Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 3230, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 915 Center Avenue in Payette, Idaho, as the Harmon Killebrew Post Office Building.

A member of the Washington Senators, Minnesota Twins, and Kansas City Royals, Harmon Killebrew excelled in major league baseball for 22 years. During that time, he notched an impressive 2,086 hits, played in 13 All-Star games, and tallied nine seasons with over 100 RBIs.

In fact, I can remember as a kid rooting for the Orioles that we didn't want Harmon Killebrew coming up to the plate.

Harmon retired in 1975 in fifth place for career home runs. He was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1984.

Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill to honor Harmon Killebrew's accomplishments to the great American pastime.

I urge the passage of H.R. 3230, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge the passage of H.R. 3230 to name the post office in Payette, Idaho, for Harmon Killebrew, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank Representatives Stivers and Takano for their sponsorship of this much needed bipartisan bill, which would expand, as you heard, coverage of Representative Stephen Lynch's Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act to newly hired healthcare veterans at the Veterans Health Administration.

Approximately one-third of VA's new hires are veterans. It is no surprise that veterans who leave military service want to continue to serve this country and the American people. We are grateful that these brave men and women, many of whom are wounded themselves, choose to devote their civilian careers to taking care of their fellow wounded warriors.

The bill would provide newly hired doctors, nurses, physician assistants, dentists, optometrists, and chiropractors at the VHA who have service-connected disabilities with 104 hours of sick leave during their first year of employment to take care of their medical conditions.

This is a very good bill that I urge my colleagues to support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), one of the sponsors of this very, very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of S. 899, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, too many Americans feel that their own democracy doesn't respect them, that they are left out and locked out of their own democracy.

That is why Democrats today are introducing the By the People Resolution, a broad set of reforms, a declaration of principles that we need to restore democracy and give people their voice back, in three broad categories of reform:

Voter empowerment, voting rights; making sure that it is easier, not harder, to access the ballot box and to cast your vote.

Ethics and accountability, because we need transparency in our government. We need to obey the rules, observe the norms. That is critical to have trust in government on the part of the people.

And lastly, campaign finance reform, because big money and special interests have way too much influence up here on Capitol Hill, and we need to do something about it.

We can do this. With a bold set of reforms, we can make sure that Americans feel respected, and we can return, finally, to a government of, by, and for the people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Pallone for yielding.

I rise in support of H.R. 5102, the Substance Use Disorder Workforce Loan Repayment Act of 2018.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the authors of the bill, my colleagues Katherine Clark and Hal Rogers, for putting this together. It is a very carefully crafted bill to address the problem which it discovered, really, which is there is this serious shortage of substance use disorder professionals across the country.

We are experiencing shortages in a lot of areas of the healthcare workforce, that is true, but if we are going to address the opioid crisis that we face, this epidemic across the country, we have to bring particular attention to the workforce shortages with respect to substance use disorder professionals.

According to SAMHSA, which is the agency which deals with these issues, in 2012, the turnover rates in the addiction services workforce ranged from 18.5 to over 50 percent. So there is a huge turnover there that has to be addressed.

In a recent survey, nearly half of clinical directors in agencies that specialize in substance use disorder treatment acknowledged that they have real difficulty filling these open positions.

In my district, I have heard from many of the community health centers--Baltimore Medical System, Health Care for the Homeless, and others--that said they can't hire enough of these folks and they can't keep enough of these folks to address the opioid crisis.

We need this workforce to address the millions of people who require this important treatment, and this bill does that. It is a very, very important step forward. It will create this loan repayment program for professionals who are in this area of substance use disorder treatment. They can receive up to $250,000 if they agree to work as a treatment professional in this area and in a geographical area of high need.

Again, carefully crafted, this treatment can take place in a number of different facilities, community health centers, hospitals, recovery programs, correctional facilities, et cetera.

So the idea was to figure out where those shortages are and direct the bill's support to those areas: a broad range of direct care providers, physicians, registered nurses, social workers, and other behavioral health providers.

This is going to help address the problem of recruitment, attracting new people to the field, as well as help with retention of those people. It is a very, very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join my colleagues, Katherine Clark, Hal Rogers on our committee, Brett Guthrie, and others, in supporting this. I hope all of my colleagues here today will support this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, no matter what you think of S. 2155, one of the underlying bills being considered today, it is not what a clear majority of Americans want Congress to be doing.

Madam Speaker, nobody is coming up to us in townhalls and asking Congress to deregulate large financial institutions. We are not going to a fish fry

and hearing from people that they want us to dismantle important consumer protections. And nobody at VFW halls, Rotary Clubs, and PTA meetings thinks this bill should be Congress' priority.

The reason this bill is on the floor is that the power brokers on Wall Street want it on the floor. It is their bill; it is not the people's bill.

