Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 585 on agreeing to the Amendment, Johnson of Georgia Amendment No. 3, offered to H.R. 469, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 586 on agreeing to the Amendment, McEachin of Virginia Amendment No. 4, offered to H.R. 469, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 587 on agreeing to the Amendment, Cartwright of Pennsylvania Amendment No. 6, offered to H.R. 469, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 588 on passage of H.R. 469, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. Speaker, each year, millions of Americans visit wildlife refuges throughout the country. They generate over $2 billion in economic activity and create 35,000 jobs. This wouldn't be possible without help from dedicated and hardworking volunteers.

That is why we have introduced H.R. 3979, bipartisan legislation that reauthorizes the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer, Community Partnership, and Education Program. This program ensures public access to refuges for exploring, hunting, fishing, and studying wildlife.

Refuges have a tremendous impact, even in Brooklyn, where Fish and Wildlife Service staff and volunteers work with local public schools to cultivate the next generation of conservationists and wildlife enthusiasts through hands-on learning.

Carmen Wheeler, a second grade student in Brooklyn, recently wrote to me and said: ``I think we should keep the wildlife refugees safe, even if they are far away, because they will always keep our world healthier.''

We are with you, Carmen.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the following letter to the Honorable Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, October 4, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: We write to request that, as the Congress

considers the Fiscal Year 2018 budget resolution and any

legislation written to comply with its reconciliation

instructions, we continue to follow the long-standing

practice of evaluating the fiscal effects of legislation

relative to the baseline developed by the Congressional

Budget Office (CBO). Using the CBO baseline will allow us to

provide the American people the most accurate forecast of how

proposed fiscal policies will affect our ballooning federal

deficit.

CBO's baseline conforms to the principles that Congress has

defined in law. For decades we have consistently used the CBO

baseline to accurately calculate the fiscal and

distributional impacts of tax reform policy. The CBO baseline

is the best mechanism to measure how we are affecting our

nation's balance sheets because it reflects the clearest

intent of Congress, accurately accounts for the costs of

extending specific program provisions scheduled to expire,

and keeps legislation in line with fiscal requirements set

forth in reconciliation instructions within the budget

resolution.

Our constituents are calling on us to enact sound fiscal

policy, and many have answered that call with promises to get

our financial house in order. Unfortunately, according to

recent news reports, some members of the House of

Representatives may break that promise by opting instead to

change the baseline we traditionally use to determine how new

tax policy proposals will affect the deficit. Instead, some

lawmakers are pushing you to use a ``current-policy''

baseline that would, among other things, obscure the true

cost of extending deficit-increasing tax cuts by ignoring

their expiration dates written into the tax code.

Changing the baseline could cause Congress to inaccurately

calculate the detrimental impact of tax cuts and therefore

allow lawmakers to disregard important rules such as those

that guide the use of reconciliation in order to limit long-

term deficit increases. As you know, the Byrd Rule prevents

reconciliation procedures from being used in the Senate to

pass legislation that increases the deficit beyond the budget

window. Adopting a current-policy baseline would effectively

hide the $400 billion cost of extending expiring tax cuts,

and pretend that they are revenue neutral in order to meet

the Senate's reconciliation requirements.

Such a change will have costly consequences. Every dollar

of lost revenue hidden by a misleading or inaccurate current-

policy baseline is a dollar added to our deficit that will in

turn make it harder to adequately fund important priorities,

such as national security, infrastructure, disaster relief,

health care and the safety net for our most vulnerable

citizens.

Resorting to gimmicks such as the ``current-policy

baseline'' and creating unrealistic assumptions about

economic growth rates obscures the full cost of tax cuts and

severely undermines our ability to put the federal budget on

a sustainable fiscal path. Whether these gimmicks serve a

procedural or rhetorical role, the end result is the same:

fiscally irresponsible policies, larger deficits, and erosion

of the American people's confidence in our fiscal

stewardship.

As you know, our annual deficits are projected to swell to

over $1 trillion by the end of the decade. Equally

troublesome, the national debt is on an unsustainable

trajectory. If we willfully choose to inaccurately account

for taxing and spending legislation, then we will place our

economic wellbeing in jeopardy and saddle future generations

with the burden of shouldering today's fiscal wrongs.

