Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I wish to speak on behalf of the amendment.

Madam Chair, I begin by thanking the chairman of the committee and his staff for their dedication to getting this amendment here today and for their long and strong defense of our electoral system from foreign interference.

Madam Chair, a few weeks ago, Special Counsel Robert Mueller stood before the American people and issued a stern warning and an ominous challenge. In what he referred to as the central allegation of his 2- year-long investigation, he told us that there were ``multiple, systemic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.''

Our democracy was attacked, our government undermined, and our election system weakened. We were manipulated.

A foreign adversary exposed many of our worst impulses as they hacked, prodded, forged, stole, lied, and exploited in a coordinated and sustained effort to change the trajectory of this country.

We cannot change what happened in 2016, but we can learn from it because our adversaries certainly did. They watched as politicians were all too eager to use hacked material. They took notes as social media networks were used to inflame racial, geographic, and demographic divisions.

According to the ``Worldwide Threat Assessment'' by the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, Russia, China, and Iran already have their eyes trained on 2020.

That is why we must proactively create a foreign threat response center tasked with identifying and rejecting any attempts by any adversary to influence our political process because we cannot hold ourselves up as a beacon of democracy if we are not willing to defend the institutions upon which our democratic system rests.

By removing politics from this response and coordinating it under one roof within the intelligence community, we can rebuild that faith in our system.

In this body, we have no greater responsibility than to protect the sanctity of our elections, to protect the trust of our citizens, and to protect our faith in government. That is what this amendment codifies.

Madam Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just say, in closing, that I appreciate the gentleman's words and the work that they did with us to get the report language into the version last year. I would point out that much of the intent behind this legislation and this amendment is directly related to what the gentleman indicated around an ongoing threat assessment from Russia, China, and Iran.

The issue isn't so much, has that threat been identified? It is, what has the Intelligence Committee done to ensure the sanctity and the purity of those elections?

I think this amendment speaks for itself. I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her passionate work on this issue.

The President's transgender military ban doesn't just ignore science, expert testimony, military experience, and the advice of all five military chiefs of staff, it ignores the men and women who are willing to die in defense of our freedom.

So I ask my colleagues one simple question: Are you willing to look into the eyes of a trans servicemember and tell them that they are not qualified to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces simply because of who they are, that our country won't allow them their most basic freedom while expecting them to die for our own?

If our Nation's fundamental promise that we are all created equal doesn't apply to all, then what are we asking them to defend in the first place?

Mr. Speaker, this administration continues to tell us that our economic recovery is chugging along, that it has even been hypercharged under President Trump.

They say there is well over 7.5 million unfilled jobs and 6 million people looking for work, that wages are beginning to pick up. The stock market has reached record highs and the unemployment rate, record lows.

So why aren't our constituents celebrating, saving, and spending at equally historic rates?

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Chamber knows what I am talking about. They can feel it. Why does it all seem so fragile, like this country is walking on economic eggshells?

Because that is how it feels to American families every single day. Because in today's America, you can work a 12-hour shift, 7 days a week, year after year--get in one car accident on your way home from work and end up bankrupt.

Because the cost of a college education is leaving a generation of graduates with a high-interest mortgage without the house.

Because the cost of childcare is becoming even more unaffordable than that college degree.

Because the cost of a two-bedroom apartment swallows up the income of a full-time minimum wage worker in every single neighborhood in our country.

Because nearly 40 percent of Americans can't afford an unexpected $400 medical bill, and skyrocketing pharmaceutical costs are forcing families to open GoFundMe pages to keep their kids alive.

Just over a decade after hitting rock bottom, our economy is still sick for a very simple reason: We haven't correctly diagnosed the cause of that illness.

We are comforted by the improvement of external symptoms, like stock

prices and unemployment rates; meanwhile, our economy's heart is in dire straits. Small businesses are shuttered, factories are fleeing, family farms are closing, and once-prosperous American towns are barely scraping by.

To blame for this chronic illness is a system that has whittled away protection, opportunity, justice, and dignity for the American worker.

Our workers rise like their parents before them--early. They work hard to provide for their family for well into the night; they skip lunch breaks; they defer vacation; they trade with coworkers to take an overtime shift--all to care for the ones they love. And yet the jobs that they hold won't even allow for that.

The whole point of a job is to earn a living and make a life, to contribute to something purposeful, to be able to provide for your loved ones in return.

If American jobs can't meet the needs of Americans, then what is the point? How will the greatest economy in the world possibly endure if its people can't keep up.

