Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for our Nation of immigrants, a wall rejects our very history. A wall is not about America leading the world. A wall is about trying to shut off the rest of the world.

Ignored today, of course, is the history of how poorly laws have worked to stop desperate people. Most all of those who are coming to America--risking their lives, suffocating in the back of a truck, going over a perilous desert--are not here to cause us harm; they are not here to do wrong and mooch off of our social services. They are trying to escape violence or provide a little hope to their family. And they do it by taking the dirtiest, toughest jobs in our society, as immigrants have done since the very founding of our Nation. A wall only makes their path more perilous without offering us more security.

Last year, Trump's most famous and oft repeated claim was that he would build a wall that Mexico would pay for. But, this year, we just have one broken Trump campaign promise after another.

Today, we have confirmation that Trump is just putting taxpayers on the hook to pay for another section of a wall--yes, a wall of broken campaign promises. Instead of a wall, we ought to be building opportunity. As Austin Mayor Steve Adler said, ``bridges make money, and walls cost money.''

Building Trump's boondoggle in the desert, at the same time he says we can't afford medical research or educational opportunity or job training, just shows how backward these priorities are. Let's oppose a wall of ignorance, a wall of prejudice, and create a bridge of opportunity. To achieve both true security and economic growth, we need to reject this narrow-minded approach in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.

It once included the State of Colorado, or part of it.

Madam Speaker, I think Republicans are just scared. They are afraid to leave town this week without doing another favor for Wall Street, and this proposal to undermine consumer rights is the next gift that they want to bestow on the big banks.

Republicans can never seem to find their voice, no matter how outrageous the latest Trump tweet might be. They cannot pass meaningful legislation on other subjects, but they feel compelled to answer when Wall Street comes ``a calling,'' as it has on this bill.

Only last month, Republicans approved a bill to give Trump the power to fire the chief cop on the beat; that would be the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who Trump could now dump for actually trying to do his job of protecting consumers from abusive financial practices.

Of course, we see daily that Trump thinks the White House is just a new venue for the latest sequel of ``The Apprentice,'' with him declaring ``you're fired'' to one person after another, no matter how much damage he does to our national security or to the economic security of families that are struggling to make a go of it all over America.

Well, today's Republican gift to Wall Street is about denying any effective remedy to those who are abused by big banks. A bank can rightfully go to court if a consumer abuses it, and that happens every day in courts across America, with good reason, because it is not a one-way street.

But in the non-negotiable, deceitful fine print at the back of the contract, the bank can deny the consumer the very same opportunity to go to court if that consumer is abused. It is called arbitration, but what it really means is that if a consumer has been treated wrong, neither a judge nor a jury can ever evaluate the facts and conclude for the consumer.

Since usually the arbitrator depends upon the same bank or group of banks to get repeat business, the arbitrator has an incentive to rule against the consumer and for the bank. Often arbitration is little better than going to the bank's own attorney and asking: Do you think your client did anything wrong? And if so, should they do any more than say ``I'm sorry''?

Arbitration is the very scheme that Wells Fargo relied upon to obstruct any opportunity for ordinary consumers who tried to hold their bank accountable for creating accounts to which they never gave any consent and charging them for it. Wells Fargo used those arbitration clauses to kick the consumers out of court and to continue its fraud against consumers across America for another 2 years. That is the kind of practice that we will have more of if this legislation is approved.

You know, in the Military Lending Act of 2007, Congress showed the good sense to try to protect our servicemembers who are defending our country all over the world in certain of their loan agreements from having a lender impose a mandatory arbitration agreement. And what, today, we should be doing is supporting similar protections for other Americans who can be exposed to the same type of abuse.

Today's bill to undermine consumer protection is opposed by The Military Coalition and 29 other servicemember and veterans groups representing millions of people. This sorry bill is also opposed by a number--I think literally hundreds of consumer, civil rights, labor, and community groups.

All we are saying in rejecting this bill is to give consumers their day in court, give them the same rights the banks want. In fact, treat consumers as if they were banks because they should be treated with the same dignity and the same rights; and we do that by rejecting this bill and rejecting it soundly.

Mr. Speaker, as so often happens here, this bill bears a somewhat grander title than its contents. Medicare part B certainly does need improvement. While I support putting into statute what is already administrative practice, extending a demonstration project that appears to be working and the other provisions that my colleagues have worked on in this bill, I think much more should have happened.

It is especially ironic that, at the very moment we are considering this bill, the United States Senate across the hall is proposing to eliminate healthcare coverage for millions of Americans. Certainly, this Republican repeal effort does far more harm to far more people than we can collectively undo here in the House with this rather modest piece of legislation.

And there is one glaring omission from today's Medicare Improvement Act, one subject that the Republican leadership of the House Ways and Means Committee fears. It fears not only doing something about this problem, it fears about even understanding the extent of the problem, and it certainly fears having any public hearings to explore this subject. That is the menace that is affecting millions of people across this country: pharmaceutical price gouging.

This bill fails to address any aspect of soaring pharmaceutical costs of part B medications. For almost a year, a number of us, House Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, have called on the chairman to at least schedule a hearing about all aspects, all categories of soaring pharmaceutical prices that not only mean financial ruin for too many families, but also burden Medicare and most any type of taxpayer- financed healthcare initiative.

Government-approved monopolies for drug manufacturers are being exploited by charging the sick and dying whatever they might pay for a little more life, for a little more comfort at monopoly prices.

Under longstanding existing law--it has been there before this Congress ever got together--pharmaceutical companies are at least required to provide average sales price data on part B Medicare drugs. Three years ago, the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services found that at least one-third of the more than 200 manufacturers of part B drugs had not submitted any of this average sales price data for some of their products, and an additional 45 manufacturers had not been required to report any data. The Inspector General found that inaccuracies in these average sales price filings may affect taxpayer-financed Medicare payments.

Last month, the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission came before the House Ways and Means Committee and gave its report on Medicare. It noted that this problem on average sales price data continues, and that it has not been addressed by Congress, as the Inspector General had recommended.

The Republican majority has refused to do anything about this problem. It has blocked an amendment that I offered in committee that simply implemented the recommendation of the Inspector General and of MedPAC to get that average sales price data and to ensure that all part B manufacturers report that data or are penalized at a reasonable level. It would simply have ensured compliance with existing law to protect program integrity and to protect the taxpayer interest. And you can be sure that if the Republicans didn't want to know what the prices were, they certainly didn't want to do anything about the soaring prices and the impact on American families.

So I support the bill, but this is a missed opportunity that we should have employed to address a critical problem.

