Being able to nullify this rule entirely, return to some of the most inhumane practices, is simply inappropriate. Instead of rolling back these rules, we should respect the agency's expertise, the wishes of the vast majority of the people we represent, and uniform provisions to apply to all wildlife refuges.

I am really disappointed that the rhetoric reaches this level and that we are rushing ahead with making changes like this without providing the foundation that would normally occur in the legislative process. This rule is a culmination of a great deal of time and energy, public input, scientific expertise, and hard work. To overturn it summarily, as this Congress has been doing in other areas, I think is a step backwards. It is something that is not supported by the public, and I think it is something that we ought to strongly reject.

Mr. Speaker, like many people, I have noticed renewed interest in the 25th Amendment, as we have seen erratic behavior out of the White House, an inability of Donald Trump to even tell whether it rained on him during his inaugural speech, and repeating false statements that are demonstrably wrong.

Last Friday, the mechanism to deal with Presidential incapacity, the 25th Amendment, celebrated its 50th anniversary. I became intrigued with its history and application because it is clear, whether with Donald Trump or a future President, this mechanism is very important. Accidents can happen: President Reagan suffered from early onset Alzheimer's that concerned his staff. President Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke, and his wife, Edith, effectively governed the United States for months.

It is only a matter of time before we face these challenges again. As I examined the amendment, it became clear that, in the case of mental or emotional incapacity, there is a glaring flaw. For a mentally unstable, paranoid, or delusional President, the 25th Amendment has no guarantee of its application. In fact, it is likely that it would fail.

As written, the 25th Amendment requires the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to concur that the President is no longer capable of exercising authority. There are other safeguards. It would take time to process. Ultimately, two-thirds of both Houses of Congress must agree.

But look at the current Cabinet. Even if one thinks that a group with no meaningful government experience, all approved in a heightened partisan context, most of whom don't even know the President personally, could objectively exercise the power should the President become mentally incapacitated, the larger question is whether they would ever be allowed to do so.

A President who is paranoid or delusional is very unlikely to tolerate dissent within the ranks. He or she could simply fire any Cabinet member who would stand up to them.

That is why we need to exercise the other part of the 25th Amendment that allows Congress to designate another body, instead of the Cabinet. Who could exercise that authority with the confidence of the American public and with the knowledge of what it takes to understand the personal and political stresses of the Presidency?

I submit that the best failsafe to a President who is emotionally unstable would be to impanel our previous Presidents and Vice Presidents to make that determination.

Think about how it would work. Currently, there are 10 bipartisan former distinguished Americans who, in most cases, enjoy even greater public support than when they left office. Most importantly, there is no group of people better suited to evaluate the evidence and the dynamics at work for the good of the country and the President who needs help.

Now, we have made real progress with mental illness. We have made it easier to get care. We are taking away the stigma for the one in five Americans who suffer from mental health issues. We find people to be more open and candid and accepting of themselves and others. We are making real strides in terms of treatment and acceptance.

But all of this requires access to help; and this drama should not play out with somebody whose fingers are on the nuclear buttons and whose every pronouncement can unsettle diplomatic conditions, affect war and peace, and the global economy.

Having Congress establish this panel of former Presidents and Vice Presidents from both parties as a guardian and failsafe mechanism is important, and it needs to happen as soon as possible.

We never know when catastrophe might strike. There is no good time to fix this problem. In today's world of alternative facts and fake news, in a sea of bitter partisan controversy, we need to have a mechanism that can be reliable, command public confidence, and be above politics.

It is hard to think of a group that would collectively have more support and credibility than the distinguished

Americans who have been in that position and, regardless of partisan differences, whose allegiance to America is unquestioned.

We need to start now to protect the integrity of the most powerful position on the planet.