Mr. Speaker, I read a story a few weeks ago about a few local Home Depot employees who built a walker for a little boy whose parents were not certain that insurance would cover a proper one. And just yesterday, news sites blasted a story of a 9-year-old little boy in California who used his own allowance to pay off the lunch debts of his classmates.

The goodness of those workers, of those children is incredible, and thank God we have people like them among us. But a moral, a just, a fair, an accountable, and a decent economy wouldn't call those stories heartwarming but heartbreaking, a damning indictment of a system that bars countless Americans of basic necessity, particularly in their moments of deepest need.

A moral capitalism would put quality on the same page as quantity. It wouldn't just ask for integrity and decency from the public and private sectors running our economic show, it would demand it, with laws that work in tandem to guarantee that when our kids get sick, we can take care of them; when our roof falls, we can repair it; when our stomachs ache, we can fill them; and when we tire, we can rest.

Mr. Speaker, that shouldn't be too much for anyone to ask.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his assistance, for his leadership on this important issue, and for the time.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has been 10 years in the making for Indian Country. A decade ago, a Supreme Court ruling created unnecessary confusion in the interpretation and application of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.

This bill, H.R. 375, would clarify the ensuing confusion. Among other things, it would ensure the IRA applies to all Native American Tribes recognized by the Federal Government, regardless of their date of recognition.

For the last 10 years, the unnecessary confusion has caused uncertainty for Tribes seeking recognition and recognized lands, has halted economic development projects on Tribal lands, and has resulted in costly and protracted litigation.

Members and staff on both sides of the aisle deserve significant recognition for getting us to where we are today. But, in particular, Chairman Grijalva, Representative McCollum, and Representative Cole have been extraordinary. I thank them for their incredible leadership on Tribal issues, and their perseverance in pursuing a clean Carcieri fix.

I am honored to have the opportunity to speak on this. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for moving this critical piece of legislation forward and for shepherding it to the House floor today.

I thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Keating, for his advocacy on behalf of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, which calls both of our districts home.

Nearly four centuries ago, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe opened their homes and their lands to the Pilgrims who sailed to our shores. That same welcoming spirit survives in their ancestors who live in Massachusetts today.

That is why I am proud to have the Wampanoag people call my district their home. They have planted their roots deeply in Massachusetts, and they see a future of self-determination and prosperity in the city of Taunton.

But I am ashamed of how our Nation has treated them in the 398 years since they shared their precious resources with those strangers, not to mention the generations before them that called the region home for nearly 12,000 years.

I am ashamed of how our Nation has treated many Native people throughout our history and how we have taken their land, silenced their voices, poisoned their water, and disrupted their culture. We have dismissed their very humanity.

It is that shame that leaves us here today with a decision to make. Today, as this House debates this bill, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is on the verge of dissolution. An unjust Supreme Court decision, followed by a reversal by the Department of the Interior to take the Tribe's land into trust, has left the Tribe with no other options. They are without access to critical Federal funds to support their public services, including health centers and schools.

The question today is, do we allow this to become a closing chapter in the story of an indigenous people who put their faith and trust into strangers? Do we allow a legal loophole to define American citizens out of existence?

Or do we begin to right the wrongs of our past? Do we begin to march down a path of justice and equality and hope for the Native people whose dreams for this country outlive our very democracy?

To me, that choice is simple. It is a matter of right and wrong, of correcting a historical injustice that has perpetrated for far too long. It would simply put the Mashpee Tribe on equal footing with all other federally recognized Native American Tribes.

I want to take a minute, Mr. Speaker, to rebut some of the arguments made by our colleagues.

One, that this is an off-reservation development: There is no reservation. There is nothing to be off-reservation. I cannot imagine that the argument actually is that, for a Tribe that called thousands of acres home, you are going to say they can only represent one small portion of that and not have two facilities. That can't possibly be how the U.S. Government is dictating what Tribal lands can be today of an area they called home for 12,000 years.

Two, my colleagues argued that this overrules a court decision. The last time I checked, that is what Congress does. We write laws. The courts interpret them. They strike down laws all the time. We write them again. That is in the Constitution. That is inherent in our responsibilities, in our obligation. The actual court decision, if you read it, indicates that Congress has the inherent power to do exactly what we are doing, 100 percent.

Three, our colleagues referenced the Gun Lake decision and the Gun Lake legislation. Gun Lake was a response to a decision by the Supreme Court as well, 100 percent.