Mr. Speaker, the only sanctuary involved here today is the sanctuary that this sorry bill provides for prejudice. This is the Trump counterpart to the outrageous SB4 that Governor Greg Abbott has been promoting in Texas. It all goes back to the rhetoric of last year about the ``bad hombres'' and the attacks on Mexico and Mexicans.

I will tell you, I want the bad hombres off the street no matter where they come from, but I look to my local police chiefs, to my local sheriffs and law enforcement officers to tell me what the best way is to protect our families from crime. They say maintaining the confidence of the immigrant community is vital, and that measures like this, which simply have politicians in Washington interfering with and attempting to intimidate local law enforcement officers, do exactly the opposite of what all these speeches claim that they do.

Anti-immigrant hysteria, what a way to leave for July Fourth from a Congress that has accomplished practically nothing but to attack immigrants as we depart instead of standing by and supporting local law enforcement and making our communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, this bill wrongfully endorses political interference with professional law enforcement leaders. With no legal authority, both President Trump and his Texan look-alike, Governor Greg Abbott, want to deny funds and intimidate

local governments, who rightfully refuse to place politics above public safety.

I will tell my Republican colleague from Georgia, and his colleagues, that the only lawlessness that exists here is the lawlessness of President Trump in trying to do this to such an extent that a Federal court order stopped him. And they will also, I believe, stop Governor Abbott on his outrageous Senate Bill 4.

Our police chiefs in San Antonio and in Austin, our courageous Sheriff, Sally Hernandez, like many law enforcement professionals from Texas to New Jersey, they say that maintaining the trust and confidence of the immigrant community to report crime, to be witnesses concerning crime, that this makes us all safer--immigrant and nonimmigrant alike.

Any proper arrest warrant presented by ICE will be honored everywhere. Detainers, which are merely a bureaucratic message saying the bureaucracy is suspicious of someone who should be imprisoned based on that suspicion, will not be kept imprisoned--and Federal courts have said they should not be--under the Constitution.

I would say that the only sanctuary that this bill provides is a sanctuary for prejudice. It is a sanctuary that defies the reality of the America we have today, particularly in the Southwest.

We should reject this bill and affirm welcoming cities, like mine, that are a refuge from anti-immigrant hysteria, but have a strong commitment to safety and to effective law enforcement, and looking to our local law enforcement, not political interference from Washington telling us how to protect our families.

This very week, four years ago, an overwhelming bipartisan United States Senate majority approved comprehensive immigration reform. And like the amendments that are being blocked today, these House Republicans were so fearful that that bill might become law that they will not even permit us to even debate it four years later on the floor of this House.

Instead of this anti-immigrant hysteria, instead of this sorry piece of legislation, what we need is broad immigration reform, and we need it now.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and both my colleagues, though I respectfully disagree that this Congress has placed any priority on helping get people out of poverty. Indeed, when it comes to poverty in America, this Congress has largely been silent. I think the Congress itself is impoverished when it comes to ideas about how to lift people up into the middle class.

We talk here so much about the middle class, and appropriately so, but there are millions of people out there who are struggling to just climb up that first or second rung of the economic ladder and work themselves into the middle class, and this Congress is doing little, constructively, to assist them.

The need for real and meaningful change is particularly evident in my home State of Texas, where the State legislature has been so incredibly indifferent to this problem. There, one out of every four children is below the poverty level, and over one-third of all Texans live in the shadow of poverty, meaning that their income is less than twice the poverty threshold. The Corporation for Enterprise Development ranked Texas near the bottom among all States on key measures related to financial security.

Now, here is what today's bipartisan bill does to respond to that, and it is really a story of the number one.

Of the several Republican proposals that were originally advanced by now-Speaker Paul Ryan two years ago, some introduced by Republican colleagues and some containing good ideas, this is the one last bill standing.

With the notable exception of a budget that is devastating to opportunities for poor Americans, this is the one and only bill on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, previously known as welfare, that Republicans will even permit us to discuss on the floor of this House.

This one very modest bill does not add one new dollar to address the challenges that those who want to rise from welfare to work need. It simply segregates $100 million from an existing fund for one year.

Now, get this: the fund from which they are segregating the $100 million from, Donald Trump is seeking to abolish the entire fund so that no moneys for this proposal will be available after one year.

This bill gives the States no new flexibility, and no new authority. It does not authorize them to do anything that they cannot do today. Indeed, some States--and I think my colleague from Illinois referenced one of these--are already finding ways to, in appropriate situations, subsidize employment.

What this bill does is to say that on this particular $100 million fund, as long as it lasts, until President Trump eliminates it entirely, that the States must use the money in a particular way. In other words, it seeks to restrict the States who receive these moneys to require them to use it for one particular way to assist those who are in poverty.

It is also significant that the Trump budget cuts are so far-reaching in trying to undermine efforts to raise people out of poverty, and for those who are not able-bodied, to provide them the support that they need. This bill deals with a little less than one-half of one percent of the Trump budget cuts.

I believe, sincerely, that we need a better approach, that we have ideas on both sides of the aisle that are being blocked by a determination to not address root causes of poverty.

First, we should support initiatives that strike at the early seeds of poverty, like the Home Visiting Program that will expire in a mere three months, which helps to improve opportunities for at-risk children and helps their parents be the parents they want to be; and certainly, early childhood education is a key part of that.

Second, we should increase efforts to help people gain the skills they need to secure jobs through which they can support their families at a living wage, and that is the challenge here. Sure, some employers will love to have taxpayers subsidize their workforce, pay part of the wages that they would otherwise have to pay, and sometimes this is a valuable support, particularly for people that are reentering our society after incarceration and other groups of particularly hard-to- place employees. But for many folks, the big question is, when the subsidy ends, when the taxpayer stops paying, will there be a job there? Is there a job ladder that will allow that person to work themselves up, or are they essentially participating in minimum wage employment that will not support their family and will not provide them a future?

There are in-demand skills-training programs that do work and do offer an alternative, but they are not free. They take an investment. An example is Project QUEST in San Antonio.

Mr. Chairman, Project QUEST has an 86 percent job placement rate for its graduates, who boost their incomes, on average, from $10,000 a year before entering the program to $40,000 a year.

I know there are similar programs in other parts of the country that do the same. They are not subsidized employment, but they are working with poor people to get the skills that they need for an in-demand job and working with local employers to find out what types of jobs are most needed. In many parts of America, our economy is being held back by a lack of qualified workers.

Then, one of the areas that is so important to all parents, but particularly to single moms that are in poverty, is childcare. President Trump is proposing not one, but three cuts to childcare, cutting out hundreds of millions of dollars of support to childcare, which stands in the way of many individuals from working their way out of poverty.