Instead, we must be open and honest with the American people.

The traditional CBO baseline best accomplishes that by

providing the most transparent and precise measure of the

impacts of our fiscal policies.

Accordingly, we urge you to resist calls to abandon the CBO

baseline in the budget resolution so that the American people

are fully apprised of how we are affecting the nation's

financial future.

Sincerely,

Hakeem Jeffries,

Co-Chair, House Democratic Policy and Communications

Committee.

Joseph Crowley,

Chairman, House Democratic Caucus.

Steny H. Hoyer,

House Democratic Whip.

John Yarmuth,

Ranking Member, House Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chair, once again, House Republicans are determined to visit cruel and unusual punishment on the American people by presenting a budget that is reckless, regressive, and reprehensible. It is a budget that will hurt working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, the afflicted, veterans, and rural America.

It is a budget that will eradicate the social safety net, end Medicare as we know it, rip away health insurance from 23 million Americans, and impose billions and billions of dollars in life-altering debt on younger Americans.

It is outrageous that this is all being done to enact tax cuts for the wealthy and the well-off, tax cuts for the privileged few, tax cuts for special interests here in Washington, D.C.

This parade of horribles is being jammed down the throats of this country so that everyday Americans can subsidize the lifestyles of the rich and shameless.

We deserve better. The Democratic budget will invest in transportation and infrastructure, invest in education and job training, invest in the social safety net, invest in research and development, invest in affordable housing, and invest in the wellbeing of everyday Americans.

The Republican budget is a raw deal. The Democratic budget is a better deal, focused on better jobs, better wages, and a better future. It is worthy of our support.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have once again presented a budget that is reckless, regressive, and reprehensible. It is a budget that would hurt working families, the middle class, the poor, the sick, the afflicted, veterans, and rural America. It is even a budget that would cut Head Start, Meals on Wheels, and Special Olympics.

It is a raw deal for the American people. That is why Democrats are focused on better jobs, better wages, and a better future. Democrats are focused on higher pay for the American people, lower costs for the American people, and providing the American people with the tools to succeed in the 21st century economy.

Democrats are focused on providing the American people with a better deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3229, which will extend for 10 years the soon expiring authority for Federal judges and judicial officers to redact from financial disclosure forms sensitive personal information that, if revealed, could compromise their safety and security.

An independent judiciary that is free of coercion is fundamental to our constitutional democracy, fundamental to

the principle of liberty and justice for all, and fundamental to the principle of equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, in this country, there are some who seek to compromise the integrity of the judicial branch through threats, harm, and harassment.

According to the U.S. Marshals Service, in fiscal year 2017, there has been an increase in every major recorded statistical category regarding the targeting of members of the Federal bench and judiciary employees. Failure to extend this authority will create grave security risks to judges, judiciary employees, and their families.

Each year, only a very small percentage of the financial disclosure reports filed contain an approved redaction of information. Redaction only occurs if there is a clear nexus between a security risk and the information for which redaction is sought.

Federal judges and other employees of the judicial branch routinely interact with disgruntled litigants or dangerous defendants and others who may seek to do them harm.

For example, in 2016, a disgruntled defendant was convicted of a diabolical plot to kidnap, torture, and murder U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford, who presided over that defendant's wire fraud conviction.

In March of this year, the FBI reported that U.S. District Judge Derek Watson, who issued a temporary retaining order against the President's travel ban, has subsequently been the target of repeated violent threats.

In April, Jason Springer, an ISIS sympathizer, was indicted on a charge of threatening to murder U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich by flying an explosive drone into her window.

The need to extend the redaction authority is a time-sensitive security matter, and I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Issa, and Ranking Member Nadler of the subcommittee, for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished champion of safety of Federal judges.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the question of race, we clearly have come a long way in America, but we still have a long way to go.

There are some in this country who want to sugarcoat the African- American experience in the great United States of America, but the facts are the facts. In this country, the African-American community has been forced to endure slavery, rape, kidnapping, lynchings, Jim Crow, segregation, mass incarceration, and a police brutality epidemic that continues to this very day. It was in this context that athletes like Colin Kaepernick bravely chose to kneel down so that others may have the courage to stand up.

