Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as you recall, 8 years ago this week, the Affordable Care Act became law. Since then, we have seen a historic increase in health coverage, with millions of people gaining access to better quality healthcare.

Under the ACA, we saw the nonelderly uninsured rate cut almost in half, from 18 percent to 9.4 percent. Individuals previously denied coverage due to preexisting conditions saw life-changing improvements in benefits and coverage. Seniors, who are finally able to spend less on Medicare coverage and prescription drugs, had a chance at a secure and peaceful retirement.

In my State alone, Wisconsin, 224,000 people became covered by ACA exchanges. From 2013 to 2016, the number of uninsured individuals declined by a whopping 42 percent.

But we all know, Mr. Speaker, that hardworking Americans were taking advantage of this less expensive, superior healthcare coverage while, at the same time, the GOP embarked on their all-out war against the ACA. I mean, they took no prisoners, hell-bent on sabotaging, butchering, and repealing this law at the expense of our Nation's must vulnerable.

I mean, let's get down into the nitty-gritty depths of this depravity.

Mr. Speaker, how do you think, for example, that the GOP, this Congress, is going to pay for the $1.18 trillion deficit hole created by these tax cuts for the richest Americans and for corporations?

Mr. Speaker, you well know the answer. What we are going to do is plunder Medicare and Medicaid. We are going to build public sentiment for these actions by demonizing the poor and targeting people who already have limited access to jobs and healthcare.

Oh, come on now. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that you have been dreaming about slashing Medicaid ever since you were drinking at college keg parties. You said so yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Well, now, with the help of our President, you are acting on your dream. Your dream is coming true. And we have already seen an influx of States, including my own State of Wisconsin, submit work requirement waivers. This administration has already approved three of them, and there are sure to be more.

These attacks are unprecedented. Never has any administration gone this far to kick needy Americans off the only healthcare they have.

My own State's Governor, Scott Walker, is spearheading one of the most restrictive welfare reform proposals in the Nation. He wants harsh work requirements, drug testing restrictions, and other barriers to our State's most at-risk families to access Social Services.

These folks who are being targeted are already struggling to find work, and they are marginally connected to the workforce.

How does throwing them off healthcare help?

I say we need to uphold the ACA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend Lee Holloway. He served for 20 years in Milwaukee County in many positions including: a Milwaukee County Supervisor and Chairman for the Milwaukee County Board and County Executive of Milwaukee County. Mr. Lee Holloway passed away on March 14, 2018 at the age of 71.

Mr. Holloway was a life-long Milwaukee resident. He was a product of the public school system and a graduate of Lincoln High School where he excelled at football. He was granted an athletic scholarship to the University of Arkansas and graduated in 1969 and earned an M.S. in developmental disabilities from the University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee in 1972.

Prior to becoming an elected official, Lee Holloway was a guidance counselor at Messmer High School. He was a health care field innovator and served as the Chief Operating Officer of both the Inner City Development Project-North and the Milwaukee Comprehensive Community Health Center. Mr. Holloway championed healthcare for the poor and unemployed people.

Lee Holloway was initially elected in 1992 as a Milwaukee County Supervisor representing the 5th District and in 2004 became the first African American elected as Chairman of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors and served in this position for 8 years. In 2010, he became the first African American County Executive of Milwaukee County for a brief period where he served dually in this position and that as Chair of the Milwaukee County Board. Mr. Holloway led efforts to create a county general assistance health safety net program; this program was later expanded statewide as Badger Care. He also successfully led the effort to win voter approval of a county sales tax increase in a 2008 referendum.

Mr. Holloway and his wife Lynda were very involved in the Milwaukee Kickers Club; they guided the Simba League to provide an entrance for inner city youth to participate in soccer through the Milwaukee Kickers Club.

Lee Holloway leaves behind his loving wife Lynda, six sons and two granddaughters and five grandsons and a host of other relatives and friends to mourn his passing. He leaves a strong legacy of leadership for his children and grandchildren to model.

