Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of the death of Brian Shaw, a brave, young police officer who was recently killed in the line of duty in my district on November 17.

What began as a routine traffic stop turned into a pursuit on foot and an exchange of gunfire that left Officer Shaw mortally wounded.

Brian was just 25 years old when he was murdered doing the job he loved. He was a universally loved and respected member of his community. He was well liked and respected by his fellow officers. His life was brutally cut short, but there is no denying it was a life well lived.

Brian was a graduate of Burrell High School, Slippery Rock University, and the Allegheny County Police Training Academy.

He served as a police officer in Cheswick, Frazer, and Springdale Township before joining the New Kensington Police Department this June.

Friends have said that Brian always wanted to be a police officer. Brian said that he became a police officer because he wanted to make a difference. I want my colleagues and the whole Nation to know that he did.

Throughout his service as a police officer, he upheld the law, and he served the communities with dedication, compassion, and a warm smile. He knew the risks that come with being a law enforcement officer, and he accepted them willingly.

I had the honor of attending the memorial service for Officer Shaw at Mount St. Peter Church last week. The turnout was amazing. The church was packed to the rafters. Thousands more stood outside, including more than 1,000 police officers. I can't think of a more tangible expression of respect and appreciation for Officer Shaw's service and his sacrifice.

In closing, I want to express my deepest sympathy to Officer Shaw's parents, Lisa and Stephan; his brother, Steffan; his fellow police officers; his family; and his friends.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this terrible bill. Many of my colleagues have called it a scam, and they are absolutely right.

Supporters of this bill have said that everyone gets a tax cut. That is not true. Millions of Americans get a tax increase; more and more each year, in fact.

Supporters of this bill have called it a middle class tax cut. That is not true. The lion's share of the money goes to corporations and households making $1 million or more, not to the family struggling paycheck to paycheck.

What this bill gives to the middle class in one hand, it takes it away with the other with devastating consequences for households with high medical costs, student loans, or high State and local taxes.

Supporters of this bill have claimed that it will keep companies from moving jobs overseas, create new jobs here at home, raise wages for American workers. That is not true. While this bill cuts corporate tax rates, it creates new incentives for shipping our jobs abroad.

Finally, does anyone really believe that tax cuts for corporations and the rich will trickle down to the rest of us?

It didn't work in the Reagan administration. It didn't work in the Bush administration. It didn't work in Kansas, and it is not going to work today.

Make no mistake, this massive tax cut for corporations and the rich will increase deficits and the national debt by trillions of dollars, sticking the rest of us, especially our kids, with the bill.

Madam Speaker, this massive tax cut for corporations and the wealthy is not a middle class tax cut. It won't create jobs or raise wages. It isn't simple, it isn't reform, and it certainly won't pay for itself.

If we want to increase economic growth, let's give a real break to the middle class and the small businesses. They will put that money right back into the economy. That is the way to create jobs and boost wages.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this giveaway to the rich and to start over with a bipartisan bill that truly benefits the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable public servant from my district, Mayor Raymond G. Bodnar of Munhall, Pennsylvania, who is retiring after 53 years of service to his community.

Mr. Bodnar has been the Mayor of Munhall Borough for the last 30 years, but his service to his nation and community began long before that. As a young man, he served in the Army during the Korean Conflict and was honorably discharged in 1955. In addition to working for 40 years for the U.S. Steel Corporation, he served eight years as auditor of Munhall and another fifteen as a member and then President of the Munhall Borough Council. In 1987, he was elected mayor, a position which he has honorably filled for the last three decades, and in which he has worked tirelessly to improve the Munhall community.

During his career, Mayor Bodnar has supported and secured funding for such important projects as developing the Munhall waterfront, revitalizing the town's Main Street, modernizing the police department, and introducing public safety and crime prevention programs.

Beyond his duties as a civil servant, he has also given back to his community in countless ways, including managing the youth Munhall Baseball League, organizing summer athletic programs, working with Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and church groups, and teaching local government to youth groups and schools. He is also a member of a number of community service organizations, including Knights of Columbus No. 2201, the Catholic War Veterans Association, the Homestead Elks, and the Steel Valley Salvation Army Board ofDirectors.

For more than 50 years, Raymond Bodnar has demonstrated wholehearted dedication to public service and community involvement, and I think that we can all learn something from his example. I wish to congratulate the mayor on his retirement and commend him for his lifetime of devotion to the Munhall community.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present in Washington for voting on October 4-5, 2017 due to circumstances beyond my control. Had I been present, I would have voted: Yes on the Grijalva Amendment to H. Con. Res. 71 (Roll Call No. 553), and Yes on the Scott Amendment to H. Con. Res. 71 (Roll Call No. 554). Additionally, I would have voted Yes on the Yarmuth amendment to H. Con. Res. 71 (Roll Call No. 556), and voted No on Final Passage (Roll Call No. 557).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Allegheny County Ancient Order of Hibernians Division 17, which is currently celebrating its 125th anniversary as a pillar of Irish-American heritage and charitable service in the Pittsburgh region.

The AOH has its roots in the efforts by the Tudor Kings and Queens of England to impose greater control over the Irish. These efforts affected most aspects of life, from language and religion to law and politics to land ownership--and even clothing. Secret societies formed to protect Irish Catholics from government excesses and extrajudicial violence

Faced with centuries of English oppression, as well as a series of crop failures, many Irish emigrated in search of better opportunities. A great many came to America, but found they were forced to confront the same anti-Catholic prejudice that they had faced back home. In response to this discrimination, Irish Americans began forming fraternal organizations to combat anti-Irish prejudice, support each other, and keep their culture and religion alive. In May 1836, the first and largest of these groups, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, was founded simultaneously in New York City and Pottsville, Pennsylvania.