We have heard allegations of lobbyists. The lobbyist for our colleagues in Rhode Island for their casinos is married to a communications official in the White House. You can't possibly be saying that there is some issue here with Federal lobbying that is not directly and 100 percent in line with lining their own pockets for the opposition to this bill.

They said that the Tribe is about to go bankrupt. The Tribe is about to go bankrupt, but all of a sudden, the Tribe doesn't owe the financiers money. Which one is it?

Next, Federal benefits, they are saying that all the Federal benefits will remain. That ignores the Federal benefits that come with Federal recognition of reservations: the Indian Business Development Program, Financial Assistance and Social Services, employment assistance for adult Indians, vocational training for adult Indians, educational contracts under the Johnson-O'Malley Act, food distribution programs on the Indian reservation, Tribal transportation programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Tribal justice system grants, treatment as a State under the Clean Water Act, treatment as a State under the Clean Air Act, exercise of Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction. All of those are contingent on this bill today.

A dangerous precedent is going to be set. The dangerous precedent that is going to be set is that Massachusetts residents legalized gambling. The Tribe went through a compact with the State that was approved. They went through a referendum with the people of Taunton that was approved nearly 60-40 that townspeople in Taunton want this bill. They want this development.

It is a billion dollars for a working-class community. The folks who don't are, yes, a few residents of that community whose lawsuit has been financed by a rival casino developer to end this project so they can build a different one down the road.

They say that this is too close to the Rhode Island border. There is an existing casino in Rhode Island that recently started 500 yards from the Massachusetts border. You cannot be serious about this.

There is no argument, other than greed, that comes back to why anyone should vote against this bill. This is about the recognition of a sovereign nation that welcomed strangers to their land 400 years ago and helped us celebrate our first Thanksgiving, and the ability of our Federal Government to recognize them for who they are. If nothing else, this Tribe deserves that.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join Myrtle Baptist Church, the Newton community, and the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts in mourning the loss of Reverend Howard Haywood.

A little over a year ago, I walked into Myrtle Baptist with my family, and Reverend Haywood welcomed us with a warm embrace that few could match. It was that physical, emotional embrace that countless congregants and visitors will never forget.

With eight generations of his family calling Newton home, the reverend liked to talk about how the city shaped him. If anything, our city stands kinder, stronger, and more just because of him.

A journeyman bricklayer and construction worker for five decades, he literally built Massachusetts into what it is today. Yet he still felt like he had more to offer, so he spent the little free time he found fighting for affordable housing and civil rights for his fellow citizens.

To his wife, Katy; his daughter, Kristen; his son, Howard, Jr.; and the entire Haywood family, please know how grateful we are that you shared this magnificent man with all of us.

Mr. Speaker, equal has always been our Nation's North Star.

Endowed by our creator, inscribed by Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence, engraved above the doors to the highest court in our land, codified in our Constitution after a war tore our country apart, it is that pursuit of equality, that journey for a more perfect Union, that sets America apart.

At times, we have stumbled. We have enslaved men, women, and children because of the color of their skin. We have segregated those same families in the first breaths of their freedom.

We have stigmatized fellow Americans based on their race, their ancestry, their god, the nation of their birth, the hand that they hold, and their very identity.

Some willing to die for our freedom fought wars only to meet a government that offered them a handshake and a return to second-class citizenship.

Today, this House has a chance to not repeat the mistakes of our past, to move one step closer to that sacred promise by telling brave trans men and women in uniform that they cannot be banned from military service because of who they are--because that is the very foundation for this policy: targeted discrimination against transgender Americans.

Supporters will say otherwise. It is about unit cohesion, they say-- except for the fact that the five chiefs of staff for the military branches have testified that they are aware of exactly zero instances of a transgender servicemember negatively impacting discipline or morale.

It will degrade our military, they say--except that 56 retired generals and flag officers told us that it is the ban that would degrade readiness, ``even more than the failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy'' did.

It is science, they say--except that the Department of Defense relied on data nearly half a century old and ignored plenty of other studies.

Just ask the American Medical Association, the American Psychology Association, the American Psychiatric Association.

It is about cost, they say--except that the military spends ten times more annually on erectile dysfunction medication than we have on trans- related care in the past 3 years combined.

It is not a ban, they say. Ask any one of the brave transgender servicemembers or veterans in the gallery today exactly what this ban means.

Mr. Speaker, in a country that celebrates freedom, this policy tells our servicemembers that they do not have the freedom to be who they are. Where is the freedom in that?