Mr. Speaker, Lee Holloway was a Milwaukee and Wisconsin trailblazer and will be remembered for his service to the 4th Congressional District. I urge you and my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in a salute to the late Lee Holloway.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 107.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for organizing the ``What is Wrong with Wall Street'' here tonight so that we could have the opportunity to hail one of our true champions and sheroes this evening.

I just, first of all, want to associate myself with all of the comments that have already been made. When you have served for 36 years, we could wax on forever about your distinguished career of public service, so I won't do that.

I just want to focus on one thing that you have done that has really touched me in a very profound way, and that is, as a valued friend and colleague and mentor, your passion for the Great Lakes. From your seat on the Appropriations Committee, and now the co-chair of the bipartisan Great Lakes Task Force, you have never ever, Marcy, missed a beat when it came to the Great Lakes. And I am sure that there were times when you have felt like you were a lonely voice out there crying in the wilderness.

There is an old African proverb that says: Water has no enemies. So you would think, given that, that there would be just this plethora of funding and strategies, but there has not been. We have seen the crisis in lead in drinking water, bathing; sportsmen depend on water; agriculture depends on water; and truly, we need a water policy and a policy around the Great Lakes that makes sense whenever we do an infrastructure bill.

Now, for every one of those 18,000-plus days of service in the House, you have been a steward and a champion for protecting not only this environmental treasure, but Marcy also recognizes how much this resource provides for our regional and national economy.

If the Great Lakes region, the U.S. and Canadian provinces, were a separate country, it would have a gross domestic product of $6 trillion, making it the third largest economy in the world. That growth and development would not be possible without leaders with vision and passion like you, Marcy, and so I want to thank you.

I agree with the gentleman who has said that your greatest accomplishments have not even occurred yet, as it pertains to developing the potential for these water resources in the Great Lakes.

I want to thank you for your legacy of working to stop the invasive Asian carp; fighting for safe and clean drinking water; making sure that the Great Lakes get the needed support from the Army Corps of Engineers for their funding, for dredging, and to maintain the critical infrastructure to support commerce; for fighting against efforts to roll back the Clean Water Act; and, certainly, for your vigorous opposition to efforts to kill the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

Thank you, Marcy, for your leadership, and I love you dearly.

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen flight delays, I was absent for roll call votes 92 and 93 on March 5, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 92 and AYE on Roll Call No. 93, both naming certain post offices.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kevin L. Shafer, P.E. for being named as one of the Top 25 Global Water Leaders.

Kevin has served as the Executive Director at the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) since March 2002. As Executive Director, Kevin manages approximately 230 MMSD employees and oversees a contract for the operation and maintenance of the sewerage system with a private contractor.

As Executive Director, Kevin developed and implemented an Overflow Reduction Plan; completed a watershed based regional water quality management plan update; initiated a Green Infrastructure Program for the Milwaukee region; helped to found a local nonprofit organization, the Southeast Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, and focused on water quality improvements.

Prior to joining the District, Mr. Shafer spent 10 years in private industry and six years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Fort Worth, Texas. He is a past president of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. Currently, Kevin is the Chair of the Water Environment Research Foundation and of the U.S. Water Alliance's Urban Water Sustainability Leadership Council. Mr. Shafer received a bachelor's degree in science and civil engineering with a specialty in water resources from the University of Illinois and a master's in civil engineering from the University of Texas.

In December 2017 he was named as one of the Top 25 Global Water Leaders by Water & Wastewater International Magazine. This designation is known as a barometer of the industry's thought leaders. The selection was made concentrating on active leaders who are driving companies forward into the digital water age with a focus on innovation.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I rise to pay tribute and congratulate Kevin Shafer on his award; I am proud that he resides and works in the Fourth Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Luetkemeyer might have had a good idea, but what we have really seen is an arbitrary FSOC and a Republican- controlled Federal Reserve Board that operates without quorums. This may be a good idea, but until we have a financial regulatory framework where we can trust the people in charge, I think that we should not support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to decry a provision in this tax bill that would amount to shocking tax increases of thousands of dollars for struggling graduate students by reclassifying their tuition assistance as taxable income.