I believe that we need to be working together to try to find genuine solutions and that working together is not just here in this House, in Congress, because the big problem here is that, when we voted in 1996-- and I voted for it, for moving from welfare to work--we expected the States to be partners in that effort. Today, as much as we talk about work and getting from welfare to work, exactly 8 cents out of every dollar being spent on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program--8 cents--goes to work supports. And not very much more than that goes to childcare, and President Trump, of course, wants to reduce that.

It is only by having a comprehensive program that is really focused on the roots of poverty and assisting those

who would help themselves that the promise of that welfare law can become effective.

Unfortunately, while we did change fundamentally and end welfare as we know it, it became welfare for Republican Governors who wanted to use these Federal moneys not to assist the poor, but to assist their States fill various budget gaps. We have a great example of where block grants fail. I hope we can find ways to succeed.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the gentleman a couple questions to underline a couple of the really important points you made about the context in which this bill is considered, because while I think every Democrat agrees with our colleague from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) about the importance of civility and the importance of us each taking responsibility for the tone here and certainly condemning violence, condemning anyone who would suggest that if you come to the rally and you protest that you ought to be beaten up by the people that are there, the kind of thing that happened, unfortunately, last year, that we should condemn all of that. Does the gentleman agree that the House exercising vigorous oversight of the Administration when it breaks its promises, when it mixes personal business with public business, that this remains an important aspect of our job and no way suggests a breach of civility?

If the gentleman would further yield, I heard a rather bizarre comment last week in the aftermath of these shootings suggesting that, in the aftermath of them, Democrats would be reaching out to Republicans on healthcare, and I couldn't quite understand how that could occur. Indeed, your comments about this particular set of bills and the healthcare bill, isn't it a part of civility that we have respect for one another and don't try to force through a bill with an all-night, unnecessary session, not force through here a bill that Republican Members say they didn't have time to read but then leave it up there on the Speaker's desk for a month before even sending it to the Senate? And if you have a legislative process where the majority leader in the Senate says he won't even guarantee 10 hours to see a huge bill that affects this much of the economy and the lives and the livelihoods of millions of Americans, that that in itself is a breach of the respect and the civility that we need to have in this Congress?

No. I served on the Ways and Means Committee. We could not see the Republican House bill until hours before it came up.

It was under police guard downstairs so that even Republicans, like Senator Rand Paul, couldn't get in and see the bill.

Then we have an all-night session without a single member of the Trump Administration coming to respond to questions about it, while every healthcare professional group that I have heard of opposed the bill, not letting any of those people come to a hearing. I just suggest that this is a breach of civility. That is a breach of respect. It is a breach of the democratic process which we are all about. That needs to be on the table and is as important as whether someone uses strong language here in the House.

No. I think he has only wanted to listen to one side, and I don't begin to think that even the Republican Members of this House can contain President Trump. They seem to have sealed their lips about it, and I wish they would speak out more.

But I think they can effect the processes in this House, and when they pass a bill that President Trump says is ``mean, mean, mean,'' they need to go back and look at that process. And I see the same thing happening, from what you have told us, about the two bills that are up here.

Why is it that we have a process that is designed to exclude almost half of the people in this House, to exclude their amendments, to give them no opportunity to be heard at a markup, to bring in no witnesses to defend the bill or to allow discussion of that bill? That is not only not civil, not the democratic process, but it leads to worse public policy.

Even if they have a majority to pass it, their ideas need to be tested, and it allows them to perfect their legislation. That is the way the democratic process is supposed to work. But with all the secrecy, all the forced action, the tight timetables that are applying here, they thwart our democratic process in a way that hurts all sides and certainly impairs civility.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed, asking that it be read in full concerning President Trump's tax returns.

Mr. Speaker, I do wish to address the parliamentary question and would appreciate the opportunity to speak at this time about it.

Mr. Speaker, you can certainly observe, as all the Members can, the many troubling events that are reflected in the resolution we just had read and why they do arise to the privileges of the House.

Under clause 1 of rule IX, 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 seeks to protect the integrity of the proceedings of the House, and I believe that it is therefore privileged. There is just not an issue that is more fundamental to the integrity of this House, the people's House, than the faith the American people have in our democracy.

That sacred faith is being undermined. It is under assault right now by President Trump. This House must act to protect the integrity of its proceedings.

Now, I know that there are many Members here who are eager to avoid a direct up-and-down vote on the specific question of covering up the Trump tax returns, and that there have been nine previous times when Members have come to the floor and presented resolutions that were focused on trying to get those returns and to end the coverup.

Recognizing the Speaker's prior rulings nine times against considering this measure, I have, today, offered a different resolution, taking a new approach that I bring to the Speaker's attention. Unlike the last nine resolutions, my resolution does not direct the Committee on Ways and Means to meet and consider action on these secreted tax returns.

I believe it should not be ruled out of order on the grounds that were used the previous nine times that this type of resolution was blocked. This coverup of the Trump returns must end, and that is why I have taken a different approach.

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

As the Speaker knows, that means the House Ways and Means Committee, on which I serve, on which Mr. Pascrell, who I know wants to comment on this point of order, is concerned, for this House to exercise with integrity its authority to originate tax legislation. This is authority that it solely possesses. The American people should know how the President and his family might personally benefit from the tax legislation, either in their direct personal income or through the many business intermediaries with which they work. I believe some 500-plus entities reported on their financial disclosure statement.

President Trump, we know, has bragged publicly about his ability to bend the Tax Code to his whim in the past. He has said only he can ``fix it.''

And the question is: Will he fix it for himself, or fix it for working families? Will he enrich the middle class with jobs, or simply enrich himself and other billionaires like him?

While recently Mr. Trump has provided us a single page of clues concerning the contents of his tax plan that they now say will be provided fully in September, he has not given us much detail. But he does give us a few clues off that one page. One is his proposal to repeal the alternative minimum tax. We know if that had been the law, if that Trump proposal had been in effect for the one year, 2005, that we have his return, he would have paid about the amount that an employee does on their Social Security. It would have saved him $30 million.

I understand that there are many here that simply don't want to look under the rock to see what is contained in those returns. And there are many who believe that Mr. Trump is the golden ticket to more prized tax breaks, to more ending of consumer protection, and they have been rather quiet about the tax return issue, about the conflicts of interest, and about the potential foreign collusion.

But after all the resolutions presented here on the floor, nine, plus the amendments that I have offered in the Ways and Means Committee that have been rejected, I can say that, while there has not been progress yet on the House floor, there has been progress.