Through the rest of the nineteenth century, the AOH grew significantly, opening its first division in Allegheny County in 1859. Allegheny County Division 17 was established in 1892. During this time, in addition to working to preserve Irish culture, AOH members did their best to embody the Hibernian motto of ``Friendship, Unity, and Christian Charity.'' The Hibernians taught civics and English classes to help new Irish immigrants become citizens, and they provided much needed social programs to care for the sick and needy in their communities. At the same time, they worked to confront and eradicate harmful anti-Irish stereotypes.

Since then, the AOH's ranks have included notable actors, generals, and even a President of the United States--John F. Kennedy. All the while, the organization has continued its mission to preserve Irish Americans' connection with their ancestral homeland and to care for the needy in their communities. For 125 years, Allegheny County Division 17 has been actively involved in this mission. Division 17 Hibernians donate time and money to three local parishes each Christmas, as well as food banks in Braddock, and a number of other charitable organizations, including Rosaries for the Troops, St. Vincent de Paul, and the Sisters of Charity. They have also endeavored to preserve their Irish heritage and lobbied the Pennsylvania state government to support Irish independence.

Today, the AOH stands as a testament to the tenacity of the Irish people, a celebration of our culture, and a monument to a people who helped build this country. I'm proud to be of Irish ancestry--and to be a member of Allegheny County Division 17 of the AOH. As we commemorate the AOH's legacy of faith and perseverance in the face of adversity, let us also take inspiration from its story and recognize the responsibility each of us shares to help make our nation as welcoming a land as our ancestors dreamed it would be.

I would like to congratulate Allegheny County Division 17 of the Ancient Order of Hibernians on the occasion of their 125th anniversary, I commend them for their service to the community, and I wish them the best in the years to come. Ireland Forever (Erin go Bragh).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the heroism of six local law enforcement officers, who selflessly risked life and limb to protect their fellow citizens.

On Monday, June 22, 2015, a number of Pittsburgh police officers were dispatched on a call for shots fired shortly after 10 a.m. near the intersection of Knox Avenue and Orchard Place in the City of Pittsburgh's Knoxville neighborhood.

As the units were responding, calls came in reporting that this was an ``active shooter'' incident and the suspect was firing an AR-15- style semi-automatic rifle. The suspect moved around the neighborhood, shooting a male taxi driver on Rentz Way, firing shots at vehicles and into occupied homes near a children's day care facility, and carjacking a white Buick from Rochelle Street. As the reports continued to come in, all available units responded to the area in search of the suspect, with reports that the suspect had driven towards Brownsville Road.

Sergeant Kevin Faulds of the Allegheny County Sheriffs Office responded to the call for all available units. Turning onto Brownsville Road from Knox Avenue, he spotted the Buick on Brownsville Road and did a u-turn to pursue. As he made the u-turn, the suspect stopped his vehicle and fired his assault rifle from within the car, striking Sergeant Faulds' vehicle multiple times. Sergeant Faulds took cover and radioed in his situation. When the suspect began driving again, Sergeant Faulds again followed him. The suspect again stopped his vehicle and started shooting. One round went through the top of the windshield on the passenger side of the cruiser. The car's visor and windshield frame deflected the bullet down and towards Sergeant Faulds, ripping through the headrest of his seat inches from his head and shattering the back window. Sergeant Faulds maneuvered his patrol car behind a bus for protection. When the suspect stopped shooting and drove away, Sergeant Faulds pulled out and followed the suspect at a distance of 50 to 100 feet, all the while continuing to call in information on the suspect's location and his own.

Officer Joseph DelSole of the Port Authority Police Department heard radio calls regarding an active shooter in a stolen vehicle in the Knoxville Area. Based on Sergeant Faulds' report on his location, Officer DelSole, working the South Zone of the Port Authority service area, proceeded from the South Busway and took up a firing position on Route 51.

At the same time, City of Pittsburgh Police Sergeant James Vogel stopped traffic on Route 51, trapping the suspect in the traffic jam. Then, Sergeant Vogel made his way on foot through the stopped vehicles and confronted the suspect, who was still sitting in the stolen car. The suspect fired at him using the semi-automatic rifle.

City of Pittsburgh Detectives William Friburger and David Honick, along with City of Pittsburgh Sergeant Anthony Palermo approached the suspect's vehicle on foot. Officer DelSole, Sergeant Vogel, Detectives Friburger and Honick, and Sergeant Palermo fired at the vehicle in order to neutralize the suspect, who was firing at them. The officers and suspect continued to exchange shots from close range until the suspect was hit and succumbed to his injuries.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all appreciate the courage and dedication it takes to consciously place oneself in danger by entering a hostile gunman's field of fire. Not one, not two, but six law enforcement officers in our county did so that day, and continued to risk their lives until the gunman posed no further threat to the community. I can't begin to express my deep respect and admiration for these brave law enforcement officers or my gratitude to them for their exemplary actions that day. I also want to point out that they, like all of our first responders, go to work each day not knowing what challenges they will face or what risks they will run. The fact that they get up and go to work every day despite the risks inherent in the job speaks volumes about the depth of the commitment they have to protecting their community. They are outstanding public servants, and they deserve recognition here in our Nation's Capital.

I'm very proud of Sergeant Faulds, Officer DelSole, Sergeant Vogel, Detective Friburger, Detective Honick, and Sergeant Palermo, and I want my colleagues and the Nation to take comfort in the knowledge that real heroes still live among us. I hope their actions that day will be an inspiration to all of us to always do what's right, no matter what the cost.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friends Bob Brady and Rodney Davis and Joe Barton--not only good friends, but people that have been associated with the Congressional Baseball Game for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, every day, thousands of people, including Members of Congress and their staffs, rely upon the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police to protect us. Over the years, the Capitol Police have been called upon to respond to a number of violent attacks, selflessly risking life and limb to protect us and the people who visit this Capitol. As was mentioned, this is the anniversary where Officers Gibson and Chestnut made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the then- leader of the House.