Our broken campaign finance system lies at the heart of this warped political system, where big money calls the shots in Washington.

For starters, in this broken system, too many good candidates without access to big money are effectively barred from running altogether. Those who can make it through have to spend hours dialing for dollars, courting a narrow slice of the Nation's elite, while high-powered lobbyists and special interests are dictating legislation here in Congress, just like today.

Most recently, these backroom power brokers used their influence to demand billion-dollar handouts for the wealthiest 1 percent from the GOP tax scam. Now they are once again tearing down critical rules to protect our financial system from another economic collapse.

Today's previous question would force a vote on H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, a comprehensive reform of our campaign finance system to combat the influence of big money in our politics, raise civic engagement, and amplify the voice of everyday Americans.

This legislation would increase and multiply the power of small donors in America, breaking candidates' reliance on the big money crowd, giving candidates the resources they need to compete and win.

That way, when it comes time to make policy, the elected representatives of the people will work on behalf of our constituents, not the big money donors.

Madam Speaker, the American people are sick of getting a raw deal from Washington. That is why Democrats are offering a better deal for our democracy: a comprehensive reform agenda to get rid of the corruption that has led to such a dysfunctional political system here in Washington. We will deliver real reforms that will restore a government of, by, and for the people.

Mr. Speaker, this week, teachers, students and families across the country will celebrate the importance of reading by taking part in the National Education Association's Read Across America Day. Research shows that literacy begins before school even starts. Young children who have been read to at home and have had access to a variety of reading materials, develop into stronger readers. That's why programs like Dolly Parton's Imagination Library are so important.

Each month, Imagination Library mails over one million free books to children around the world, including seven thousand in Baltimore. Today, as Dolly donates her hundred millionth book to the Library of Congress, I thank her for her inspiring dedication to children's literacy and I applaud everyone participating in Read Across America Day.

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

I am opposed.

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is about promoting greater transparency and shareholder review of political campaign activity of public corporations.

As we have heard, the underlying bill would create new restrictions on proxy advisory firms that would erode their capacity to provide reliable, independent advice to public company investors: institutional investors such as pension funds that serve firefighters, teachers, and police officers. My amendment would restore the ability of advisory firms to provide research and vote recommendations regarding a public company's spending on political campaign contributions.

Over the past half a century, public companies have increasingly entered the political arena, spending huge sums on political contributions and campaign activity. Court rulings like Citizens United and SpeechNOW.org have opened new avenues of influence for corporate America and have worked to amplify the role of public companies in our politics. Mr. Speaker, the public is becoming increasingly anxious about this.

Fortunately, in recent years, some shareholders and public interest organizations have successfully put pressure on public corporations to adopt shareholder review of corporate political activity, stemming the tide of unchecked political spending from public corporations. Yet the underlying bill would unwind that progress, giving corporations direct influence over proxy advisory firm recommendations to shareholders regarding political activity, knocking down yet another pillar of political accountability in our politics.

Mr. Speaker, we need more, not less political accountability from our Nation's corporations. As this week has shown, corporate America has an outsized influence in our Nation's public policy. Look no further than today's vote on the GOP tax scam or yesterday's further deregulation of some of our Nation's largest financial institutions.

There is no mystery as to why this has happened. A sophisticated corporate influence economy involving campaign contributions, aggressive lobbying, a web of trade associations, corporate-backed think tanks, and outside political organizations has sprung up in Washington to shape who runs for office, who wins office, and the policies we in Congress adopt.

Mr. Speaker, Americans hate this system. They hate the arrogance with which monied interests exert their influence on our politics and our government. They feel that their voice, the voice of the people, is ignored while Big Money insiders have their way on Capitol Hill. They want us to change the corrosive status quo.

Mr. Speaker, we can take a small step forward with this amendment to restore the American people's faith in our ability to stand up to corporate power. We should adopt this modest, but important change to an otherwise flawed piece of legislation.

At a minimum, we should protect the opportunity for institutional investors to receive independent research and advice when it comes to the political activity of public companies. It is about transparency. It is about accountability. It is about the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3312. I appreciate my colleague's redesignation, renaming of the bill. I think it is much more appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, this is a completely unwarranted piece of legislation. If you look at it, it is just another gift to the wealthy and the well connected on Wall Street.

We keep saying that over here because it is true. It is crazy. In 2008, the economy was brought to its knees. Reckless behavior out there by a lot of these huge institutions. The Nation's largest financial institutions crashed the economy. Everybody knows it.

So what did we do? We took steps, smart steps. We put in place the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protect Act of 2010. I think most Americans were comforted by that. They felt, okay. There are guardrails in place now so this kind of thing can't happen again.