Mr. Trump has responded. He provided a one-page letter from a lawyer that reviewed his tax returns, and that lawyer gave a Good Housekeeping ``seal of approval'' to assure us--``to assure America he had no business dealings with the Russians as a result of reviewing the returns.''

What he did not say was that the same law firm had boasted of what they call the prestigious honor of being named the ``Russia Law Firm of the Year.'' I would just say today, in response specifically to the point of order, that it is not sufficient to preserve the integrity of this House to rely on the ``Russia Law Firm of the Year'' to be the only entity that reviews these returns.

I believe that we can do better; that we must protect the dignity of the House.

According to Mr. Trump himself, he is already being investigated for obstruction of justice. It is important for us to have the tax returns on tax reform. It is important to have it on the Russia investigation.

And, you know, there is hardly an hour that goes by, certainly a day that goes by, that there is not some additional information. When I opened The Washington Post this morning, right there on the front page----

Certainly.

And one of those aspects of the question of privilege is how conflicts of interest interface with what we are doing here in the House. I mentioned the tax returns and the Russia investigation, but there is a new one out today, and that is in the budget. I assume eventually we are going to have a budget resolution presented here, though it is very late this year. But when we take up that budget resolution and we take up the appropriation bills, The Washington Post reports that, while there have been significant cuts in the Housing and Urban Development budget, as many people cannot afford housing--

I would do nothing else, Mr. Speaker.

And this particular example shows how the proceedings of the House would be impaired if the only aspect of the budget that increases HUD is one from which Mr. Trump personally benefits, which is what the Post is reporting, and so we need the returns in order to see that.

Like so many other broken promises, we will not get these returns voluntarily. I believe that the House needs to act. Unlike Sally Yates, unlike the U.S. attorney in New York, and unlike James Comey, he can't fire us, and we don't have to be accessories to a coverup.

I call on this House to protect the integrity of its proceedings, including the integrity of our unique constitutional authority over tax legislation, by declaring that this resolution is in order. This resolution simply calls on the House to secure the tax return and return information on Mr. Trump and his businesses. It further declares that, in order to preserve the integrity of the House, we will not be taking up tax reform legislation, which we certainly need to take up, and we have ideas to offer and to cooperate in trying to see reform of our taxes, but not do it until we have had an opportunity to review thoroughly Mr. Trump's tax returns and return information to ascertain how he may personally benefit.

I would hope that the Speaker, considering my comments, as well as those that I know Mr. Pascrell wants to offer, would be ruling that we can have that straight up-and-down vote, no hiding behind a rock, let us look under the rock.

I appreciate the Speaker giving me this opportunity to emphasize the very significant importance of this question to the integrity of the House and to the future of the American people and our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I most reluctantly, after the Speaker's careful consideration of this, must appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, how very appropriate it is today that this Congress is interrupting consideration of child welfare and foster care bills in order to address a gift for the nuclear industry. An indifferent Congress that refuses to put an extra dime in addressing the deficiencies of our foster care system doesn't hesitate for a moment in giving a few more million dollars to the nuclear industry.

Isn't it amazing to hear what we will accomplish with a mere $16 million additional tax subsidy?

Our national security will be protected. This is the first concern I have heard here on the floor in months from a Republican about giving things to Russia and China. Maybe the better place to look than this bill is down the street at the White House, if the real concern is what we are giving to the Russia.

To hear supporters of this bill talk about the dangers to Georgia and South Carolina, you would think that Sherman's March on Atlanta, Georgia, and South Carolina was nothing compared to the harm this Congress would do if it failed to enact this bill.

Well, the devastation that faces consumers in these States has nothing to do with what Congress has or has not done, but it has to do with the nuclear industry seeking special treatment, much as it is seeking taxpayer subsidies here today.

It is an industry that has disregarded longstanding utility law to compel Georgians to pay higher electric bills for utility investments before they ever deliver one kilowatt of power. And it may, in fact, never get around to providing any power for all the money that is wasted on them.

This is a bill that is masquerading as an incentive for the future. A glorious new day for nuclear power. And yet it makes this tax credit available to 20-year-old nuclear technology and for last-century uranium mining.

This bill hardly matches its cover. It is true that $16 million of additional help to the nuclear industry is a mere footnote compared to the billions of taxpayer dollars, taxpayer resources, that have been lavished on this industry in the past.

In Georgia, the nuclear power industry literally turned decades of utility law upside down in demanding that electric ratepayers pay for what stockholders traditionally have paid for. Even after doing that, Westinghouse, a once distinguished American company, a blue ribbon company, went belly up. It has been nuked, and so have those local utility ratepayers.

As The New York Times reported recently:

``Many of the company's injuries are self-inflicted. . . . ''

``Bankruptcy will make it harder for Westinghouse's business partners to collect money they are owed by the nuclear-plant maker.''

``Now, it is unclear whether the company will be able to complete any of its projects, which in the United States are about 3 years late and billions over budget.''

``The cost estimates are already running $1 billion to $1.3 billion higher than originally expected, according to a recent report from Morgan Stanley, and could eventually exceed $8 billion . . . '' right onto the shoulders of those ratepayers in Georgia and South Carolina.

Of course, you would have thought, after the disaster at Fukushima and the many questions raised about nuclear power in Japan, that Congress would be rethinking nuclear power as a panacea. But even if you overlook this human disaster and the dangers to health and safety, a recognition that when the nuclear industry makes a mistake it is a mistake that lasts forever, if you just look at the economics alone, this kind of tax subsidy is unjustified.

With an ample amount of natural gas coming on the market, with so much renewable energy, nuclear simply has not made economic sense, and the history of this particular legislation demonstrates that.

When this tax break was originally set up back in 2005, there were some 32 nuclear plants that were going to take advantage of it, and it hasn't been because of the failure of Congress that they didn't. Out of that 32, exactly four have even begun to be built, and not one of them, not a single one of them, has been completed in over a decade and a half.

After this record of miserable failures, there is good reason to ask why taxpayers should be called on to give even more.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 13 environmental groups expressing opposition to the legislation.

June 20, 2017.

Re Opposition to H.R. 1551--amending tax credit provisions

for ``advanced'' nuclear power.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of

our millions of members we are writing to register our strong

opposition to H.R. 1551 that would eliminate the placed-in-

service date for the nuclear production tax credit, which is

currently January 1, 2021. It would also allow public power

companies to receive the benefit of the federal production

tax credit even though they pay no taxes.