I know that all of us here are very grateful to the U.S. Capitol Police for their efforts every day to keep our Capitol safe.

Everyone pretty much knows what happened. Members of the Republican baseball team were attacked a little over a month ago. Each day we would get up at about 6 in the morning to go to baseball practice. It is a wonderful tradition that has been going on for over 100 years here in the House of Representatives, one game each year, Democrats against the Republicans, with the proceeds going to three charities: the Boys and Girls Club of Washington, D.C.; the Washington Literacy Council; and the Washington Nationals Dream Foundation.

It is not a softball game; it is a hardball game. We play hardball in Washington. We get to play at the Washington Nationals' stadium, and we get to wear our home team uniforms and relive our youth. Most of us were just amateur baseball players in Little League and PONY League. We have a few guys that played at the college level. We go out there and we practice every day and give it our all. It is great comradery. We build great friendships over the years. Every year we would get about 9,000 or 10,000 people that actually come to the Washington Nationals' stadium and would raise about half a million dollars for the charities.

Well, this year, something happened that none of us ever dreamed when we got up every morning and went to the practice, and that was a shooter showed up that day at this park in Northern Virginia and started firing on the Republican baseball team.

Our team was practicing at the same time at a different location, and the first text I got on my phone during our batting practice was from one of my staff that asked me if I was okay. I couldn't understand why he was asking me that question, but about a second later news came on our telephones that there had been a shooter at the congressional baseball practice. It wasn't at first said which one it was. I knew it wasn't ours, so I knew it had to be the Republican practice.

When we called our players off the field, my thoughts immediately went to Joe Barton's son Jack, someone whom I have become good friends with over the years.

Jack is, what, Joe, 11 years old?

I think I have known him since he was much younger than that. Jack will come here on the floor during the baseball week, and he will come over and he will say hello to me, and I will try to see if I can get any secrets from Jack about his dad's strategy against the Democratic team. Jack would always say: ``I can't give you any information on that.'' I thought about him right away as we knew that the shots were being fired and that people were down.

We called our team into the dugout, and about the only thing we could think to do, Joe, was to sit down and to say a prayer that you were safe. I prayed that Jack was safe and that nobody was seriously hurt that day.

As we all know, our colleague and good friend Steve Scalise was seriously wounded and, to this day, is still

in the hospital. We want to send our prayers and best wishes to Steve that he recovers fully, and that he and his family can get back to a normal course of life.

But what a lot of people don't realize, had Steve Scalise not been there that day, his protective detail, Officers Bailey and Griner, wouldn't have been there that day either. Our friends on the Republican baseball team would have been pretty much defenseless against this guy with an assault rifle and an automatic pistol.

But to their credit, Officers Bailey and Griner--this gentleman started over at the third baseline, and our friends were seeking cover in the first base dugout, which was recessed, to get some protection. But as the shooter started to move towards home plate, these officers realized that he was going to have an angle into that dugout, and there could have been a lot of people killed. They came out from their cover and literally charged at this shooter, and both of them were hit. They continued to fire on this gunman even after they had been hit, and with the help of some Alexandria Police officers, too, brought this shooter down.

Thank God no one on the baseball team or staff--all the people on that field--lost their life that day. The shooter did, but no one else did.

When you sit down and think about what it takes to make that decision to put your life at risk for someone else, Officers Griner and Bailey knew that when they came out in the open like that and started shooting at this guy that they very well could lose their life trying to make sure nobody else did. But they did their job, and they did what they were trained to do.

Both of them got hurt and both are recovering from these bullet wounds, and they have out-of-pocket costs. Their healthcare doesn't cover all of their expenses. They are on administrative leave. They are not making the same pay they would make as a protective detail officer. There was no means for us to help them because of the way this fund was structured, only to make payments if an officer lost their life in the line of duty. I think Joe was correct when he said it was almost created specifically for the two officers that lost their lives.

We both came to realize that there needed to be a change in the law if we were going to be able to help Officers Bailey and Griner and, in the future, if an officer was seriously wounded in the line of duty, for payments to be made out of this fund. That is the purpose of this piece of legislation that we have over 100 cosponsors for. I believe every member of the Democratic and Republican baseball teams has signed on as cosponsors. I know a lot of other Members who weren't on the teams have also put their names to this because we want to make sure that Crystal and David know that we care about them.

I can tell you, the night of the baseball game, David Bailey was at our game, and if you would have seen the Members come up and hug him and express their appreciation for what he did, it was a very emotional moment. I know Crystal threw out the first pitch at the women's softball game.

Those are two heroic people. Those are two people that put their lives secondary to the lives of the people they are sworn to protect, and I think it is only fitting and proper that this body pass this piece of legislation that will allow us the opportunity to help make them whole again and to let the rest of our Capitol Police force know that they have our backs and that we are going to make sure that we have their backs,

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my good friend Joe Barton and the entire Republican and Democratic baseball teams in supporting this piece of legislation. I hope the Senate moves swiftly on it and we can get this passed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is different from the other years that we have stood up here. This trophy isn't for either team. This trophy is for Steve.

I just want you all to know that when we got the news at our baseball practice about what was going on, the only thing we could think about is that we are a family. When we stood in the dugout and prayed that you were safe and that no one was hurt, we weren't thinking about Democrats and Republicans. We were thinking about our fellow Members.