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump's budget landed with a thud on the backs of working Americans this week.

Its message is quite simple: this administration will reward wealth with one hand and target working families with another.

To this President, avoiding the estate tax for wealthy heirs is an entitlement, but the healthcare of everyday Americans is expendable.

To this President, carried interest on passive income is a worthy tax benefit for executives, while a livable minimum wage for a working parent is a burden we cannot afford.

To this President, a lengthy record of felony convictions won't deny your tax credit for a private jet, but a conviction for misdemeanor drug possession could cost you the roof over your head.

A budget that puts Americans first doesn't deem millions of Americans unworthy.

A budget that puts Americans first doesn't starve them of housing, of healthcare, and of food because their President counts stock market gains as more important than our common humanity.

But putting Americans first has never been the fundamental policy of this administration. It has always been to draw a bright line between the wealthy and the striving.

I stand to reject this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Senator Harris Wofford, a giant in our Nation's history and a dear friend.

For decades, at every single inflection point in our Nation's march towards equality, Senator Wofford stood proudly and strongly on the side of justice and decency. But he wasn't one who could be confined only to our shores. Before, during, and after his time in the United States Senate, Harris sought out injustice around the world and asked how he could help.

Not only is he an inspiration to any aspiring public servant, he has been a close friend to generations of my own family. To his husband, Mr. Charlton, his children, Susanne, Daniel, and David, and all of the members of his family and friends who loved him so dearly, know that our thoughts and prayers are with you and that Harris' memory and our Nation will never forget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for her support and for her observation about the utility of fax machines; the gentleman from North Carolina as well for his comments of support; and my colleague, Mr. Graves, for his leadership, his advocacy on this piece of legislation, and for his determination in getting this done. It was a long, long slog to try to navigate our way through the morass to get there, but we did, and Mr. Graves' office deserves a lot of credit for that.

We were able to clear the House unanimously last year, Mr. Speaker, and I am excited for our prospects this year.

Importantly, as well, Mr. Speaker, today is the first time that identical texts have been introduced in the United States Senate. Senators Carper and Portman are taking the lead, and I look forward to our offices working together to get this bill across the finish line.

For all the attention that is placed on Members of Congress when we are in Washington, there is no more important responsibility of this job than helping our constituents back home. Whether assisting a veteran seeking benefits or a retiree accessing Medicare, we can ease the burden off of our neighbors' shoulders by getting them the help that they have earned.

When one of our constituents calls our office, whether it is in Newton, Massachusetts, or in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, they don't ask us about our political parties or policy positions; they just ask for a little bit of help.

Usually, those neighbors only reach our office when they have fought every other battle possible first; but too often, archaic rules, as outlined by Mr. Meadows, build obstacles in our efforts to provide that help. With the CASES for Constituents Act, we can modernize our government, streamline that process, and more directly assist them when they need it.

Let's bring the casework process a step closer to the 21st century and provide electronic access to privacy release forms.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, a few days ago I walked into a Coast Guard base in Boston and I saw something I never thought I would witness on American soil. Members of our Armed Forces were lined up at a food pantry while they were on the clock because their employer, the United States Government, wasn't paying them for the work that they put in that day.

Madam Speaker, look around this country, and you will see nearly a million civil servants and more than a million contract workers who are forced to deter medical care, find part-time jobs, return Christmas presents, take out loans, pawn valuable possessions, draw down retirement savings, just to afford to feed their family and to keep a roof over their head.

You will find families that are terrified that their food stamps will run out. You will see notices threatening eviction for families who are upholding their end of their rent, while the government defaults on its own obligations.

You will see businesses struggling to stay afloat under lost Federal support. Domestic violence organizations will have to turn away survivors because critical grant funding isn't coming through.

Yes, this is about a misguided and demagogued immigration fight. And, yes, this is squarely about a President who couldn't keep his promise.

But at its core, it is about an administration that has spent 2 years treating the livelihood of working families as a bargaining chip, quickly traded away time and again to protect power, profit, and political gain.

Theirs is a system that asks American workers to make painful sacrifices that those in power only read about; a system where tax cuts for international corporations are paid for by Medicaid cuts for working families; where healthcare premiums skyrocket for the sick and the suffering; where healthcare industry executives reap the reward.