Mr. Speaker, my friend, Mr. Roskam, said you can't make things up. Well, unfortunately, people are. First and foremost, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are conflating accounts that are in the name of individual savers who don't have pensions that would be set up under these proposals, with what has happened with State and local pension plans and, frankly, private pension plans that got over their skis, that overpromised, that added to things. These are just the accounts that belong to individuals.

Now, the hypocrisy strikes me that my Republican friends want to strip away the protections of the Affordable Care Act and turn it back to the States. Let them do with it what they will for Medicaid, for other local health programs. They think that is a great idea. But when governments on the State level like mine spent years developing a proposal that is innovative, that would protect people, that would involve no public tax dollars but at least engage people in a low-cost, transparent savings plan like we all have as Federal employees, then they don't want innovation, then they don't trust the States, then they want extra regulation that was never designed for programs like this.

I find it troubling that we would take a low-cost, high-impact program that has been developed in a number of States to help savers who have no program, that the private sector doesn't think they are important enough to invest in--or it is not worth their while--and strip that away. I think there is a reason why some business organizations, like the Chamber and other financial groups, are worried about this because this is a low-cost, high-impact, transparent program that will deliver benefits directly to employees. That is what more people should have.

I think they are afraid of the model and they are not willing to give the flexibility to the States in retirement that they are trying to do, throwing out the Affordable Care Act and having all sorts of innovation there.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the life and work of David Culp who passed away over the weekend.

This is a monumental loss to supporters of peace everywhere. David's tireless efforts in promoting sane nuclear policies and fighting for a safer world spanned decades.

David was a ``go-to'' advocate in the arms control community. Many, including myself, relied on his advice, knack for technical details on policy proposals, political insights, and collaborative focus. He played an instrumental role in the campaign to secure Senate ratification of the New START treaty and in the defeat of legislative proposals to proliferate new nuclear weapons.

Not only was David a wise, steadfast, effective voice for disarmament, but he was kind and genuine--a true pleasure to be around. His good nature came through in his personal life, where he spent time working to preserve the environment and enjoying the outdoors. His involvement in the cleanup of the Anacostia River is but one example.

My deepest condolences go out to those near and dear to him. He will be missed, and I hope his family, friends and colleagues take some measure of solace in the knowledge that he has made a tremendous difference.

Mr. Speaker, today we are starting efforts to reformulate the Animal Protection Caucus here for this Congress. I have been pleased for several years to serve as the co-chair. Last Congress, it was with our friend Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania-- a bipartisan effort involving over 130 men and women in Congress who are dedicated to efforts of animal protection.

The welfare of animals says a lot about us. Animal abuse is often a precursor to domestic violence. We find that the health and welfare of animals in our communities speak to the environmental protections. We find that people who are able to deal meaningfully with animal welfare have a chance, in many cases, to have benefits that go far beyond what you would imagine.

Animals have a capacity to have a calming influence on people. We see this as volunteers bring pet rabbits to nursing homes to be able to deal with people. Animals have a way of reducing people's blood pressure. It is a great symbiotic relationship.

Here in Congress, we have a wide variety of areas that we can work on together to advance animal protections. We have strengthened laws against animal fighting. We have raised awareness about the barbaric practice of horse soring injuring them to produce the distinctive gait. We promote humane treatment of animals in agricultural research, to be able to reduce the harmful effects on animals in production of cosmetics.

We have bipartisan legislation that would allow people to have their animals at domestic violence shelters, or for emergency services.

One of the things that was most jarring for me, illustrated by what happened with Katrina--2005 hurricane in New Orleans--that there were times where people would not abandon their home because they were afraid of what would happen to their puppy.

We have seen women who are in a situation of domestic violence refuse to leave their abuser because they are afraid of what is going to happen to their kitten that would be left behind.

I am pleased that, in this Congress, the Republican co-chair is going to be my friend Congressman Vern Buchanan from Florida. Vern brings to this issue personal passion, energy, and new ideas. And I am quite confident we will continue the efforts with the caucus to be able to promote animal welfare, promote understanding on Capitol Hill.