I was thinking about your son, Jack, and all the fun times I have had kidding him. I was thinking about Cedric Richmond's 3-year-old son, who was with us, and what would have happened if that shooter had come over to our dugout.

If there is a silver lining to that terrible day, it was reflected in the outpouring of people who showed up at our game. We normally get a crowd of 9,000 to 10,000. We had 25,000 people come to that game.

We normally raise about $500,000 for the three charities that the game supports. I have a check here that says we raised $1.5 million, but that is not correct. It is $1.7 million. Some worthwhile charities are going to get a check they weren't expecting.

I want to reiterate what you said about our Capitol Police. To have someone shooting bullets at you, that is terrifying enough. To make the decision to put yourself out there and charge at that shooter to make sure that there wasn't a massacre takes a special kind of person.

To see Crystal throw that ball out last night at the women's softball game brought a lot of joy to my heart. We owe a real debt of gratitude to the Capitol Police who protect us on these grounds.

I want Joe to know that we continue to think about all of you. You are in our prayers, you are in our thoughts. Something terrible happened. For many of you, it might take days before it hits you. I would encourage anyone who is feeling that to talk to someone. Don't be bashful about that. This was a traumatic experience for your team, especially, but I want you to know that you are in our hearts and in our prayers.

As we said before, Joe and I are going to walk this trophy over to Steve's office. When the hospital gives us clearance, we are going to go over to the hospital and present it to Steve personally. This is for him right now. We want him to know that the entire Congress thinks about him every day, prays for him and his family, and we hope to get him back here on the House floor as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to former Pennsylvania State Senator Frank A. Pecora, who passed away on June 12, 2017, at the age of 86. He was a dedicated public servant and a wonderful, warm-hearted man. It was my privilege to know him, work with him, and call him a close friend for many, many years.

Frank was born on August 8, 1930, in Pittsburgh to Frank L. and Elizabeth Cristillo Pecora. Frank attended Westinghouse High School and Robert Morris College. He obtained his licenses in insurance and real estate and worked in that field. He served as a Penn Hills Township Commissioner from 1971 to 1975. Frank was then elected as a Councilman- at-Large in 1975 and reelected in 1977.

Soon after I graduated from college, I was elected to serve on Borough Council in my home town of Swissvale. Not long after that, I met Frank, who was a councilman in neighboring Penn Hills and we really hit it off. We both shared a love for the game of golf and we would discuss local government and politics during the many rounds we played together. Frank told me he was considering running for the Pennsylvania State Senate and I was proud to join his campaign team. He was considered a heavy underdog, but his hard work and determination carried the day, and Frank was elected to serve the residents of the 44th District in the Pennsylvania State Senate in 1978.

Frank asked me to join his team and I had the privilege to serve as his Chief-of-Staff for 16 years. It was during that time that I came to really know and learn from this remarkable public servant whose life was dedicated to advocating for the little guy. Sometimes his votes put him at odds with his Senate Leadership, but Frank never flinched. He knew who he came to Harrisburg to represent, and it wasn't the rich and powerful.

Senator Pecora was likeable and approachable. He enjoyed meeting his constituents and learning about their families. When he entered a restaurant, he wouldn't sit down at his table until he had spoken to every person who worked there. He knew their names, he made their concerns his concern, and he fought for them in Harrisburg. He was a man of integrity, compassion and unquestionable loyalty to his family, friends and constituents. In spite of a huge registration deficit, the residents of the 44th District re-elected Frank 3 more times. In 1991, reapportionment moved his Allegheny/Westmoreland district over 200 miles east to Chester County in the middle of his 4th term. Frank was no quitter however, he was determined to keep his seat and serve the people of Pennsylvania's 44th Senate District, wherever its boundary lines were drawn. He rented an apartment in Chester County to serve his constituents, and when the Senate wasn't in session, he and I would drive up to the new district and meet with people in the different communities. In 1992, Frank ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 18th District of Pennsylvania. He won a 12-way Democratic primary, but he lost the general election. Frank continued serving his constituents in Chester County until his retirement from the State Senate at the end of his term in 1994.

The only thing Frank loved more than serving his constituents was his family. He was proud of his two children, Frank and Barbara. His wife Barbara was his best friend, his ``Bella Mia,'' and they did everything together. They were married for 60 years and were sweethearts to the very end.

Frank Pecora was a good man. I was proud to know him, learn from him, work for him and love him as a second father. I miss him and think of him often. He and his family will always be in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very excited to say congratulations, once again, to the Pittsburgh Penguins on winning the 2017 Stanley Cup.

For those of you who don't know, the Penguins also won the Stanley Cup last year--making them back-to-back champions. That hasn't been done since the late 1990s and since the salary cap was put in place. It was truly a historic achievement, and the City of Pittsburgh could not be more excited. This is the 5th Stanley Cup for the Penguins franchise.

Over the course of the season--and particularly the playoffs--the Penguins showed the grit, resiliency, and determination that is emblematic of the City of Pittsburgh. They battled through injury after injury, tough games, hostile arenas, changing rosters--you name it, they faced it. And yet they came out on top every time.

Throughout the course of the playoffs, they bested the Columbus Blue Jackets in the first round, winning handily in a 4-1 series. Next, they came here to D.C. and faced the No. 1-seed Washington Capitals. Well, for the ninth time in 10 playoff matchups, the Pens defeated the Capitals in a brutal 7-game series that also (temporarily) knocked out our Captain, Sidney Crosby. But the thing about Pittsburgh--and the Pens--is that a knock-out punch just won't keep us down for long. They moved right along and trucked through the Ottawa Senators 4-2 to make it back to the Stanley Cup Finals for the second year in a row.

Now, I would like to congratulate the Nashville Predators on a magical run through the playoffs and a hard-fought final series. But ultimately, it wasn't enough to overcome the Penguins' skill, experience, hustle, and determination.

