Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the harsh indifference of these Republicans to the well-being of so many Americans is startling. Trump may temporarily bury the lies central to this plan with a tweet storm--with fake news. But these Republicans who follow him will not be able to find an excuse as one family after another suffers.

Today's surprise attack on American health care has been widely condemned by healthcare professionals across the country and those who represent the disabled and sick, like the American Cancer Society and the March of Dimes.

Jimmy Kimmel, know that your baby was fortunate, but others born with a disability will face the barrier of preexisting conditions.

They didn't listen to the AARP, which knows that those Americans too young for Medicare by a few years will get socked with unaffordable premiums. They don't know what this monstrosity of a bill costs to the taxpayer. They don't know how many families will lose coverage or how many jobs will be lost. They don't really know what is in this bill. They know only that the Pied Piper of Trump Tower is playing a tune today and they must dance.

There is much talk about high-risk pools. The real high-risk pool is the one that everyone who votes for this outrageous proposal is about to plunge into.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the leaders of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their leadership on this important matter. We need stronger international action like this to send a message to the North Korean regime.

Our sanctions approach should be at least as strong against North Korea as it has been against Iran; and to be effective, sanctions must include all countries. Chinese trade during the last year with North Korea has actually increased. It is clear that it is shirking its responsibility. If it were to limit energy and access to hard currency reserves to North Korea, the regime would likely collapse.

Intensified sanctions of the type contemplated by this measure are particularly important because, despite all of the recent saber rattling from Donald Trump, we have no acceptable military solution. Any military attack on North Korea would result in the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the 25 million Koreans in the greater Seoul area and the over 100,000 Americans that are in that region.

Only this week, General McMaster, President Trump's national security adviser, conceded that a preventive military strike would result in a human catastrophe. We cannot eliminate the risk of North Korea, but we can better manage it, and this measure is a step in the right direction.

The arsenal of our democracy is more than just our military might. Let's apply every bit of international pressure possible and hope that the great self-described dealmaker Donald J. Trump can begin direct negotiations to secure an agreement with North Korea that achieves at least as much as President Obama did with Iran.

Mr. Speaker, this is undoubtedly the greatest 100 days of any President in human history. Give President Trump a grade of A- plus for the greatest broken campaign promises in history; the greatest meaningless executive orders, offering showy ceremonies when a mere phone call would have done the job; certainly, the very greatest number of insulting tweets--no President in history has ever come close; the greatest conflicts of interest; the greatest embrace of authoritarian leaders; the greatest gap between reality and fantasy, unquestionably. He talks as a populist and he governs as a plutocrat.

The greatest thing about Trump's 100 days is that America still exists without a major war or an economic free fall. Every day we survive without a Trump-inspired catastrophe is a great day for our country.

Sustain the resistance and remain hopeful for a Trump-free America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Joe Wilson be removed as the cosponsor of H.R. 2015. He was incorrectly listed when it should have been Representative Frederica Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, TrumpCare is big on Trump, but it is weak on care. After falsely promising that there would be coverage for everyone for less and better, TrumpCare only cares about huge tax breaks for the superrich and special interests, like

the totally unjustified $28 billion windfall for the pharmaceutical industry that they grab right out of the Medicare trust fund so that premiums will go up. Those earning $1 million within a single year get 79 percent of a $230 billion tax break, but there is no genuine relief for middle class taxpayers.

Removing the essential health benefits provisions will only enable insurers to exclude the very healthcare protections that folks thought they were getting when they paid their premiums. Insurance plans will not just be skinny, they will be a sham; a provision that at the very time you need the care, it won't be there. Many certificates of insurance will become as worthless almost as a diploma from Trump University.

This Republican bill targets our veterans by denying them tax credits. For millions of people who are just a few years too young to qualify for Medicare, their premiums will go through the roof. It will cost thousands of dollars more in order to get insurance. Yes, the Republicans have been divided and factionalized. They are divided between those who want nothing care and those who want little care. But, mostly, they don't seem to care how many millions of people lose their health insurance.

Mr. President, this is not the art of the deal. It is the art of the steal, of taking away insurance coverage from families that really need it to provide tax breaks for those at the very top. Those who understand health care, the professionals, say reject this bill, and it should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, we are considering a bill so bad it was kept under lock and key, hidden from Democrats and those Republicans who would not pledge allegiance to it; a bill that was so destructive that no witness would come to defend or explain it in all-night committee sessions; a bill jammed through this House, logically, you would expect this special rule to jam it through today.

What is at stake here is not only the crumbling and destruction of health care, but it is the crumbling of our democracy.

Our Republican colleagues need to remember that this is Washington, not Moscow. This is Congress, not the Duma.