We have had, on a monthly basis, bipartisan briefings of legislation with Republican and Democratic cosponsors that garner broad support. And I am hopeful together that this can be, in a time when there is more than a little contention and controversy--that this is an area that we can come together to work on, on Capitol Hill.

We are supported by organizations like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute, Born Free, The Humane Society; representative of the over 25,000 organizations across the country that are dedicated to animal protection.

I am hopeful that each of my colleagues will join us in this bipartisan effort, focus on simple commonsense things that we can do that bring us together to promote animal welfare, to be able to make all of God's creatures better off, and in so doing, reinforce our humanity.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing from coast to coast demonstrations, protests, with people speaking out against the outrageous, reckless, and cruel executive order promulgated by the administration on Friday. It is wrong, and it is immoral on so many levels. It is hard to know where to start.

I just left my office with the president of the Western States chiropractic college--the largest such institution in the country--Joe Brimhall has a number of students who are dual citizens who need to leave the United States to take their board-certified tests next week in Canada. He doesn't know what to tell them. Pursue their professional career and maybe not be able to come back to the United States and finish at the college? It is embarrassing that we can't give him guidance about this ill-thought-out and reckless executive order that wasn't planned and still is having the details worked out.

But perhaps the worst aspect of this blanket cancelation is as it affects Special Immigrant Visas for Iraqis who are waiting to come to the United States. Whatever you think about the Iraq war, the men and women in Iraq who volunteered to help our forces were essential. They were guides, they were interpreters, and they worked on the projects. We could not have done the job over there without them. In many cases, they blended into the units in which they served. I have had cases where our soldiers have described to me how these people literally saved their lives.

I have heard from veterans who care deeply and wonder about the signal that they are sending to people they regarded essentially as family. They wonder how this administration could have forgotten about them. The guard in my office in Portland, who is a veteran, was asking me what is going on. He recalled his story about an interpreter who was critical to him when he served in Iraq. How could we have forgotten them?

I will tell you somebody who has not forgotten them are the Taliban and the ISIS terrorists. They regard these people as traitors. The terrorists have long memories, and want to make people pay for helping the United States. We have seen countless examples of these people being hunted down by terrorists. They have been assaulted, they have been kidnapped, they have had family members held for ransom, and they have been murdered.

That is why I have worked on a bipartisan basis for 10 years establishing the Special Immigrant Visa program with the late Senator Kennedy, with Senator John McCain, Senator Shaheen, my Republican colleague Adam Kinzinger, and Congressmen Stivers and Hunter who were veterans themselves and understood why this program was important.

There is a lot of talk about extreme vetting. Trust me--the applicants for these visas are extremely vetted, taking 2 and 3 years, sometimes longer, fighting the bureaucracy, trying to make sure that they can escape to safety. Many have been killed because the extreme vetting process took so long.

To turn their lives upside down and put them at risk because there are people in the White House who don't understand or who don't care is appalling.

I applaud my colleagues in both parties who are speaking out and asking the administration to come to its senses on this blanket ban of Muslims from seven countries--seven countries, by the way, that have not been involved with terrorist acts. This is not going to make us any safer. Some have speculated that some of the countries that have been left out, like Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, were left out because the President has business interests there.

I don't know why these countries were selected, but the fact is it should end today. It should end not just because of the brave men and women under the Special Immigrant Visa program from Iraq whose lives are now at greater risk because of this reckless act. It is wrong because of the signals we are sending to foreign nationals whom we rely upon. It is not just in Iraq. We have people who work for the United States who live in many other countries who help us with the State Department programs and with the military. What message are we sending to them if the United States is not going to stand up and protect them?

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on former Iraqi translators for the United States, like Faud Shareef, who was cleared to settle in Nashville, Tennessee, along with his family, but stopped before he could board his flight and sent back to harm's way in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons people across the country are outraged by the executive order issued by the administration this weekend is the impact it has on people who worked for the United States, putting their lives at risk. I spent 10 years on a bipartisan effort for the Special Immigrant Visa program, and with a stroke of the pen, these people have been denied.