In a riveting Game 6, neither team had scored a goal and the end of regulation was quickly approaching. With only 95 seconds left on the clock, Patric Hornqvist managed to use the Predator's goalie himself to get the puck in the net. Left with few options, the Preds had to pull their goalie which allowed the Penguins to get an empty-net goal with seconds remaining. It was the perfect end to a historic season.

I would particularly like to congratulate Sidney Crosby on winning his second back-to-back Conn Smythe Trophy, one of only three players ever to do so. The last player to win back-to-back? The Pens very own Mario Lemieux.

The City of Pittsburgh is welcoming home another championship trophy, and for that I would like to once again thank and congratulate the 2017 Stanley Cup Champion Pittsburgh Penguins. Welcome back to Pittsburgh, Lord Stanley.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a globally engaged and welcoming United States. Historically, hosting international students and scholars at our colleges and universities has been one of the most important ways America reinforces those values. We all need to recognize the vital contributions that international students, scholars and their families make when we welcome them to this great country.

Welcoming international students and scholars strengthens our diplomatic ties with countries across the globe and increases our national security.

International students and scholars who have spent time in the United States become informal ambassadors when they return home, sharing an appreciation for common values, counteracting stereotypes about the U.S., and enhancing respect for cultural differences.

Likewise, the ability to perform and compete globally is a vital component of a 21st century education. While less than 2 percent of U.S. students study abroad each year, having international students on our campuses can better prepare U.S. students to succeed as global citizens.

International students also contribute to the economic well-being of the United States. According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, international students and their families supported 400,000 jobs and contributed nearly $33 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2015 to 2016 academic year.

In my district, during the 2015 to 2016 academic year, 12,249 international students and their families contributed $359.7 million, supporting 5,967 jobs.

May is a critical month on the college calendar. It is the traditional end of the academic year, when graduation ceremonies take place across the country. But it is also a time when prospective students make their final choice on where they plan to study in the fall.

Actions taken by this administration, most significantly the Travel Ban Executive Order, have generated a great deal of uncertainty within U.S. colleges and universities. Many currently enrolled international students may choose not to travel home at the end of the academic year, for fear they might not be allowed to return in the fall.

Unsurprisingly, for prospective students, nearly 40 percent of higher education institutions reported application declines for the first time in many years.

Moreover, the anti-immigrant rhetoric and uncertainty created by our broken immigration system make the United States less attractive to the students and scholars who we want to contribute to our campuses and communities.

To ensure our nation's security, economic well-being, and academic leadership, we must remain an open and welcoming United States. So, to the international students and scholars who may be unsure about coming, I say: Your contributions are valued and you are welcome here.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 7 years we have had 62 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but Republicans have never once put a plan on the floor for the American people. Well, today, we all get a chance to go on record of where we stand on this bill, this shameful, cruel bill.

Here are the facts: 24 million Americans are going to lose their insurance if this bill becomes law. Over $839 billion gets cut out of the Medicaid program. The essential benefit package in States, wiped out. In my State, it is taking care of people with mental illness and opioid addiction; gone. This takes $117 billion out of the Medicare trust fund.

This is a healthcare bill--this is really a tax bill masquerading as a healthcare bill. The plan here is to take this money out of the healthcare system and use it for tax cuts. That is what this bill is going to do.

This creates a survival-of-the-fittest health care for America. If you are young, if you are healthy, if you are wealthy, this bill is for you; you are going to do okay. But if you are old, if you are sick, if you are poor, there is no coverage in this bill for you.

If you have a young child with cancer, guess what, those benefits aren't going to be paid. You are going to run out of benefits.

These high-risk pools are a sham. They are not adequately funded. This bill must be defeated. The American people will remember who votes for this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the

Girls of Steel Robotics team on winning the Engineering Inspiration Award at the 2017 Greater Pittsburgh Regional FIRST Robotics Competition in California, PA. This award celebrates outstanding success in advancing respect and appreciation for engineering within a team's school and community, and it qualified them to attend Championships in St. Louis April 26-29, 2017 for the seventh year in a row. This was their best year at Championships, where they ranked 28 out of 68, with 6 wins, 3 losses, and 1 tie match.

I think that placing so high nationally and winning the Engineering Inspiration award at the regional competition speaks volumes about the dedication these young women have demonstrated in pursuing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math careers, sustaining their team, and collectively spending thousands of hours doing outreach in the community. Girls of Steel are often referred to as the hometown favorite robotics group and continue to be featured in videos, print media, and blog posts. In October 2016, they were represented at The White House Frontiers Conference in Pittsburgh where President Obama recognized the Girls of Steel teams.

George Kantor, Senior Systems Scientist at Carnegie Mellon University's Field Robotics Center, won the prestigious Woodie Flowers Finalist Award at the Greater Pittsburgh Regional competition. This award is presented to mentors in the robotics competition who best lead, inspire, and empower their teams using excellent communication skills.

FIRST, which stands for ``For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology,'' is an organization dedicated to engaging students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields. The FIRST Robotics Competition allows students to apply creativity and critical thinking in the demanding and competitive field of robotics, all while instilling a strong sense of pride in the participants. Hundreds of thousands of students gain practical, team-based engineering experience through FIRST every year.

As a founder and co-chair of the Congressional Robotics Caucus, I believe competitions like these are important tools for helping young people to explore potential careers in STEM. I've witnessed firsthand the remarkable economic growth and job creation that these fields can bring in my home district, and I strongly believe that these fields are crucial to our nation's future prosperity. I want to commend organizations like FIRST for the important work they do in encouraging young people to pursue STEM careers.