We deserve a fair consideration of this bill open to discussion because of its impact on millions of Americans who will lose their access to a family physician. These heavyhanded tactics reflect the fear of the American public getting an opportunity to look thoroughly at this bill and understand what it does to each family affected.

Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, Thursday these Republicans are awarding a

new grand prize, a big-dollar award. Unfortunately, the contest has been rigged so that your name is not in the winner's circle. Instead, the world leaders in prescription price gouging, highest drug prices to Americans than just about anywhere, are declared the winners of the grand prize in the Trump Republican sweepstakes that they call repealing ObamaCare.

With Big Pharma's exceptional, distinguished service in charging astronomical prices and blocking competition to their government- approved monopolies, these Republicans have included a no-strings- attached $25 billion tax windfall for Big Pharma in their so-called ObamaCare repeal.

Now, with their latest late-night amendment, the prize is already growing bigger and bigger by the moment. And all of those American families that are out there struggling, trying to access lifesaving drugs, they don't win a dime in this contest.

Mr. Speaker, let's reject this phony Republican giveaway where only Big Pharma is the big winner.

Mr. Speaker, at a time here in America when mass shootings have become all too frequent, at a time when bullets literally rip apart human bodies and human families and cause so much pain, at a time when effective groups like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense and Texas Gun Sense and the P.E.A.C.E. Initiative are asking this Congress to act to reduce gun violence, this Congress has committed itself to doing absolutely nothing about that violence.

If you are on the terrorist watch list and you cannot fly, not to worry about buying a gun. It's ``No fly,'' but you can still buy.

Today we are told the problem isn't that there are too many guns out there causing too much harm to American families. There are not enough. A group is being left out, omitted from access to guns.

There are a group of Americans, who either from birth or by contracting some mental disability later in life, have a mental impairment that is so significant that we ask taxpayers across America to provide them support through the Social Security disability system. They are declared to be disabled.

And within that group that is taxpayer funded, there is a much smaller group whose disability is so severe that they can't handle their own affairs. They can't receive a check. But these folks say don't worry that you can't place a check in their hand and you have to give it to someone else, it is okay to put a gun in their hands. That is what this proposal does.

Now, we have, as they have failed to point out, a system in place at the Veterans' Administration so that if someone is a veteran and they are disabled, there is a process by which they are included within this system.

Mr. Speaker, but these folks, instead of reaching out to do something about gun violence in America, propose to make them more accessible to individuals that are so impaired they cannot take care of themselves in many ways and cannot even accept a check and are saying: Give them a gun.

There are already safeguards in this Rule. Someone can appeal being listed and say: You know, I can't accept a check, but I do have the ability to own a gun. And they can do that through the Social Security Administration, as soon as they see their name on the list. Or if they are denied a purchase at a later time and they are someone who doesn't belong on this list, there is a way for them to get off the list.

In short, there is due process to ensure they are not unfairly denied gun access. But the American people and the families that are being hurt day after day by gun violence, they deserve some due process, too.

Let's uphold this Rule and reject this giant step backward that will only produce more gun violence and more families torn asunder.

Mr. Speaker, this House contains many friends of Israel, Republican and Democratic. Indeed, as long as I've been here, I have never found an enemy of Israel in this House. Certainly that friendship was very apparent when only a few weeks ago President Obama approved giving Israel $38 billion of American tax money in military assistance. But like the Knesset in Jerusalem, we sometimes do disagree about what the best way is to ensure peace and security, and lively debate is important to that.

Unfortunately, this rule is about stifling Knesset-style debate. It restricts and denies any amendment and any alternative. This strict limitation on debate and this surprise presentation of today's measure with no public hearing and little warning show how fearful our Republican colleagues are of a legitimate discussion of this troubling issue. This is a horrible way to make critical foreign policy. It is only a step above doing it by tweets, which seems to be the approach of the day.

Today's resolution, which purports to support Israeli security, actually undermines that security. It favors going it alone with the current Israeli Government in defiance of our other allies and the 14 countries that unanimously voted for this Security Council measure.

Isolation--more and more isolation--is not the way to protect Israel. Those who demonstrate their friendship with Israel by following Mr. Netanyahu on one right turn after another are boxing in America and Israel. He is moving us further and further to the extremes so that we eventually go off a cliff into chaos. As Tom Friedman noted in urging a negotiated two-state settlement: ``A West Bank on fire would become a recruitment tool for ISIS and Iran.''

Vote for peace. Reject this resolution.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, for what may or may not be their good intentions, this resolution and its authors undermined the security of families here and in Israel. This ``go it alone'' approach with the current Israeli Government--defying a unanimous vote of 14 countries and ignoring the concerns of many of our allies--is not a path to peace. We will not protect ourselves or our allies in Israel if we pursue the path of isolation.