These students provide research and teaching services as work to offset tuition. I mean, we are talking about assistants in the dorms, teaching assistants for undergraduate courses, researchers in laboratories--all who contribute to universities for quite modest stipends and tuition credits to avoid going further into debt and to support themselves while completing their master's degrees and Ph.D.'s.

Taxing this so-called income would impose a profoundly negative impact on education. Schools across the country could lose half their current graduate students, and it would diminish the number of students who would even consider graduate school in the future.

Mr. Speaker, what is to become of the vital research and development in the fields of medicine and engineering and agriculture and information technology--things that have led to innovation and invention, things that have truly made America great--with this tax provision?

An example from my very own alma mater, Marquette University, raises the problems with parents. There is a maintenance mechanic who has three--three, triplets--college-age students. He receives $40,000 of tuition assistance for each of these students. I mean, for real, Mr. Speaker, we are going to deem $120,000 income to this maintenance person?

Be for real. My constituent, Tim, writes:

As a graduate student in the third year of a Ph.D. program,

I am married, have a 4-month-old. My wife works full time as

a high school teacher. My research focuses on investigating

how persons who have suffered from a neurological disease

such as a stroke or spinal cord injury are able to move. This

tuition waiver is the only reason I can afford graduate

school and do the research I am doing to help the disabled.

If this becomes taxable income, my wife and I would move

into a higher tax bracket, and my tax liability would

increase roughly 40 percent, without a single dime of an

increase in income with which I could pay that. This equals

roughly $1,300 per month of taxes.

At the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, also in my district, graduate student Shandra is finishing her master's in library and information science. Under the Republican House bill, Shandra's income, in the eyes of the government, would effectively double.

Now, you know, doubling the standard deduction, letting people file on a postcard will not offset the draconian tax cuts that these graduate students would experience. Taxing tuition credits would hurt lower and middle class, hardworking citizens who rely on this benefit to help them and their families achieve the American Dream.

I urge my colleagues and people in the public, Mr. Speaker, not to fall for this trick, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to oppose this harmful bill.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly present the art of the deal:

In the tax deal before us, we provide permanent tax cuts for individuals who are multimillionaires and billionaires. With this deal, all middle class families will eventually face a tax increase since tax relief for them expires.

All taxes, of course, go up on folks earning as little as $10,000 a year almost immediately. After all, Mr. Speaker, somebody's got to pay for the wealthy's permanent tax cuts.

Now, how do we get buy-in from the middle class, you ask. Well, here is the beauty of the deal, Mr. Speaker. We will trickle down a few crumbs from the master's table to get some of them through one or two Christmas shopping seasons; and let's tell them that they can do their taxes on a postcard and that they will just love that they won't have to go through all the tedious math work of receiving thousands of dollars in personal exemptions and State income and local tax relief.

They won't have to do all of that subtracting of medical expenses and student loan interest from their tax obligations.

We will promise them jobs. Hey, yeah, let's do that through dynamic scoring, trickle-down and voodoo economic growth like we did during the Reagan and Bush years, back when we gave trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy and created the deficits that are now dragging on our economy.

Mr. Speaker, people are so desperate that they will believe us. Of course, we will have to cut $25 billion out of Social Security immediately to meet budget rules, or maybe we can just cut some veteran benefits from mandatory spending. We are targeting $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, but don't worry, Mr. Speaker, we will just defame recipients of these benefits as unworthy welfare cheats and the general public will go for our deal.

Mr. Speaker, let's adopt a better deal. Let's pursue a commonsensical means of growing the economy, like spending these trillions of dollars on infrastructure instead of a giveaway to the wealthy, by providing postsecondary opportunity and skill development to our next generation of

innovators and workers instead of taxing our students into an abyss of debt.