Sixty-three young women from 8th through 12th grades associated with schools located in and around Pittsburgh represent this year's Girls of Steel program, and in recognition of their hard work, intelligence, and teamwork, I would like to mention each of these inspiring young ladies by name. They are Alexandria Adams, Abhi Ajay, Aeryn Anderson, Peyton Balkovec, Arushi Bandi, Emilia Bianchini, Emma Burnett, Rosy Chen, Maya Cranor, Maansi Dasari, Hope DiGioia, Riley Doyle, Sofia Heller, Kristina Hilko, Madelyn Human, Rozie Fero, Corinne Hartman, Anna Jablonowski, Caroline Kenney, Isabelle Kowenhoven, Mary Laird, Jisue Lee, Agathe Legault, Rosie Li, Alice Liu, Sally Liu, Gayathri Manchella, Eve Mango, Jordan Martinez, Maia McCabe, Svea McCann, Sree Mekala, Cheyenne Meyers, Abbey Murcek, Anna Nesbitt, Anne Kailin Northam, Jimin Oh, Helen Paulini, Lehka Pendyala, Ananya Rao, Priya Ray, Maite Sadeh, Rachel Sadeh, Lauren Scheller-Wolf, Sarah Seay, Alexa Selwood, Swathi Senthil, Kriti Shah, Vivian Shao, Lauren Shovlin, Makayla Shreve, Amari Smith, Imani Smith, Kavya Soman, Ace Song, Adison Staskiewicz, JeanMarie Trichel, Mikayla Trost, Langley Turcsanyi, Anja Vogt, Janet Wang, Rebecca Wettergreen, and Ziya Xu.

Additionally, I want to convey my sincere appreciation to the faculty and staff of Carnegie Mellon University's Field Robotics Center, who have mentored the Girls of Steel since 2010. Because of their efforts, more young women experience real-world technological challenges and learn from some of the nation's best at solving such problems. These experiences will certainly benefit these young women in the future, no matter what careers they eventually choose to pursue.

I congratulate the Girls of Steel and wish them all continued success in their academic and professional endeavors

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 34.

Today, colleagues, we are waist deep in the swamp. The American people did not ask for this resolution.

In fact, no company will even put its name behind this effort. Instead, this resolution is the result of an explicit written request from Washington lobbyists. These lobbyists make the bogus claim that having actual protections will confuse consumers and the only way to help clear up this information is to have no rules at all.

No consumer has come forward to support this position. No consumer has said this argument even makes sense.

I challenge every Member of this body at your next townhall meeting to have a show of hands of how many people think it is a good idea to allow your internet service provider to sell their personal information without their permission.

Then after you get that show of hands, ask them how many of them would vote for you if you support allowing corporations to do that.

This resolution is of the swamp and for the swamp and no one else. The rules of this resolution would overturn rules that are simple and make common sense. They don't require much, only three things:

One, internet service providers should ask permission before selling your private internet browsing history, app usage, or other sensitive information;

Two, once they have your information, internet service providers should take reasonable measures to protect it; and

Finally, if the information gets stolen, the company should quickly let you know.

That is it. That is all that is being asked of them.

These modest rules don't stop internet service providers from using data for advertising and profiling or whatever else so long as they ask first.

ISPs have an obligation under these rules not to dive into the personal lives of Americans unless that is what those Americans want. They just need to ask first.

This is particularly true because broadband providers see literally everything you do online, every website you visit, every app, every device, every time. By analyzing your internet usage and browsing history, these companies will know more about you than members of your own family, more than you tell your doctor, more than you know about yourself. Without these rules, these companies don't have to ask before selling all of that information, and they don't have to take reasonable measures to protect that information when they collect it.

Make no mistake about this, colleagues: Anyone who votes for this bill is telling your constituents that they no longer have the freedom to decide how to control their own information. You have given that freedom away to big corporations. More importantly, there aren't rules to fall back on if Congress scraps these.

Critics of the rules argue that the Federal Trade Commission should oversee the privacy protection for broadband providers, but, under current law, they have no authority to do so, and the CRA won't do a thing to fix that. Under a Federal court of appeals case, the FTC has no authority over mobile broadband providers at all.

And to those that say the FCC can evaluate complaints on a case-by- case basis using its statutory authority, the current Chairman--your current Chairman--stated that section 222 cannot be used to protect personal information and that rules are necessary to enforce this statute.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a statement by the FCC Commissioner.

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai

Re TerraCom, Inc. and YourTel America, Inc., Apparent

Liability for Forfeiture, File No. EB-TCD-13-00009175.

A core principle of the American legal system is due

process. The government cannot sanction you for violating the

law unless it has told you what the law is.

In the regulatory context, due process is protected, in

part, through the fair warning rule. Specifically, the D.C.

Circuit has stated that ``[i]n the absence of notice--for

example, where the regulation is not sufficiently clear to

warn a party about what is expected of it--an agency may not

deprive a party of property.'' Thus, an agency cannot at once

invent and enforce a legal obligation.

Yet this is precisely what has happened here. In this case,

there is no pre-existing legal obligation to protect

personally identifiable information (also known as PII) or

notify customers of a PII data breach to enforce. The

Commission has never interpreted the Communications Act to

impose an enforceable duty on carriers to ``employ reasonable

data security practices to protect'' PII. The Commission has

never expounded a duty that carriers notify all consumers of

a data breach of PII. The Commission has never adopted rules

regarding the misappropriation, breach, or unlawful

disclosure of PII. The Commission never identifies in the

entire Notice of Apparent Liability a single rule that has

been violated.

Nevertheless, the Commission asserts that these companies

violated novel legal interpretations and never-adopted rules.

And it seeks to impose a substantial financial penalty. In so

doing, the Commission runs afoul of the fair warning rule. I

cannot support such ``sentence first, verdict afterward''

decision-making.