There are some who have criticized these athletes as unpatriotic, but their actions are uniquely American. Liberty and justice for all is an American value. Equal protection under the law is an American value. Freedom of speech and expression as embedded in the First Amendment is an American value.

Yet there is criticism coming even from folks in the White House. I find this ironic because this is the same group of people at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who regularly refuse to criticize Vladimir Putin and defend Russia's interference with our election, undermining American democracy for the first time in our Nation's history.

How dare you lecture us about what is patriotic.

So I just came to the House floor to make it clear to all of the athletes across this great country who have chosen to stand up and confront injustice in our society that there are Members of the United States Congress who have your back.

Steph Curry, we have your back.

LeBron James, we have your back.

Coach Mike Tomlin, we have your back.

You stand on the shoulders of giants like Joe Louis, Wilma Rudolph, Jackie Robinson, Jim Brown, Bill Russell, Muhammad Ali, and so many others who throughout the annals of time chose to confront injustice in America to make us a better place.

Now you have taken the baton, and, thankfully, you are doing the same exact thing. We should be grateful.

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has turned its attention to so-called tax reform, and the American people will face a clear choice.

House Republicans want tax cuts for the wealthy and the well-off. That is a raw deal.

House Democrats are fighting for tax cuts for working families and middle class Americans. That is a better deal.

The American people deserve a country where, if you work hard and play by the rules, you can provide a comfortable living for your family; but for far too many Americans, that basic contract has been broken. That is why House Democrats are fighting for better jobs, better wages, and a better future.

House Democrats are fighting for higher pay, lower costs, and tools for the 21st century economy, and House Democrats are fighting for a better deal for every single American.

Mr. Chairman, let's be clear: this bill has nothing to do with litigation reform. It has nothing to do with a good faith attempt to improve our healthcare system.

In fact, this bill was described as phase 3 of an effort to improve our healthcare by the majority leader on the other side of the aisle. I put out a search committee. I still can't find phase 1 or phase 2. It has nothing to do with reforming our healthcare system.

This bill is an unprecedented attack on States' rights. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is a solution in search of a problem. It is nothing more than a reckless legislative joyride guaranteed to crash and burn on the American people.

This bill, if enacted, will hurt working families, middle class people, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, the afflicted, veterans, and nursing home residents.

The American people deserve a litigation system that works for everyone, not simply the wealthy and the well-off. The American people deserve a litigation system that puts the public's interest ahead of special interests. The American people deserve a litigation system that promotes public health, not just excessive wealth.

This bill fails on all of those counts. It is mean-spirited, it is cruel, it is heartless. Mr. Chairman, that is why it must be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for yielding, and for the phenomenal job that you have done, along with my classmate, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Representative Marc Veasey.

As you know, I have great affection for the fact that you have a significant connection to Brooklyn. We say back home, there are two types of Americans: those who live in Brooklyn, and those who want to live in Brooklyn.

But, certainly, this is a significant issue, that the Congressional Black Caucus has gathered here today to discuss during this hour of power, the opportunity for members of the Congressional Black Caucus to speak directly to the American people on an issue of great significance.

Since January 20, we have seen a disturbing increase here in America in anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Black, anti-LGBT, and anti-Semitic acts.

And the question is: Is this just a coincidence, or could it possibly have something to do with the election of the 45th President of the United States of America?

Now, in part, what we are seeing is connected to a historic backlash that has often occurred throughout this journey that we have been on here in America, that whenever we make significant progress, there is always a backlash amongst some in America who have got a problem with the fact that we have done things designed to be more consistent with our values of liberty and justice for all, equal protection under the law.

We know slavery was the original sin here in America. That was corrected in the aftermath of the North's victory during the Civil War. We had the reconstruction amendments: the 13th Amendment, abolish slavery; 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law; 15th Amendment, the right to vote regardless of race. That was progress in America followed by the inevitable backlash.

The imposition of Jim Crow laws; a lynching epidemic; Black code, segregation, particularly through just the Deep South. Progress followed by backlash.