Theirs is a system where labor protections for workers are wiped out as distant CEOs lay off loyal employees and gut pensions; where a safety net that keeps our fellow Americans afloat shrinks and tears as their President smiles and holds the scissors; where profits accrue to those who have already profited, and the loss is borne by those who can least afford to bear it.

Beyond the shutdown, beyond this President, our government needs to prove to the American people that we are fighting for them. Because right now, they don't believe we are in their corner, and I don't blame them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, last month, a judge delivered a ruling to gut the Affordable Care Act, a warning shot that was fired at millions of Americans of all ages, backgrounds, and beliefs. The decision changed little immediately, but that didn't matter. Patients again panicked because, yes, they have been here before.

The family with a young child who will spend their entire life battling diabetes, the father in remission, the young woman facing addiction desperately seeking treatment, over the past 2 years, they have watched their government, led by a Republican Congress and a reckless President, come after their healthcare coverage again and again and again.

So families wake up wondering if this is the day. Is this the day where they succeed, the day the President finally wins, the day my coverage goes away, the day I have to face my loved ones, my kids, my ailing parents, and tell them that we can't afford the care to make their suffering go away?

They deserve better, and that is why I ask everyone to support this rules package.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, GM went to bed with a record $3.2 billion in profits last quarter alone. Its shareholders went to bed with a 5 percent surge in stock prices, plus the $10.6 billion the company has spent on buybacks since 2015. Meanwhile, 14,000 GM workers spent a sleepless night wondering if their jobs and livelihoods would still be there for them the next morning.

There is no better snapshot of our country's current, toxic brand of capitalism, where we are operating in a system that demands that workers labor harder and harder to meet basic human needs but refuses to share even a slice of the success that they helped create.

For those of us in this Chamber this morning, it is about more than one company or one balance sheet. It is about 50 years of giving the private sector explicit permission to cast workers aside. It is about an economy that has become the antithesis of what our country stands for: equity, decency, justice, and hard work.

President Trump has made his response to these economic inequities very clear. His is a country of bitter rivalry between fellow citizens forced to endlessly spar over the scraps of that system: ``My wages can't go up unless your food stamps are taken away.'' ``Your medical bills can't fall unless my insurance goes.'' So Americans spend their days fighting each other over economic crumbs while our system quietly delivers the entire pot to those at the top.

That is the reality that our new Democratic majority must address for the coal miner in Kentucky, the daycare worker in New York, the fifth- generation farming family in Ohio, the first-generation immigrant family in Massachusetts, the mostly White towns in West Virginia devastated by an opioid epidemic, and the communities of color across our country terrorized by the war on drugs.

Forget where they are from or what they look like or how they vote. All of these Americans face an economy that does not operate for them. They live in cities and towns that are likely to be medically underserved, educationally ostracized from today's job market, plagued by inadequate infrastructure, and burdened by crumbling homes or houses that no one can afford.

They disproportionately shoulder the hard words that can make life hurt: ``eviction,'' ``addiction,'' ``bankruptcy,'' and ``violence.''

They hail from the places where polling locations disappear, where the biggest economic engine is a payday lender, where lead poisons their children's water, and where injustice and insufficiency fester for generations before a government thinks to step in.

This is the challenge of our time. It is the injustice that we have to solve not just because of our politics, but because our system will not survive if we don't.

I believe in that system.

American capitalism has done great good for a great number of people. It has given the average American a better standard of living than anywhere else in the world, lifted millions out of poverty, and powered our globe. But its current iteration is badly broken, and the sooner we admit it, the sooner we can strip it to the studs and build something better.

A moral capitalism is judged not just by how much it produces, but by how widely it shares, how much good it does for how many, and how well it takes care of each and every single one of us.

Mr. Speaker, this month we mark the 60th anniversary of the enactment of the National Cultural Center Act, which established the institution now known as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

The 85th Congress and President Eisenhower envisioned a cultural center which would present performances of dance, drama, music, opera, and poetry, develop arts programming to encourage the participation of and educate citizens of all ages, from the young to the elderly, and provide a space for civic activity.

Today, the Kennedy Center accomplishes these original mandates from 1958 to serve the nation through cultural innovation and inclusive programming. This past season, the Kennedy Center showcased 2,203 performances and reached 1,405,796 students through school and community programs. The Kennedy Center has broken ground on an expanded physical campus for civic activity and increased accessibility; the REACH (Renew, Experience, Activate, Create, and Honor) will open the week of the National Cultural Center Act's 60th anniversary.

I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking the many members of the public who over the past six decades have partnered with and supported our national cultural center.