For decades, we have enjoyed a bipartisan commitment to two states living in peace and security next door to one another. It has been a difficult goal to achieve, but now is not the time to give up on it. There are, sadly, some in Israel and some among the Palestinians who wholly reject this commitment. They believe it is all theirs. They believe in a divine entitlement to every piece of land west of the Jordan River. Their idea of a reasonable negotiation is that the other side gets next to nothing.

Few people who have worked on this difficult issue and have tried to overcome such zealotry and achieve a just resolution have done as much as Secretary of State John Kerry. Despite the insults and the intransigence, he has made near Herculean efforts to achieve peace. To be honest, the roadblocks that have been thrown in his path have not come just from one side. In no way do we condone the many, many wrongs of the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority by saying that some of those roadblocks were initiated by the current Israeli Government.

Then, to talk of one sided, what irony. Indeed, I think it is hypocrisy to talk about a one-sided resolution when this is a one-sided resolution. If there had been the slightest interest in bringing this body together--with all of us supporting Israel, with all of us supporting access to the Western Wall, with all of us supporting the security of our friend that was reflected in $38 billion, which is the most money in military assistance we have ever provided to a single ally by this administration--instead of attacking the goodwill and the good faith of this administration, we wouldn't be here today. There is no urgency for us to act today. There is an urgency--just as the new designee for the Ambassador to Israel has slandered some other people-- for them to besmirch the efforts of this administration.

The truth is that ever-expanding Israeli settlements--many of them first constructed in total violation of Israeli law--are a significant obstacle, but they are certainly not the only one. The clearer goal of settlers is to have facts on the ground, to be irreversible in moving to split up any potential Palestinian Authority.

Protect our families and those of Israel by rejecting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, certainty, we are told, is the key factor here--first words from Chairman Ryan in support of this bill. I think the first certainty we have here is the knowledge that this bill is part of a package that, approved through today, is certain to borrow $317.5 billion. That is basically a request to this House and this Congress that we approve the borrowing of $317.5 billion. And when you look at other measures they have approved in the past, they are really on a pathway to borrowing almost $1 trillion to finance these tax cuts.

I believe that certainty is important to taxpayers. I think that when someone pays for Medicare and Social Security, they need to be certain that it will be there. They need to be certain that the water that they drink and the air they breathe is not contaminated. They need to be certain that the food that they put on their family's table is safe, that it has been inspected by a meat inspector or another type of health inspector. They need to be sure when they drive home, they need to have the certainty that the bridge that they drive over is not going to fall down, as it did in Minneapolis a few years back. They need to be certain that there is educational opportunity, quality education, for their children. They need to be able to do all this without just having to rely on charity.

This bill certainly selects a subset of tax provisions that benefit a few Americans and gives them preference. And I like some of these provisions. In fact, I am a cosponsor of some of these provisions, like the conservation easement. But they are measures that can and should be fully paid for instead of asking for another IOU. And because they are select provisions, they exclude many working and middle class American families.

For example, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which is based on the principle that we want all Americans to be able to get postsecondary education in a college or a trade school, but a choice that they make and get $2,500 directly off of their tax bill to pay for tuition and books; the child tax credit that so many American families claim to help with their children; the earned income tax credit that even President Reagan said was a key factor in getting people out of poverty, those are key provisions that were left over on the side and not selected for borrowing or for anything else.

It is certain that many Americans have been left out of this very costly package. Working families do need to depend on more than charity. They need to be able to depend on this Congress to respond to their needs.

Now, there is seldom a week that goes by in the area of medical research that there is not a group here on Capitol Hill concerned with Alzheimer's research, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, AIDS, or any number of dreaded diseases, basically saying: Find a cure for my family member or my neighbor; find a cure before I get this dreaded disease. There are groups that come here after the tough droughts we had here last year saying the Forest Service and the weather service need more resources in order to deal with the natural disasters associated with climate change.

We have been unable to find the funds for our crumbling roads and bridges. We do not have the investment we need from pre-K to postgraduate in education.

When you dig another hundreds of billions of dollars--or maybe $1 trillion--into debt, it provides an excuse for many of those who don't believe in those programs to say: Gee, we would love to help you with education for your children, and, yes, it would be good if we had another meat inspector, but we just can't afford to do that.

So we get to the point that Mr. Ryan has raised: Why is it we should raise taxes on some in order to maintain and renew some expired tax credits for others? I think there are two reasons.

One is that some people are still not paying their fair share. We have got some multinational corporations that don't pay as much as a percent of their income as the people who clean up their offices. The second reason is that it is for the same reason that we say, if we need additional money for our national defense or for our educational and retirement security at home, we have to come up with the revenues to pay for that if we are to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility.