And then finally, in the 1960s, in an effort to create a more perfect union and address the unfinished business in America, you had the civil rights movement, anchored with the `64 Civil Rights Act, effectively ended Jim Crow; the `65 Voting Rights Act, giving African Americans in the Deep South, people of color throughout the country the right to vote, unimpeded from things like grandfather clauses, and poll taxes, and other types of shenanigans that people were practicing; the 1968 Fair Housing Act capped off the civil rights movement, followed by the inevitable backlash.

Richard Nixon ran a racist campaign, a southern strategy, designed to appeal to aggrieved Whites in parts of this country, particularly in the Deep South, ushered in an era of resistance to the progress that had been made, antibusing, antiaffirmative action.

And then, of course, we have got Barack Obama who was elected in what many of us viewed as an incredible step in the right direction. African Americans, having gone from the outhouse to the White House. Eight years of tremendous progress in moving this country forward, followed by the election of Donald Trump, a man who spent 5 years perpetrating the racist lie that Barack Obama was not born in the United States of America.

And many of us are wondering, why were so many people who worship at the altar of White supremacy drawn to Donald Trump's campaign? What was it about this individual that so many folks dripping in hatred flocked to his candidacy? That is not to say that everyone who voted for Donald Trump is a racist. We do know that every racist in America voted for Donald Trump. That is a problem.

And so, again, I just ask the question in closing: Is this all a big coincidence? We know part of it is the backlash that has often occurred whenever we have made progress in America. But this President has a responsibility to address the rise in hate crimes that have taken place on his watch, whether or not his election is directly connected to it.

Many of us have our own suspicions, but he is the Commander in Chief.

He has got to tell his Attorney General, who is straight out of central casting in terms of the good old boys: Your job as chief law enforcement officer in the land is to enforce the laws whether you like them or not.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that every single thing that has been said--and I would urge you to challenge anything as a fact. In fact, there are facts that have been left out in terms of my remarks about the 45th President of the United States. I have actually been kind of gentle as it relates to the person who is occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now, but more to come. I would welcome the Speaker to dispute anything that has been said in the name of us trying to move this country forward consistent with the notions of equal protection under the law and liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, our focus should be on education and job creation. We should invest in transportation and infrastructure; invest in research and development; invest in technology and innovation; and invest in working families, middle class folks, and senior citizens.

Instead, House Republicans have shortened the workweek and canceled votes on Friday.

Why?

Apparently because James Comey is testifying tomorrow and they want to get out of town before sundown. That is an abdication of responsibility, a dereliction of duty, and a classic example of legislative malpractice.

``Where are the jobs?'' the American people are asking. House Republicans are missing in action and the American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump budget is a disaster for the very people who the President claims he wants to assist. It is reckless, reprehensible, and regressive.

The Trump budget balances itself on the backs of working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, the afflicted, and rural America. The Trump budget fails to invest in education and job training, it fails to invest in transportation and infrastructure, and it fails to invest in research and development. Instead, the Trump budget would cut Head Start, cut Medicaid, cut assistance to nursing homes, and it even cuts Meals on Wheels.

This is all being done simply to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and the well-off--lifestyles of the rich and shameless. The Trump budget is a disaster, and we are going to do everything possible to vote it down.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is a separate and coequal branch of government. We don't work for Donald Trump; we work for the people of this great Nation. The events of the last few months have been deeply troubling. I am trying to figure out when will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decide that it is time to do your jobs and hold the White House accountable for its actions. When will you do your job?

Seventeen different intelligence agencies concluded that Russia interfered with our election for the purpose of helping to elect Donald Trump, but that was not enough. High-level Trump allies such as Carter Page, his foreign policy adviser; Michael Flynn, his first National Security Advisor; Jeff Sessions, his Attorney General; Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman; Michael Cohen, his personal attorney; Roger Stone, his longtime political confidant; Jared Kushner, his senior adviser and son-in-law--top Trump allies were having communications with the Russians at the same time that they were hacking into our election. But apparently, that was not enough.

Michael Flynn, the first National Security Advisor, was demonstrated to have had an illegal conversation with the Russian Ambassador in December of 2016. He then lied about it to the Vice President, who then delivered misleading information to the American people. But guess what. For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that was not enough.