Let's fund research on medical cures instead of burying the infirm into early graves. Let us reject this abomination of a tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize those in our military who have worked tirelessly to help Americans in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Despite my continuing concerns about the dreadful federal response to the devastation in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, I know that the dedicated men and women of our military have been working day and night to help bring much needed relief to those in need.

Without their help and aid, one can only imagine how much worse the situation would be now.

In the last two weeks, the USS Wasp, the USS Oak Hill, and the USS Kearsarge have returned home or are in the process of returning home. In both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the sailors and Marines aboard these ships cleared roads to ease the flow of people and relief supplies, conducted search and rescue missions, helped deliver much needed supplies, and most of all, were a daily reminder to those they met that our country helps its citizens.

Speaking to the high tempo at which these men and women were working, the Navy reports that during the 68-day period of its hurricane relief deployment, the Kearsarge ``conducted more amphibious and flight operations than would be completed in a routine six-month deployment.''

And I would be remiss if I did not mention the invaluable contribution of National Guard personnel, including those impacted directly by the hurricanes, and those from all over the United States, including my home state of Wisconsin.

I would urge the Defense Department, even as these ships return home, to continue to ensure that its considerable resources and assets remain available to help Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in the trying weeks and months that still lay ahead. Our citizens in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands will need our help for many months to come and the military must continue to be a key part of that effort.

And I also strongly encourage the Administration to quickly send a new disaster funding request that accurately reflects the proposals that affected communities, including Texas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, have put forward outlining the federal aid they need to help communities rebuild better.

Again, I salute the men and women in and out of uniform who have been and continue to help their fellow Americans during this deadly and devastating hurricane season. They are doing their part; now this Administration and Congress need to do ours in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many of my constituents who are concerned about U.S. involvement in Yemen. The

country is in ruins, civilians are paying the price, and there seems to be little to no interest in using our considerable heft and moral authority to search for and find a diplomatic solution.

We are no closer to peace in Yemen today than when the first bombs dropped. What we do have after over two years of war and suffering is a fractured country, repeated attacks on health and other civilian facilities in a country now experiencing a deadly cholera outbreak that could eventually reach 1 million suspected cases by year's end, limited access to lifesaving humanitarian aid, including the decision last week by the Saudi-led coalition to close all ports and ground all humanitarian flights into the country that will only make a bad situation, worse.

That decision was quickly condemned by the United Nations and others who warned about the dire consequences for Yemen's 27 million citizens. In the face of international pressure and condemnation, it appears the Saudi-led coalition may now reopen some ports but the situation remains dire.

There are serious questions that need to be answered about U.S. involvement, direct and indirect, including what it is actually helping to achieve, and what are the costs. While participation in the Yemen civil war preceded this Administration, that fact does not remove the responsibility of the President and this Congress.

The final FY 2018 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 2810) that we are going to consider later this week includes a provision calling for a U.S. Security Strategy for Yemen from this Administration. That would be a step forward. Unfortunately, the bill that will come before the House this week would strip--without public debate, discussion, or deliberation--a provision from the House-passed bill that would have barred any use of taxpayer funding to deploy members of the U.S. Armed Forces to participate in the ongoing civil war in Yemen.

Additionally, the House-passed version of H.R. 1298 barred the use of taxpayer funds authorized in the bill to conduct U.S. military operations in Yemen. That provision was also dropped in conference with the Senate, again with no public debate or deliberation. If we agree that the humanitarian situation is horrific, that a political solution is the only solution, then why keep the pathway open for broader U.S. military engagement?

The provisions in the House-passed version of H.R. 2810 would have put strong teeth behind the resolution we are considering today and behind the concerns expressed during this debate and in this resolution regarding the humanitarian crises that is unfolding in Yemen as a direct result of this damaging conflict.