But the fact of the matter is that, as soon as the ink was dry on that law, lobbyists moved in, the special interests moved in, and they started to unwind the core provisions, and the guardrails are starting to come down.

This is crazy. This is a case of amnesia at best or cynical capitulation to Wall Street at worst.

Proponents of the legislation say this is about helping the mom-and- pop banks on Main Street--Main Street. Were institutions like Countrywide and Washington Mutual and Wachovia and IndyMac--these are the names that haunt a lot of Americans. A lot of American households suffered because of the behavior of those institutions. Were they Main Street banks?

The fact is, under the bill before us, some of the Nation's largest banks whose failure led to the carnage of 2008 would be exempt from heightened oversight. Exactly the kind of institutions that the public wants us to keep an eye on would no longer have that oversight in place. Of those still standing, 30 of the Nation's 38 largest financial institutions would escape sensible oversight imposed by Dodd-Frank.

Even more than that, this legislation is based on the false premise that the reforms of Dodd-Frank were one size fits all. That is the phrase we always hear to justify letting go of the reins: Oh, it is one size fits all. People can't fit into this. We have got to do something.

But, no, the agency was given the maneuvering room, the flexibility, to actually customize things and have been in a position to do that.

There was a premium put on regulatory flexibility, explicitly instructing the Federal Reserve to tailor its prudential regulatory regime based on size and risk profile of financial institutions.

Ironically, the changes to asset thresholds will increase the likelihood of consolidation as large financial institutions and banks can now grow, that is, buy out small players beyond the $50 billion threshold. The banks are going to start growing bigger again. The financial institutions are going to get heavier again. It makes it easier for them to crash through whatever guardrails we can build.

The public doesn't want this, and that means true community banks very well might be absorbed by super-regional banks, which would decrease consumer credit access and worsen pricing.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are tired of watching this Congress forget the lessons of the 2008 financial crash. They are tired of a Congress that routinely favors Wall Street over the interests of Main Street, and they are tired of the same worn-out talking points that are used to justify deregulation of Wall Street.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to Todd Redlin of Annapolis, Maryland on his retirement after serving twenty-five years at the U.S. House of Representatives. Todd retired October 31, 2017 as a Senior Engineer/Broadcast Specialist at the House Recording Studio in the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer.

Todd was born October 28, 1952 to Kathleen and Robert Redlin outside of Green Bay, Wisconsin. His father was a Navigator/Bombardier in the United States Air Force for thirty years and with him Todd traveled to numerous locations both within the United States and abroad.

Todd started his broadcasting career with CBS News in 1976 and worked there until coming to the House in 1991. At CBS, Todd was part of a camera crew that covered a plethora of stories, traveled with the press corps on many national campaigns and covered other news events both locally and internationally. Todd often provided the broadcast video coverage of many tragic events such as hurricanes, floods and plane crashes for CBS News.

Todd started working at the House Recording Studio in 1992 as a Camera Operator and then moved on to become a Senior Camera Operator. He then moved from the Production Department to the Engineering Department and retired as a Senior Engineer/Broadcast Specialist.

Todd's tenure at the House Recording Studio included the broadcasts and webcasts of many Congressional events including committee hearings, Congressional Gold Medal ceremonies, official luncheons and receptions and the annual lighting of the Congressional Christmas tree. In addition to his skills as an operator, Todd is also a very capable video editor.

Todd has a younger brother in Texas and married his wife Kathy on May 30, 1981. They have three beautiful children, Trevor, Lindsey and Allison. According to Todd, his four-year-old grandson Wesley is ``a character and a handful. He is just like having a full time job!''

Todd lists ``the camaraderie with my co-workers'' as his best memories of his twenty-five-plus years working at the House Recording Studio.

His colleagues and I wish him well in his retirement as he spends more time with his grandson and his hobbies: playing tennis, fishing, traveling and rooting for the Green Bay Packers. We thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress careens toward passage of a massive rewrite of our Tax Code, we ought to look at the process that got us here. This tax bill has seen no hearings, no expert testimony, and absolutely no honest efforts to build bipartisan support. This is a terrible shame and the result is a terrible sham.

Who are the ones calling the shots on this tax bill?

The corporate lobbyists and the big money donors who will make out like bandits. They are the ones who will walk away with a smile on their face and money in their pocket. Meanwhile, millions of hardworking Americans will see their taxes increase under this plan. The latest numbers from the CBO say that 82 million Americans will be worse off.

A good tax plan would be trying to address widening wealth and income inequality in our country. A good tax plan would be seeking to invest in our people and our infrastructure. It would seek to help working families and build up the middle class. But this plan does the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to pull the plug on this tax proposal that is of, by, and for the wealthy and well-connected. We can, and we must, do better for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Republican tax plan, a tax plan that is of, by, and for the wealthy and well connected.