The Attorney General testified under oath before Congress, and he said he had no communications with the Russians during the campaign. It was subsequently proven that he communicated with them twice at the Republican National Convention and then a few months later in his office. He either lied under oath, committed perjury, or delivered misleading information to Congress, which would be a misdemeanor. Either way, he likely committed a crime. Silence from the other side. Apparently that was not enough.

Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns, unlike every other President since Gerald Ford, Republicans and Democrats.

What is the President hiding?

We can't figure it out. And apparently for the other side, that is not enough.

The Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates, was fired by the President shortly after she went to the White House and revealed her suspicion that Michael Flynn may be a Russian asset. But apparently that was not enough.

The President fired Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, shortly after it was publically revealed that his office was investigating one of Trump's Cabinet Secretaries and close allies at FOX News. But for my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that was not enough.

The former FBI Director revealed that the Trump campaign was under criminal investigation for possible collusion with the Russians. But for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, even that was not enough.

Then the President fires the FBI Director who is leading the investigation into his campaign after it appears he urged the FBI Director to drop the case against his buddy Michael Flynn. But even for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that is not enough.

Mr. Speaker, there is a cloud of corruption hanging over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. It is time for the Speaker to get his head out of the sand. It is time for House Republicans to do the right thing. Support our demand for a special prosecutor. Support our legislation for an independent commission. It is time for House Republicans to put their country ahead of their party.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from SEIU, which states:

This legislation will leave millions without health

insurance, and decimate the Medicare program.

Mr. Speaker, the House majority has once again made clear that, under Republican rule, the system is rigged. The fix is in. The deck is stacked against hardworking Americans, and exhibit A is your reckless Republican healthcare plan. Under TrumpCare, 24 million Americans will lose access to health insurance. Under TrumpCare, a draconian age tax will be imposed on people between 50 and 64. Under TrumpCare, costs will go up, premiums will go up, copays will go up, deductibles will go up. Under TrumpCare, tens of millions of Americans who are living with preexisting conditions will be screwed.

House Republicans are out to destroy the American healthcare system as we know it, but you will be held accountable for the cruel and unusual punishment that you have decided to inflict on the American people.

Vote ``no'' against this draconian piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer a resolution previously noticed.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, under rule IX, clause 1, questions of the privileges of the House are ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.''

This resolution is privileged based on two issues of institutional integrity, both anchored in the United States Constitution.

Upon adoption of the Constitution, Senators were elected by State legislative bodies; justices were appointed by the executive branch; Presidents were placed into office indirectly through the electoral college.

The House was the only institution where Members were directly elected by the people. We were given 2-year terms to stay close to the people. Our integrity as a separate and coequal branch of government flows directly from our ability to vigilantly represent their interests.

We don't work for the executive branch. We don't work for President Trump. We work for the people of this great Nation, and the American people overwhelmingly want the President's tax returns released.

Secondarily, this House should exercise its prerogative as a separate and coequal branch of government, vigilantly represent the people, and act as a check and balance against Presidential obstruction. Our integrity hangs in the balance.

The integrity of this House also hinges, lastly, on our willingness to properly legislate changes to the Tax Code. The American people have, in many cases, lost faith in our institutions of government, in part because they believe that we are out of touch and that we do not act in the best interests of hardworking Americans.

Pursuant to Article I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, often referred to as the Origination Clause, the House of Representatives has the sole authority to initiate legislation that raises revenue for the national government.

According to a 2011 Heritage Foundation report, the taxation power was intentionally placed with the body closest to the people as part of the Great Compromise. The Heritage Foundation report urges Members of this House to ``be more zealous in protecting this exclusive prerogative.''

President Trump has expressed an interest in working with the House to take on the most significant legislative reform of our Tax Code in 30 years. How can we work with him on this legislation if we do not know how the proposed reforms might financially benefit him or the companies or countries to which he has business entanglements?

How can we ascertain whether suggestions made by the executive branch are aimed to help the American people or aimed to help the President or his allies in business or throughout the world?

The Founders of this great Nation made it so that we, as representatives of the people, have the constitutional duty to check and balance the executive branch, not the other way around.

The integrity of this body is at risk if we choose to follow the path of unfettered obedience to the executive branch. The American people deserve to see his tax returns, and we have the power in this House to make it happen.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.