Despite H.R. 1551's misleading title, the production tax

credit it extends is not designated solely for new, supposed

``advanced'' nuclear technologies. Rather, reactor designs

that were approved over twenty years ago are eligible as

described in the bill analysis by the Joint Committee on

Taxation, ``An advanced nuclear facility is any nuclear

facility for the production of electricity, the reactor

design for which was approved after 1993 by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.''

The nuclear industry is once again demonstrating that it is

not only dirty and dangerous but that it is also not cost

competitive. Despite promises that this time would be

different, the four Toshiba-Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear

reactors under construction in the U.S., two at Southern

Company's

Plant Vogtle in Georgia and two at SCANA's V.C. Summer plant

in South Carolina, have yet again shown that the nuclear

industry is incapable of building new reactors within budget

or on time even with significant federal and state financial

incentives and new, streamlined federal licensing processes.

Reports issued in recent weeks show that the costs of these

projects are out of control, and falling further and further

behind schedule. Both are approximately 40% complete in terms

of construction, yet have already more than doubled in cost

and projected construction time. When construction started in

2009, Vogtle 3 and 4 were projected to cost a total of $14

billion and to begin generating electricity in 2016 and 2017,

respectively. Eight years later, the reactors may not be

completed until 2022 and 2023, if ever, and at an estimated

total project cost of $29 billion. Summer 2 and 3 were

projected to cost $11 billion, but overruns have pushed the

total to at least $22.9 billion. Consequently, utility

customers in both states are suffering as they are paying in

advance for the financing costs associated with the projects

far longer than initially predicted and will ultimately face

increasing bills because of the projects' costs overruns.

H.R. 1551 would unfairly reward Southern Company and SCANA

Corp. for not being able to complete these projects on time,

providing them each with more than $1 billion in taxpayer-

provided handouts to shield their shareholders from the

financial responsibility of pursuing inherently risky,

uneconomical projects. Perhaps even worse, eliminating the

placed-in-service date will provide an incentive for yet

other utilities to make the same mistakes.

The purpose of tax incentives, whether for nuclear,

renewable energy, or other technologies, is to support

innovation and technological leadership in the energy sector

and to drive the commercialization of promising new

technologies. When the nuclear production tax credit was

created in 2005, Congress hoped to support a revival of

nuclear reactor construction. Only four out of thirty-two

reactors proposed since 2005 ever began construction, and the

vast majority of the rest have been cancelled or indefinitely

shelved.

The failures to bring any of the four reactors online

within the fifteen-year period of the tax credit program

demonstrates that the technology is an even greater failure

than the first generation of reactors, and it will never be

widely commercialized. It is simply not a justified or worthy

investment of taxpayers' money to grant the owners of these

reactors the extraordinary relief of billions of dollars in

subsidies for projects that hold no promise for the U.S.

energy sector. It should not be forgotten that Southern

Company's expansion of Plant Vogtle has already received

substantial taxpayer support through the $8.3 billion in

federal nuclear loan guarantees and the public/private cost-

sharing support during the permitting and licensing process.

Finally, we oppose H.R. 1551 because the legislation

establishes an expensive precedent by creating brand-new tax

credit value for any not-for-profit project partners that can

only be transferred to all for-profit project partners. Both

the Vogtle and Summer projects feature a combination of both

for-profit and not-for-profit utilities. Not-for-profit

utilities, such as rural cooperatives, municipal or state-

owned utilities, have no federal tax liability and therefore

are not entitled to tax credits. But under H.R. 1551, the tax

credit is made available for not-for-profit entities that can

only be transferred to the project's for-profit partners.

Furthermore, H.R. 1551 specifies that rural cooperatives may

treat tax credit transfers as funds collected for ``the sole

purpose of meeting losses and expenses''--that is, as a form

of debt relief, for which production tax credits were not

intended. These measures amount to a brand-new, taxpayer-

shouldered giveaway for both Southern Company and SCANA Corp.

Furthermore, the definition of ``eligible partners'' that

can receive the tax credits from the not-for-profit

partner(s) is troubling as it ``includes any person who

designed or constructed the nuclear power plant, participates

in the provision of nuclear steam or nuclear fuel to the

power plant, or has an ownership interest in the facility.''

Providing tax credits to reactor suppliers or the uranium

mining industry is objectionable and goes beyond the original

intent of the law to provide incentives to actual nuclear

utilities that were among the first to pursue new nuclear

generation.

The rationales provided for eliminating the placed-in-

service date for the nuclear production tax credit are

irrelevant and have no merit:

``The cost of H.R. 1551 is minimal.'' The cost of the

nuclear production tax credits is at least $5.2 billion. Due

to both eliminating the placed-in-service date and by

permitting qualified public entities to transfer credits to

an eligible project partner, the latter provision would

actually increase the cost of the tax credits by allowing

non-profit, tax-exempt owners of reactors to take a large

federal tax credit. State and municipal utilities and rural

cooperatives are major owners of both the Vogtle and Summer

projects: rural cooperatives own 54.3% of the Vogtle 3 and 4

reactors; and Santee Cooper owns 45% of the Summer 2 and 3

reactors. By permitting these tax-exempt entities to transfer

tax credits to private sector partners, H.R. 1551 would

double the anticipated amount of the tax credits for the

Summer and Vogtle projects. The credits are valued at $18 per

megawatt-hour of electricity generated for the first eight

years. This would amount to about $160 million per year for

each reactor--$1.3 billion each, or $5.2 billion for all four

reactors. Taxpayers stand to avoid a $5.2 billion expense if

none of the reactors come online before the tax credits

expire at the end of 2020. By eliminating the placed-in-

service date, H.R. 1551 could cost taxpayers billions of

dollars for a failed technology.

``The tax credits are essential to the completion of the

Vogtle and Summer projects.'' It is not clear that the tax

credits will have any effect on the outcome of the Vogtle and

Summer projects at this point. Each of the reactors under

construction is now $5 billion to $7 billion over budget.

Even $1.3 billion in tax credits is not enough offset such

massive cost overruns; and, in/ any case, the benefits of the

production tax credit were assumed when the utilities began

building the reactors. If the utilities determine to complete

the reactors despite the cost overruns, the value of the tax

credits will not be a decisive factor.

``The tax credits are essential to maintaining U.S.

leadership in the global nuclear industry.'' Extending the

nuclear production tax credit will do nothing to promote U.S.

leadership in nuclear technology or reactor exports. The tax

credits themselves will derive to the domestic utilities that

will own and operate the Vogtle and Summer reactors, not the

manufacturers that design, export, and build reactors. The

nuclear divisions of Westinghouse and General Electric are

the only two U.S.-based companies actively involved in the

global reactor market, but both are now owned by Japanese

corporations (Toshiba and Hitachi). As a result of

Westinghouse's bankruptcy, Toshiba has determined not to

build any more new reactors, and not to continue supporting

the AP1000 reactor design. GE-Hitachi's prospects are no

better. The company has only two reactors in construction

globally (both in Japan and long-delayed).