To the extent that the circumstances giving rise to today's

item merited the Commission's attention, there was a better

(and lawful) path forward. We could have opened a notice-and-

comment rulemaking. This process would have given the public

an opportunity to speak. And in turn, the agency would have

had a chance to formulate clear, well-considered rules--rules

we then could have enforced against anyone who violated them.

Instead, the Commission proposes a forfeiture today that, if

actually imposed, has little chance of surviving judicial

review.

One more thing. The Commission asserts that the base

forfeiture for these violations is nine billion dollars--

that's $9,000,000,000--which is by far the biggest in our

history. It strains credulity to think that Congress intended

such massive potential liability for ``telecommunications

carriers'' but not retailers or banks or insurance companies

or tech companies or cable operators or any of the myriad

other businesses that possess consumers' PII. Nor can I

understand how such liability can be squared with the

Enforcement Bureau's recent consent decrees with these

companies. Under those consent decrees, the companies paid

the Treasury $440,000 and $160,000 for flouting our actual

rules and draining the Universal Service Fund by seeking

Lifeline support multiple times for the same customer.

Consumer protection is a critical component of the agency's

charge to promote the public interest. But any enforcement

action we take in that regard must comport with the law. For

the reasons stated above, I dissent.

Without these protections, there will be no clear rules of the road. At a time when foreign actors like the Russians, the Chinese, and everyone else under the sun are constantly trying to steal our data and compromise our security, it would be irresponsible to roll back the only Federal safeguards we have. I want my colleagues to think long and hard before you give corporations the ability to sell your information without their permission.

Mr. Speaker, I include several articles in the Record by Free Press and the Open Technology Institute opposing the CRA, an op-ed from a current

FTC Commissioner opposing this CRA, and a memorandum from engineers at EFF opposing this CRA.

[From Free Press, May 10, 2016]

Pay-for-Privacy Schemes Put the Most Vulnerable Americans at Risk

(By Sandra Fulton)

The FCC has opened a proceeding on the rules and policies

surrounding privacy rights for broadband service. One

industry practice called into question in that proceeding

could have a devastating impact on our most vulnerable

populations.

Internet service providers charge broadband customers a ton

for Internet access. ISPs are increasingly finding new

revenue streams too, by taking part in the multibillion-

dollar market that's evolved out of selling users' personal

information to online marketers. As the debate around privacy

has heated up, ISPs have tried to placate the public's

growing interest in privacy protections while maintaining

revenues they can get when they auction off their customers'

valuable personal information.

One proposed solution that AT&T has largely ``pioneered''?

Have customers pay to preserve their privacy.

The potential harms and discriminatory implications of this

practice are obvious. It could mean that only people with the

necessary financial means could protect their privacy and

prevent their ISPs from sharing their personal information

with predatory online marketers. The FCC rulemaking

proceeding seeks comments on whether to allow such

``financial inducements'' for the surrender of private

information. If the agency decides not to ban such practices

outright, it wants to know how it should regulate them.

As our lives have moved online, ISPs have gained access to

our most sensitive personal information. Advanced

technologies allow companies to track us invisibly,

collecting and selling data on nearly every detail of what we

do online.

But ISPs don't just stop at knowing what we're doing. The

location tracking that's needed to provide mobile service to

our phones lets the ISPs know when and where we do it too.

And they can figure out the people and organizations we

associate with by looking at who we talk to and which

websites we visit.

As ISPs track their customers, they create comprehensive

dossiers containing sensitive information on each person's

finances, health, age, race, religion and ethnicity. Their

reach is so pervasive that information like a visit to a

website discussing mental health, a search on how to collect

unemployment benefits, or a visit to a church or Planned

Parenthood office could be swept up into their databases.

How do you feel about your ISP selling such a personal

glimpse into your life to online advertisers? Under a pay-

for-privacy scheme, you wouldn't need to worry about it so

long as you could afford to shell out the hush money. But

those who aren't so fortunate would have to relinquish any

control over how their personal data is spread across the

Web.

The FCC raised concerns about this dynamic when it launched

its rulemaking proceeding, noting that such pay-for-privacy

practices might disadvantage low-income people and members of

other vulnerable communities. But it didn't make any specific

recommendations or issue any proposals on how to regulate in

this space.

Long before the FCC launched this inquiry at the end of

March 2016, and even before the agency had clarified its

authority to protect broadband users in the February 2015

Open Internet Order, AT&T's GigaPower broadband service had

become one of the first pay-for-privacy plans on the market.

The AT&T deal allows customers to opt out of some information

sharing if they pay an extra $29 a month or more.

For a struggling family, that could mean choosing between

paying for privacy and paying for groceries or the public

transportation needed to get to work. And while AT&T might be

the first to launch this kind of service, an article in

Fortune notes that other companies are eager to roll out

similar plans.

Under pay-for-privacy models, consumers who are unable to

pay the higher broadband cost will likely see their ISPs

share their data with shadowy online data brokers who use

this information to tailor marketing messages. While

unregulated and unaccountable data brokers are a threat to

everyone's privacy, they're notorious for targeting low-

income communities, people of color and other vulnerable

demographics.

One particularly damning report from the Senate Commerce

Committee offered this glimpse into how these brokers

categorize and label these target audiences:

The Senate committee's report notes, for example, that the

``Hard Times'' category includes people who are ``Older,

down-scale and ethnically diverse singles typically

concentrated in inner-city apartments.''

It continues: ``This is the bottom of the socioeconomic

ladder, the poorest lifestyle segment in the nation. Hard

Times are older singles in poor city neighborhoods. Nearly

three-quarters of the adults are between the ages of 50 and

75; this is an underclass of the working poor and destitute

seniors without family support . . .''