How do we know this?

Yesterday, a Republican Congressman told a Capitol Hill reporter: ``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever call me again.' ''

There you have it, a window into the true motivation for this bill. It is a massive giveaway to the big donor class. It slashes the corporate tax rate, guts the estate tax to benefit millionaires and billionaires, and creates a new loophole so the superwealthy can disguise their income.

What is worse, this Republican tax bill would be devastating for millions of middle- and lower-income Americans. It attacks the State and local tax deduction and the mortgage interest deduction. It eliminates tax deductions for medical expenses and student debt. It increases the deficit by approximately $1.5 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve a better deal.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017 because it weakens States' rights to protect their own water quality.

Under the Clean Water Act, States have the right to protect their water by setting water quality conditions on hydropower licenses. This bill would constrain that authority, forcing States to issue rushed conditions using incomplete scientific data, or surrender their authority to issue conditions at all. In short, the choice that States have to protect their water and their people is to either do it poorly or not at all.

We had a fix for this. We had an amendment to H.R. 3043, but it was not made in order. It would have preserved the critical role States play in protecting local water quality by exempting their rights under the Clean Water Act from the bill.

For Marylanders in my State, this issue is bipartisan and hits close to home. FERC is currently considering the relicensing of a hydroelectric dam on the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna provides 50 percent of all of the freshwater that reaches the Chesapeake Bay, making it a critical driver of the Bay's water quality. Any new FERC license will need to have conditions that protect the Susquehanna and the Bay from the sediment and nutrient pollution built up behind the dam. That is why even Republicans in our State, the secretary of the environment, and secretary of natural resources sent a letter urging Congress to strike the provisions in this bill that would limit Maryland's ability to set water quality conditions.

I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this body, who so often remark on the importance of protecting States' rights from usurping Federal agencies, have refused to protect States by bringing this critical amendment to the floor.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3043.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, whatever priority or alternative use of these funds is being proposed, I can't imagine that it would compete with where this money is being taken away from. The $30 million that has been identified would be taken away from the Fulbright Program, which is one of the most effective programs of public diplomacy the United States has ever produced.

Authored by William Fulbright, it has established cultural exchange for decades between the United States and countries around the world and done so much good in terms of projecting American values abroad and inviting people from other countries to come here to the United States to learn about our Nation and what we stand for.

I admit that I am biased. I had the privilege and honor, back in 1984, to go to Greece on a Fulbright scholarship, and I saw firsthand the benefits of that program.

There are 37 current and former heads of state or government and 57 Nobel laureates who are alumni of the Fulbright Program. The various programs of international cultural exchange are a signature of international exchange that we have in this country. It is really the crown jewel of those programs, and to take any money away from the program, I think, is a very serious mistake.

I would also add that investment in the Fulbright Program leverages a tremendous amount of additional resources when you look at what other countries have put into the equation. The program now operates in 165 countries around the world, and 49 of those countries match or exceed the funding that the United States puts into the program.

So, in other words, we have invited countries around the world to step up and partner with us through the Fulbright Program on international exchange. They have taken that invitation seriously, and they have put significant resources behind it, which has kept the program strong even though funding, recently, here in this country has been flat.

If anything, we should be increasing our investment in a program like this at a time when public diplomacy and making sure that people around the world understand who we are and what we stand for should be a number one priority.

I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to reject this amendment. I think it is a mistake. There are 1,300 U.S. colleges and universities, half of which are public and more than 125 of which are minority serving, that now benefit from hosting Fulbright scholars here in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't quarrel with the concerns and priorities that my colleague has set forth. Let's find resources to address those issues, but let's not take them from a proven valuable program like the Fulbright Program.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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

Mr. Chair, during rollcall Vote No. 428 on H.R. 3219, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``present'' when I should have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Perry

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, here we are again: the special interests are running the show in Washington. Pointblank, this resolution will make it harder for Americans to get justice. Specifically, this will unwind critical new rules that allow financial consumers to take collective action. You heard that right. This is an effort to take away your ability to sue big banks when they run you over. Instead, the majority wants to force you into unfair, bureaucratic arbitration processes that severely disadvantage you in favor of the Wall Street firms.

I always ask the same question when the Republicans bring these measures up here to gut consumer protections: Who back home is asking for this? Who is coming to the townhalls and begging to repeal this rule? Who is asking you to make it harder to seek damages when someone is being harmed by a big bank?

Nobody is asking for this. In fact, as Keith Ellison said a few minutes ago, there are 100,000 people who are beseeching us to support this rule to protect them out there. Nobody is asking to repeal this rule or shut this rule down.

I know who wants it here in Washington. It is the big money special interests, the so-called swamp. We can't let this happen. The American people should be furious.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless, shameful effort.