``A viable commercial nuclear power industry is necessary

to support the nation's defense nuclear complex.'' This would

be a hypocritical reason to provide a subsidy to reactors,

and could prove dangerous to peace and security domestically

and globally. The U.S. is under international treaty

obligations to maintain a strict separation of civilian and

military applications of nuclear technology. Historically,

the U.S. government's purpose in promoting commercial nuclear

power was to encourage the peaceful application of atomic

energy, not to advance nuclear weapons. If the U.S. is

perceived as promoting civilian nuclear power as a means of

bolstering our nuclear weapons program, then it will

undermine our credibility in the nonproliferation arena. It

could also encourage enemies to view nuclear power plants as

extensions of our military establishment, and hence as

legitimate targets in armed conflict.

We strongly oppose this bill and urge you to vote against

this undeserved industry bailout. We urge Congress to oppose

this provision and instead focus on low- or no-carbon energy

choices that can be deployed affordably in the near-term, at

low risk, that will lead us to a clean and sustainable

future.

Sincerely,

Beyond Nuclear, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean

Water Action, Environment America, Friends of the

Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters,

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Information

And Resource Service, Public Citizens, Sierra Club,

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Southern Oregon

Climate Action Now.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is an important additional concern raised by our colleague Mr. Neal already.

And that is the fact that there are so many other additional measures that our colleagues' bipartisan efforts that are pending in our committee on energy-efficient residential property, on fuel cells, on small wind energy, on geothermal heat pumps, to mention only a few. These represent forms of energy and energy conservation that will help us address climate change while achieving our energy objectives.

Mr. Speaker, instead of today's measure, our focus should be on safe, healthy forms of energy instead of an industry that costs too much and poses too much danger to humans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I salute all of those who are here today offering the bills--this one, and the four other related bills--that are being considered; particularly, Mr. Davis, who now holds the position as ranking Democrat on the Human Resources Subcommittee, a job that I have held for the last several years; and Ms. Bass, who has so ably led our Foster Care Caucus. I think it is unfortunate that they are here; unfortunate because all of this business should have been resolved last year.

All five of these modest bills would already be helping children today but for the way the so-called Family First Prevention Services Act was bungled last year. Each of these five bills were a part of it. But, unfortunately, families, and particularly families caring for foster children, have not, and are still not, among the first priorities of this Congress.

Of course, here in the House, there were many speeches. We had extensive hearings year after year concerning foster children and the horrors of child abuse. But speeches alone can't do the job.

There are also many people of goodwill who genuinely care about this foster care problem in both parties. Mrs. Walorski is certainly one of those individuals.

But all of us encountered a big problem last year in the Ways and Means Committee when the Family First Prevention Services Act came up. It was the same problem we faced in the last Congress when Senator Wyden and I offered a larger version of the same piece of legislation.

The Ways and Means Committee majority leadership objects to adding a dime of additional revenue to accompany our speeches. The majority rejected my recommendation for a tax compliance measure to simply require the reporting of alimony payments. If you get alimony, it is a form of income, but there is no report required. This is not an increased tax. It is a way of avoiding tax evasion. And it would have raised the revenues necessary to fund the additional Family First prevention services.

When this bill reached the Senate, the House's decision to reject that approach, or any other reasonable pay-for, was, instead, relying on what you could call basically a ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' approach by cutting funds in support of adoptions and shifting funds from one part of the foster care system to another part. That, unfortunately, became the excuse in the Senate to block the bill from being passed. I have to say that my home State of Texas, under Federal court order, to correct its many unconstitutional abuses in the foster care system, wrongfully led the way in blocking the Family First bill.

As to the particular bills that we have up today, this one recognizes how mobile our society is and how much we need to be able to go across the country in addressing this problem.

The earlier bill that we considered concerning children who age out of the foster system that Ms. Bass sponsored--really important--we heard time and again about the challenges that those children face when they are, essentially, dumped out on the street at age 18 or age 21, depending on which State they are in; and challenges particularly for young women who find themselves in that situation without adequate preparation or adult help.

This bill that we considered addressed the primary problem of limited Federal investment in helping these vulnerable older youth prepare for independence. I don't have any objection to it or to any of the bills that are being considered today. I object only to the ideological insistence of some in the majority that any additional revenue from any source, no matter how reasonable, cannot be placed in a deficient foster care system, which too many of our States will not fix.

And today's changes do not appear to add any actual new resources to foster care, and, indeed, they are likely to be overwhelmed by one cut after another that President Trump is proposing, particularly the Medicaid cuts that are being forced through this Congress, that are very important to foster youth and to all children.

So in this Congress--so indifferent to the education and social service and health needs of children of all types across our country-- perhaps only taking a little step is the best we can expect to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children in our society.

But I think all of us must be committed to work together to find a day when we are willing to take truly meaningful action before, rather than after, children--more children--are needlessly lost.

Mr. Speaker, this so-called American Health Care bill is a real Titanic of a sorry piece of legislation: It would sink 23 million Americans losing their health coverage; millions more who have a preexisting condition would face great barriers; it would undermine Medicare; it would provide price-gouging, Big Pharma manufacturers with a huge tax windfall, all as part of almost a trillion dollars in a tax cut--which is what their bill is really all about, not healthcare-- those benefits going to a few corporations and the superrich among us.

Most every healthcare professional group in the country along with the AARP and the vast majority of Americans reject this bill. We would have even more people rejecting if it hadn't been hidden, if even one administration official had had the courage to come and be held accountable for this bill in a public hearing. But, apparently, we will not have that anywhere in this Congress before this huge bill is approved.

The American people are locked on board this sinking ship. Our insurance markets are already taking on water from Trump sabotage, and disaster looms in front of us.

This is not a Verify First bill that we take up today; it is a patch on this sinking Titanic ship.

It is not a Verify First; it is a ``Vilify First'' our immigrants, and it is really just the next chapter in Trump's anti-immigrant crusade, which he tweets about on a regular basis.

Our Republican colleagues celebrate this Immigrant Heritage Month, June. They celebrate the fourth anniversary of 68 Members of the United States Senate, in a bipartisan way, approving comprehensive immigration reform. They do it with this ``Vilify First Act.''