These classifications can influence not just what kinds of

ads people see, but the interest rates they're offered or the

insurance premiums they pay. These targeted communities are

precisely the ones who can't pay extra to shield their

personal information from these dangerous companies.

There may be some argument that if big companies are going

to profit from our data anyway, it's actually good if their

customers get a share of that. The FCC's rulemaking proposal

notes that brickand-mortar stores and websites alike offer

all sorts of ``free'' services, discounts and perks in

exchange for the data they mine from their customers and

users.

But the nature of the broadband market--where users have no

real options when it comes to choosing their providers, and

no way to opt out short of staying offline--makes the

tradeoffs here especially worthy of attention. If users could

get fair value for their data, and if they got a real

discount on broadband and not just a privacy penalty, and if

they were providing truly informed consent with full

knowledge of all the pernicious uses data brokers have for

their information, then maybe we could have a conversation

about the fairness of such schemes. But those are some very

big ifs.

We need better transparency rules for marketers and easy-

to-use disclosures and opt-in mechanisms before we get there.

We also need strong baseline privacy protections guaranteed

for all, including rules that prohibit ISPs from using

discriminatory schemes that jeopardize the rights of their

most vulnerable customers.

We applaud the FCC for taking this crucial first step to

protect privacy from broadband ISPs' overreach and abuse. As

gatekeepers to the Internet, ISPs hold a wealth of

information about their customers, and the Communications Act

commands the FCC to establish strong safeguards for that

private info. But the FCC also must also remember that our

rights are not for sale--and that privacy is not a luxury for

the wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friends that, under current law, the FTC has no authority to regulate ISPs and that it was your Commissioner, your current FCC Commissioner, that said that they can't do it under section 222 also, which I have submitted for the record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleague, once again, that the FTC has no authority to regulate ISPs once this bill is implemented; and consumers will not be protected, and their current FCC Commissioner has stated that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that, whether it is nonsensitive information or sensitive information, the ISP should ask for your permission to use it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend, since he acknowledges the court decision does not allow FTC jurisdiction and that he wants to introduce a bill, perhaps the Republicans should have done that first, before scrapping the rules that leave ISPs with no rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I have heard about this last-minute dropping and late at night. Just for the other side's information, after a 7-month rulemaking process, this rule was adopted midday on October 26. So let's get the record straight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that these heavy-handed regulations that he speaks of are simply: ask permission, protect people's data, and tell them if it gets stolen.

That doesn't sound too heavy-handed to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friends once again that this does not put us on equal footing. The FTC has no power to regulate ISPs under current law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I just remind my friend, you can say it as many times as you want, but the fact of the matter is that, under current law, the FTC has no authority to regulate the FCC, and the FCC Commissioner has said that you cannot do this without a rule in section 222.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our House Democratic leader, the magic minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from a coalition of small ISPs, a coalition of civil rights organizations, the Consumers Union, and an article by Terrell McSweeny all opposing this CRA.

Electronic Frontier Foundation,

San Francisco, CA.

Re Oppose S.J. Res 34--Repeal of FCC Privacy Rules.

Dear U.S. Representatives: We, the undersigned founders,

executives, and employees of ISPs and networking companies,

spend our working lives ensuring that Americans have high-

quality, fast, reliable, and locally provided choices

available when they need to connect to the Internet. One of

the cornerstones of our businesses is respecting the privacy

of our customers, and it is for that primary reason that we

are writing to you today.

We urge Congress to preserve the FCC's Broadband Privacy

Rules and vote down plans to abolish them. If the rules are

repealed, large ISPs across America would resume spying on

their customers, selling their data, and denying them a

practical and informed choice in the matter.

Perhaps if there were a healthy, free, transparent, and

competitive market for Internet services in this country,

consumers could choose not to use those companies' products.

But small ISPs like ours face many structural obstacles, and

many Americans have very limited choices: a monopoly or

duopoly on the wireline side, and a highly consolidated

cellular market dominated by the same wireline firms.

Under those circumstances, the FCC's Broadband Privacy

Rules are the only way that most Americans will retain the

free market choice to browse the Web without being surveilled

by the company they pay for an Internet connection.

Signed,

Sonic, MonkeyBrains, Cruzio Internet, Etheric Networks,

Aeneas Communications, Digital Service Consultants Inc.,

Hoyos Consulting LLC, Om Networks, Motherlode Internet,

Goldrush Internet, Credo Mobile, Andrew Buker (Director of

Infrastructure Services & Research computing, University of

Nebraska at Omaha), Tim Pozar (co-founder, TwoP LLC), Andrew

Gallo (Senior Network Architect for a regional research and

education network), Jim Deleskie (co-founder, Mimir

networks), Randy Carpenter (VP, First Network Group), Kraig

Beahn (CTO, Enguity Technology Corp).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my colleague from the class of '94.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this horrible resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the last 7\1/ 2\ years, Republicans have promised Americans something better than the ACA. Instead, today, they are giving us something much worse.

Twenty-four million people lose their insurance? Stripping away guaranteed benefits? Putting maternity, mental health, and pediatric care at risk? Shame on you.

Pitting the elderly against children, the disabled, and the mentally ill in the Medicaid program? Placing a tax penalty on veterans? Charging a crushing age tax on 50- to 64-year-olds, forcing them to pay five times more than what others pay? Shame on you.

This isn't a healthcare bill. This is a tax cut bill masquerading as a healthcare bill. This bill does nothing to lower premiums, copays, or deductibles.

You cut taxes by almost $1 trillion for corporations and the rich, while ransacking Medicaid and the Medicare trust fund. That is shameful.

Americans will not forget who did this to them today.