On page A10 of The Washington Post, there is detailed the Sharef family where the husband had worked as an interpreter for United States soldiers. His life is at risk in Iraq. He worked 2 years to be able to get the visa. He sold his business, sold his home. His family was on a plane ready to come, and they were turned back to Iraq, turned back to danger. And we are turning our back on people who risk their lives to help Americans.

It is outrageous, it is immoral, and it is going to hurt America in the future. Who is going to help us overseas in the future if we are not dependable allies?

This outrageous order should be overturned and everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, should raise their voice in outrage.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the passage of H.R. 423, the Anti-Spoofing Act (Roll Call No. 60), I would have voted ``aye.'' This bill would expand prohibitions on ``spoofing,'' the changing of a cell phone's identification in order to mislead the recipient of a call or a text message. Fraudulent calls and texts are on the rise, and Congress should update the tools that law enforcement can use to address and prevent lawbreakers.

Had I been present for the vote on the passage of H.R. 582, the Kari's Law Act (Roll Call No. 61), I would have voted ``aye.'' This bill would require multiline telephone systems to allow direct emergency 911 calls without first dialing out of the system.

Mr. Speaker, days after hundreds of thousands of women marched in my hometown of Portland, Oregon and cities across the world, Congressional Republicans once again are seeking to limit women's access to safe reproductive health care. H.R. 7 is a sweeping ban on abortion coverage and another callous attempt to insert Congress into the most personal of conversations between a woman and her physician, and had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 7 (Roll Call No. 65).

This legislation comes on the same week we mark the 44th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade and the same week Donald Trump reinstated the global gag rule, or `Mexico City policy,' which bans all foreign non-profits that receive U.S. aid from offering abortion-related services. H.R. 7 and the Mexico City policy are flawed and ineffective policies that will harm health and economic security of women around the world.

I have repeatedly voted against attempts to limit a woman's right to a safe and legal abortion. Once again, these actions by Congressional Republicans and the Trump-Pence Administration make it clear that the GOP does not care about the rights and autonomy of women anywhere, not just in the United States.

As we clearly saw this past weekend, Republicans have no mandate to take away women's basic rights. Women everywhere will continue to fight these harmful policies, and I will continue to be one of their strongest allies in this fight.

Had I been present for the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question, Roll Call Vote No. 62 I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 55 (Roll Call Vote No. 63).

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Democratic Motion to Recommit (Roll Call Vote No. 64).

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I was in the middle of hundreds of hours of discussion and debate in committee, on the floor. It is amazing to think of all the time and energy that went into it.

Was it a perfect bill? Absolutely not. It would have been much better if the legislative process hadn't collapsed in the Senate and forced reconciliation as the vehicle.

The offer to somehow become bipartisan and work together to solve the problems ring hollow. I have been on the Ways and Means Committee for the last 6 years when Republicans were in charge with constant efforts to repeal ObamaCare, but they refused to work with us to fine-tune the legislation when we could move forward and build on this foundation and not be in a situation where we are going to unsettle healthcare markets, leave people doubting about where they are, and having no clue about what comes forward.

There is a reason, after 6 years, the Republicans do not have an alternative to offer now. It is because their wildly contradictory promises cannot be met.

I urge rejection of the rule and rejection of this effort to gut the most important healthcare reform in the last 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against S. 84, the bill to exempt retired Marine Gen. James N. Mattis from the prohibition on individuals who have spent less than seven years out of uniform for appointment as Secretary of Defense. Even though he is qualified and probably the best appointee we could expect from the Trump administration, there is a reason for the law that requires a waiver. This issue should have been addressed more directly.