And while I want to protect taxpayers and think we have a responsibility to ferret out and prevent every dime of fraud that might be out there, I also feel a responsibility to struggling families that I represent who already have so many barriers in the way of getting medical coverage to their children.

Not everyone is as fortunate as Jimmy Kimmel, although he had the misfortune of a child born with serious medical needs, he at least had the ability to do something about it. And folks need to be able to access promptly and immediately, sometimes, a family doctor.

We should fight fraud wherever it occurs. I do wish we had the same level of enthusiasm about protecting taxpayers from Medicaid fraud by big pharmaceutical manufacturers, for offshore tax dodging that denies us billions of dollars, as they voice for taking on the poor. We don't have that, but we do need to analyze carefully what the Government Accountability Office that provides the basis for this legislation really said.

They found a need to address $750 million. Under the program, they did not find one dollar, one red cent that an immigrant had taken improperly from this program. They did not document any immigrant fraud. There may be some out there, but you can't rely on this study to find it.

We were asked: Well, why do you think this has anything to do with immigrants? Well, I can tell you why. Because the sponsor of the amendment, who is here on the floor, when he introduced this piece of legislation, said he was after what he called illegal immigrants; and he said that he would not vote for TrumpCare, that sorry Titanic of a bill, he would not vote for it unless this provision was adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I personally represent San Antonio, San Marcus, Lockhart, and Austin families that already face barriers to getting their children medical coverage, and adding an additional requirement just means they are that much less likely, in the event of an emergency, to be able to get coverage. We need to prevent fraud. This is not the way to do it.

What we need is comprehensive immigration reform to deal with these immigration issues just like the Senate approved 4 years ago--make improvements on it; debate it; consider it--sink this sorry piece of legislation, try to raise up the antifraud provisions and the comprehensive immigration reform that we so desperately need, and to grow this economy.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President shall immediately disclose his tax return information to the House of Representatives and the American people.

Whereas, President Nixon explained that ``People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook'' when he invited the Joint Committee on Taxation to audit his returns after the Internal Revenue Service gave him an unwarranted tax discount;

Whereas, according to the Tax History Project, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed his tax return information to the public;

Whereas, the Chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means, Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Committee on Finance have the authority to request the President's tax returns under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

Whereas, 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, and the Committee on Ways and Means is considering a comprehensive reform of the Tax Code;

Whereas, according to media reports analyzing President Trump's leaked 2005 tax return, we know that had his own tax plan been in place, he would have paid an estimated mere 3.48 percent rate instead of a 24 percent rate, saving him $31.3 million;

Whereas, according to The New York Times, the President used a legally dubious tax maneuver in 1995 that could have allowed him to avoid paying any Federal taxes for 18 years;

Whereas, President Trump holds ``interests as the sole or principal owner in approximately 500 separate entities,'' according to his attorneys, and the President's tax plan proposes to cut the tax rate on such ``pass-through'' entities from 39.6 percent to 15 percent;

Whereas, one analysis estimated that President Trump would personally save $6.7 million from two tax breaks included in the Republicans' first tax cut, which they misleadingly call the American Health Care Act;

Whereas, without the President's tax returns, the American people cannot determine how much he will personally benefit from proposed changes to the Tax Code;

Whereas, an ABCNews/Washington Post poll found that 74 percent of Americans would like President Trump to disclose his tax returns and the most-signed petition on the White House website calls for the release of the President's tax return information to verify compliance with the Emoluments Clause, with more than 1,097,000 signatures as of date of this resolution;

Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns could help those investigating Russian influence in the 2016 election better understand the President's financial ties to the Russian Federation, Russian businesses, and Russian individuals;

Whereas, after breaking his pledge to make his tax returns available, President Trump instead presented a one-page letter from a law firm giving him a clean bill of health on any business dealings with Russians, but failed to note that the very same law firm boasted of the ``prestigious honor'' of being named ``Russia Law Firm of the Year'' for 2016;

Whereas, former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, before he was fired by President Trump, publicly confirmed that the Bureau has been investigating potential ties between President Trump's campaign and Russia since July and that the Russian President Vladimir Putin favored a Trump electoral victory;

Whereas, President Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, met during the Presidential transition at the behest of the Russian Ambassador with Sergey N. Gorkov, a graduate of a school run by the successor to the KGB and who was appointed by Vladimir Putin to head a Russian state-owned bank that is on the U.S. sanctions list;

Whereas, Mr. Kushner proposed establishing a secret back channel of communications directly to Vladimir Putin, even considering the use of Russian embassy facilities to do so;

Whereas, Attorney General Jeff Sessions falsely stated during his Senate confirmation hearing that he ``did not have communications with the Russians,'' when in fact he met at least twice during the campaign with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak;

Whereas, former Director Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that President Trump had asked him in the Oval Office about ``letting Flynn go,'' referring to the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's business ties to Russia;

Whereas, President Trump stated on May 11, 2017, that he had decided that he was going to fire Comey because of ``this Russia thing'';

Whereas, former Director Comey, on June 8, 2017, testified that Special Counsel Robert Mueller could investigate whether President Trump's actions with regard to Director Comey and the Flynn investigation constituted obstruction of justice;

Whereas, in 2013, President Trump said, ``Well, I've done a lot of business with the Russians. They're smart and they're tough,'' and President Trump's son, Donald Trump, Jr., told a news outlet in 2008 that ``Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets'';

Whereas, against the advice of ethics attorneys and the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics, the President has refused to divest his ownership stake in his businesses;

Whereas, the Director of the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics said that the President's plan to transfer his business holdings to a trust managed by family members is ``meaningless'' and ``does not meet the standards that . . . every President in the past four decades has met'';

Whereas, the Emoluments Clause was included in the Constitution for the express purpose of preventing Federal officials from accepting any ``present, Emolument, Office, or Title . . . from any King, Prince, or foreign state'';

Whereas, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., has hired a

``director of diplomatic sales'' to generate high-priced business among foreign leaders and diplomatic delegations;

Whereas, the Joint Committee on Taxation reviewed the tax returns of President Richard Nixon in 1974 and made the information public;

Whereas, the Committee on Ways and Means used the authority under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in 2014 to make public the confidential tax information of 51 taxpayers;

Whereas, the Committee on Ways and Means has now voted three times along party lines to continue to cover-up President Trump's tax returns;

Whereas, the House of Representatives has now refused nine times to act on President Trump's tax returns;

Whereas, the American people have the right to know whether or not their President is operating under conflicts of interest related to international affairs, tax reform, Government contracts, or otherwise;

Whereas, the House of Representatives undermines its dignity and the integrity of its proceedings by continuing the cover-up of President Trump's tax returns: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives shall, one, immediately request the tax return and return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006 through 2015, as provided under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as well as the tax return and return information with respect to the President's businesses of each business entity disclosed by Donald J. Trump on his Office of Government Ethics Form 278e, specifically each corporation and each partnership within the meaning of subchapter K of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 where he is listed as an officer, director, or equivalent, or exercises working control; and

Two, postpone consideration of tax reform legislation until the elected Representatives of the American people in this House have obtained President Trump's tax returns and return information to ascertain how any changes to the Tax Code might financially benefit the President.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is all about obstructing effective law enforcement that challenges predatory payday lending, that protects military families from unjustified foreclosures, and addresses the burden of mounting student debt.