There are some good provisions in this bill, but we need the certainty that we will not be digging ourselves deeper into debt, preventing our ability to meet other vital national needs for our families.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans offer a very clear immigration plan today: Deportation now. Deportation tomorrow. Deportation forever.

They don't just want to roll back what the President has recently done with pro-family action; they would roll back previous protection for our DREAMers, young adults brought here as children, who have so much to offer. Republicans would deny them that opportunity, just as they would deny an opportunity for families that pay their taxes, work hard, and pass a criminal background check--they would deny them an opportunity to stay together.

Republicans want to deport Pedro. Pedro is a young man who came to America at age three. He excelled in school. He graduated near the top of his class at the University of Texas. And he hopes to work for the district attorney's office, securing our community from crime, or in some other public service. This bill does not just deny

opportunity to Pedro; it denies our entire community the opportunity to benefit from his talents. I say let these DREAMers help us build a better and stronger America.

Sadly, we have had so many broken promises in this House that the day would come when people of goodwill in both parties could come together and consider broader reform. Yet we are still denied that opportunity. Republican leaders have apparently given up on resolving the broken immigration system. They will stop at nothing to avoid doing anything.

This amended bill would deny the right to learn, the right to work. It would deny hope for so many of these young people who pledge allegiance to America, who have so much to offer. Pandering to angry isolationists is not a sound immigration policy. It is not what this country, where the Statue of Liberty stands so tall, is all about.

Vote for the dream, Mr. Speaker, and vote ``no'' on this nightmare of an amended bill.

Madam Speaker, today is a special day for San Antonio because our San Antonio Spurs are being recognized at the White House for their victorious season. We have, of course, already had many a celebration in San Antonio, but it is good to see this celebration now reaching 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Congratulations to the San Antonio Spurs on this fifth amazing championship ring.

Serving here in Congress as a representative for much of San Antonio, including the very place in the Alamo City where the Spurs have scored so many of these victories, I know that nothing defines the Spurs or San Antonio like the teamwork, the determination, and the positive attitude they displayed on this trail to the 2014 championship victory. These values are shown through the Spurs' ``Silver and Black Give Back''; a community and outreach program which has benefited over 250,000 children and coaches in the past couple of decades, all this in a city that is overflowing with Spurs enthusiasm and Spurs fans.

I would have to say that all of San Antonio knows that the Spurs are certainly no Mavericks at basketball; they are well-seasoned, team players. They were able to rain down Thunder on all of their 2014 opponents with a regular season record of 62 wins out of 82 games. And that is not all that set the Spurs apart; they are true Trailblazers, hiring the first female assistant coach in the NBA, Becky Hammon. Overall, when it came down to that fifth ring, the Spurs, a team that lives in our Texas temperatures, were able to beat the Heat with a cool 4-1 series blowout.

Like San Antonio itself, the Spurs have attracted the best and brightest from all over the world. There never has been, and there never will be, a team quite like the San Antonio Spurs in a city that is like no other.

Congratulations to a dynasty. Like so many of my constituents, I am ready for the ``Race for Seis!''

Mr. Speaker, to those who have wondered, what would be the top priority of this Republican-controlled Congress? What would they do on day one? Well, now we know. It is deception, what some could even rightly call tax fraud, since this amounts to deliberate misrepresentation of tax data.

Republicans are admitting right here on day one that they don't know how to balance the budget. When the budget numbers will not add up, when the arithmetic just doesn't work for them, they change the numbers with magical new math. Where the books won't balance with the numbers that you have got, Republicans say, ``Use the numbers you would like to have.''

All their previous talk about budget discipline and balancing budgets was really about trying to dismantle Democratic efforts to provide an opportunity ladder up for all Americans, to assure dignity in retirement, and to protect families from the risk of illness--that ladder of security and protection that many Republicans were never for in the first place.

Now, to free themselves from the hard work of responsible, balanced budgets, Republicans are compelling the House for the first time in American history to rely upon something they call ``dynamic scoring''-- That is just a euphemism for whimsy, speculation, and wishful thinking--the thin veneer for a failed political ideology.

One leading Republican expert, former Senate budget staff director Bill Hoagland, has said that instead of this scoring gimmick that they are using today, he would ``rather [they] just simply belly up to the bar'' and ``admit up front that they can't lower rates without adding to the deficit.''

Today's actions remind me of a riddle some attribute to President Abraham Lincoln: ``How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.''

And calling a budget ``balanced'' when it doesn't have adequate revenue does not make it so.

Passing a budget requires hard work. Republicans would rather use a sleight of hand than offer a helping hand from all to get the job done. Vote no.