Civilian control of the Armed Forces is a critical cornerstone of our democracy. Regardless of the individual under consideration for such a waiver, a major departure from longstanding law merits a full conversation and discussion in Congress. I am concerned by reports that the Trump presidential transition team prevented Gen. Mattis from testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, though he was willing.

It's unfortunate that both chambers did not have the opportunity to hear from Gen. Mattis. I suspect that if the process were allowed to work, he may well have received stronger bipartisan support for the waiver.

Mr. Speaker, it is heartening that a few of our Republican colleagues are urging caution on the reckless approach to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They are acknowledging that the only reasonable way to proceed--if that is the objective--is to, at the same time that they repeal, provide the American people with a replacement, a replacement that meets their criteria.

One reason they have not done so is that Republicans don't really agree, don't really know how to do that. The new President promises that a repeal-and-replace program will be better. It will have lower costs and better coverage--a tall order--and we have seen no details.

The troubling fact for the Republicans bent on repealing the Affordable Care Act is that the ACA is working, and most of the major provisions are wildly popular: no lifetime limits on health care; no denial for preexisting conditions to almost 130 million Americans who would otherwise have their health care at risk; allowing children to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are age 25; not charging women higher premiums than men simply because of their chromosomes.

These elements are absolutely essential going forward, and the American public wants this to continue. Sadly, even if they do slow down and try to do it right, there is much damage that is being done with the uncertainty in the air. They have unsettled 18 percent of our economy--over $3 trillion of annual expenses--disrupting the 6 years of progress in making the system work better.

I have been talking to people in my community, finding out about some of the damage that is being done, their concerns and apprehensions. The largest employer in the city of Portland is Oregon Health & Science University. They already have felt compelled to implant a hiring freeze, dial back some of their programming, trying to reconfigure, preparing for the worst.

The local government, partnering with the private sector to treat the poor and the elderly, people with mental health issues, are having their important reforms put at risk, and they are scrambling to try and figure out how to do it.

The State of Oregon, not unlike many States around the country, is facing some budget challenges, and there is a $1.7 billion question dealing with the uncertainty going forward with Medicaid.

Rural hospitals are especially vulnerable, and they will explain it to any Congressman who chooses to ask. Most important for many of them is the fact that this approach that is being pursued on Capitol Hill with this question mark puts at risk one of the greatest achievements of the Affordable Care Act. The vast amounts of money spent on uncompensated care, charity care, has been dramatically reduced. People are getting their health care earlier, and it is being paid for. And those uncompensated care levels are falling dramatically. They are getting better care, more timely.

The health providers in my community are concerned they are still going to have to provide the care, but it will be done later in an emergency room, not in a clinic setting, and they are left holding the bag financially. It is not hard to find out how damaging this approach has been.

Certainly, the Affordable Care Act could use refinement and improvement. We have been trying to do that for the last 6 years. The local medical associations, community clinics, hospitals, health plans are all willing to say how that could be done; but at the same time, they will explain what is at risk and why we owe it to them and the people we serve to understand the damage that is being done and try and minimize it.

The course that is being followed will make America sick again, and that is not the way to start a new administration, a new Congress. We should do what we should have been doing for the last 6 years: working together, cooperatively, to build upon, refine, and improve the Affordable Care Act and give the American public the health care they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, there is lots of incredible news out there. The Trump press conference just makes your head spin, but we have seen that the public's voice does matter.

Because of public outcry, within minutes after the late-night closed meetings, the Republican plan to gut the independent Office of Congressional Ethics was reversed. In response to outrage about jeopardizing health care for millions of Americans, some Republicans now admit that repealing the Affordable Care Act is not quite so simple and maybe they should come up with a replacement, even if they don't yet know how to do it. Senate Republicans even delayed some of the Cabinet confirmation hearings to allow a more orderly review and scrutiny.

Your voice does matter.

The President said last night that change only happens when ordinary people get involved, get engaged, and come together to demand it. Obviously, these fights are just beginning, but the last 10 days shows that together we can and will protect the values and programs so vital to America.