Republicans give Trump new power to fire the chief cop on the beat who protects consumers against wrongful financial practices. We have seen how well that worked with Trump and the FBI. Have you learned nothing about giving Trump more power?

Without the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Wells Fargo would never have been penalized for its multimillion-dollar fraud.

Republicans here want to shield Wall Street, granting it free rein to run over people across America and later reward it with even more tax breaks. They tolerate almost any wrongdoing, any crazy Trump tweet, so long as they can get more tax breaks and less consumer protection.

Enough is enough. It is time to say no to this sorry bill and offer protection to the people of America from financial wrongdoing.

Mr. Speaker, those wondering why Republican lips are sealed so very tight when it comes to President Trump jeopardizing our national security, threatening our democracy, and engaging in one crazy action after another need look no further than this bill.

You see, this is a bill to handcuff the cop on Wall Street. So many of our Republican colleagues are so eager to shield Wall Street from action and eventually to bestow one tax break after another on Wall Street, that they are willing to pay almost any price in silence concerning Mr. Trump's outrages.

As a person who voted against all of the big bank bailouts, I am most concerned that this bill will produce only more. When the banks were bailed out, American families paid the price, as taxpayers. They paid the price for the recklessness that led to that unnecessary financial crisis.

A more immediate concern is what happens to the cop on the beat, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new law enforcement agency that the AARP described as one designed to hold scam artists accountable. That is exactly what the CFPB has done. Whether it is payday lenders or deceitful language in the fine print of financial agreements, reverse mortgages, contracts denying consumers their legal remedies to address wrongdoing, or many other issues, this agency has been there to protect the consumers.

Among those most threatened that have benefited from this law enforcement agency are our military families, who face unique financial challenges, from illegal foreclosures, to cheating them on student loans, to payday lenders who overcharge their families. This law enforcement agency has been there to protect them. Today, it would be substantially weakened by this legislation.

One of the leading examples of the success of this law enforcement agency is Wells Fargo: fined $100 million, $85 million in restitution, $75 million in claw-backs from executives, a CEO resigned. None of that happened to the other banks, but Wells Fargo was caught. It was caught because there was a law enforcement agency on the beat doing something about it.

There are those who fought this legislation from the start, and they won't give up on trying to undermine it.

You need only look at what happened this year in enforcement actions to see what this agency is doing: a company failed to provide redress for illegal collection tactics, deceived consumers about credit scores, misstated the charges associated with pawn loans, denied consumers access to their own money, and kept borrowers in the dark about options to avoid foreclosure. One bit of wrongdoing after another. Why not have a cop on the beat working for us? Some people want to have the unlimited right to exploit consumers. This agency is the one thing standing in the way to protect them.

I say: stop this Republican interference with law enforcement and send a message at the same time to President Donald J. Trump that our laws apply to him too, and ought to be enforced against him when he is engaged in wrongdoing.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very troubling time in American history. Our national security is endangered, the very future of our democracy is at stake, and without the continued engagement of millions of people across this country, this troubling time could become much worse.

There is an old adage: ``Loose lips sink ships.'' But it is also true that when it comes to the abuse of Presidential power, sealed lips can sink a democracy.

We have gone through a period where it would appear that some of our Republican colleagues are in a witness protection program because they have been unable to come forward with any words to comment on the continued abuse of power that we see played out each day, with one being more incredible than the one before.

All United States intelligence services agree that the Russians interfered in our last election. Russia deserves sanctions, not secrets, not rewards. A President of the United States invited Putin's gang right into the Oval Office. We don't know what they left behind to listen to the rest of the conversations, although they may not need to learn them surreptitiously since President Trump, in such a cavalier way, proceeded to share secrets with them.

At long last we wonder, what will awaken these Republicans from their partisan stupor? We need them to speak out as well.

Last night we learned that Trump asked FBI Director James Comey, before firing him, to drop the investigation into National Security Advisor

Michael Flynn, whom Trump had been advised before he fired him that he was subject to being compromised by the Russians in his operations.

Our Republican colleagues need to decide whether they want to be accessories to Trump's obstruction of justice as he continues to endanger our national security.

Trump's firing of Director Comey is a shocking example of incredible duplicity that threatens the very fabric of the future of American democracy. It is a Nixonian dismissal that is designed to obstruct further inquiry into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Trump even said himself during his NBC interview with Lester Holt that, ``regardless of the recommendation from the Department of Justice,'' he was prepared and planning to fire the FBI Director because of what he was doing with the Russian investigation.

And that is part of a pattern: he fired the U.S. Attorney in New York City, he fired Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and he then fired Mr. Comey. If you are perceived as crossing the line with President Trump, it is like an episode out of that old TV series ``The Apprentice:'' You are fired.

But this is not make-believe. This is the future of American democracy.

Every day we hear new coverup evidence. What could possibly explain the continued Republican silence, the callous indifference?

Well, Trump is the Republican's golden ticket to denying healthcare coverage to 24 million Americans and, at the same time, already showering, with a bill passed in this House, almost $1 trillion of tax breaks to the superrich and a handful of special interests.

He is their winning ticket to awarding multinational tax dodgers more tax breaks while blowing a hole in the deficit that can change Medicare and Social Security forever.

Trump reportedly told Comey: ``I hope you can let this go.''

My fellow Americans, FBI Director Comey could not let it go; and now that he is gone. We cannot let this go. This is not business as usual. This is not just more tax breaks for the superrich, as Republicans are urging at a hearing tomorrow in this House. We cannot let this go.

History will be unkind to those who could not find their voice at this critical time in American history. I say it is time to truly put America first. Reject Putin. Reject partisanship. Help restore confidence in our democracy by supporting an independent special counsel and the type of independent, nonpartisan, nonpolitical inquiry that I have been calling for since last November into this Russian interference.

Mr. Speaker, too much is at stake to remain silent. We must join together to address this challenge to our future.