Mr. Speaker, it is not in our nation's interest to make a dangerous region only more volatile. It is not in our nation's interest to see Yemen become an even more broken and divided nation and even a failed state. And it is not clear that continuing to do more of the same will not reverse those trends or bring us closer to the diplomatic solution that is almost universally recognized as the only effective solution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to make a commonsense update to the Selective Service Registration system.

As my colleagues know, our country has long recognized the moral dilemma faced by those with strong religious or moral grounds against serving in the military and engaging in war. As noted by the Supreme Court in Welsh vs. United States, there are many in our country ``whose consciences, spurred by deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, would give them no rest or peace if they allowed themselves to become a part of an instrument of war.''

Historically, Congress has provided for alternative service or exemption from service for those whose scruples and conscience cannot allow them to participate in combat or in any form of military service.

In today's all-volunteer military, those who have moral objections to participating in war can opt not to join the military. However, under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, all men between the ages of 18 and 26, including conscientious objectors, are still required to register for a national draft, should Congress authorize one.

My bill would require that the Selective Service provide registrants, at the time of registration, with the option to indicate a desire to be classified as a conscientious objector.

My bill would make clear that simply making that indication at registration does not bind the U.S. in any way and does not assure that the registrant will be so classified.

Finally, the bill would allow the Selective Service system to also accept, at the time of registration, written statements in support of a conscientious exemption claim.

I want to be clear that the legislation does not change current requirements for how such claims are handled. Under current law, those who pursue a conscientious exemption from military service during a draft can only put forward an actual claim, with supporting evidence, after they get an induction notice.

Again Mr. Speaker, our nation has a history of recognizing, as noted by the Supreme Court in Gillette v. United States, ``the situation of conscientious objectors to war, who, absent special status, would be put to a hard choice between contravening imperatives of religion and conscience or suffering penalties.'' My bill simply tries to make the process of registering those objections more direct and straightforward.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from the Badger State for yielding to me. I am so pleased to join him, along with Representative Mark Pocan, in support of this amendment.

It is critical, Mr. Chairman. Wisconsinites value our natural resources like no other. The Great Lakes are an immense source of regional pride as well as a great economic engine for our region, and we know that these resources are constantly under attack from a variety of threats. One particularly nefarious threat is invasive species.

My colleagues and I are all aware of the costs these species impose. These costs are something that, unfortunately, the Great Lakes region knows too well. From the sea lamprey to the zebra mussel, to the carnivorous Asian carp now advancing toward the region, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars dealing with the damage created when these invasive and nuisance species get into the Great Lakes ecosystem; and keeping them out of the Great Lakes in the first place is the most effective strategy.

A stitch in time saves nine, so I am pleased that this is a bipartisan amendment. I want to emphasize that the amendment does not predetermine any particular outcome or decision.

There is no magic bullet, Mr. Chairman, to the problem of invasive species given that there are so many pathways for them to get into a body of water, including through ballast water, but this commonsense amendment gives us a more effective tool in that fight.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the continuing urgency of providing relief and recovery aid for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which were devastated by Hurricanes Irma and Maria. While U.S. efforts have ramped up after a failed initial response, we can and must do more.

In Puerto Rico, some 70 shelters remain open, access to safe drinking water is a problem, and there are dozens of waterborne disease deaths. Nearly a third of hospitals are still running off generators, bridges remain destroyed, and many roads remain impassable. Nearly 60 percent of the island is without power.

The news is not better for the Virgin Islands, where many still lack access to cell service, power, and clean water. Officials estimate $5.5 billion is needed for the most essential needs there.

Mr. Speaker, there are less than 20 legislative days left on the House calendar. How can we be prioritizing tax cuts for the wealthy? Let's put together fair and strong hurricane relief packages for communities ravaged by these hurricanes, including those in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Mr. Speaker, on October 31, I was absent for recorded vote No. 591. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.