Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week, the President visited Asia for the first time as Commander in Chief, and took the opportunity, while on foreign soil, to reiterate his America First doctrine.

I rise today because an America First doctrine mentality will not lead to success for the United States or the world. This way of thinking is an outdated, obsolete, and dangerous form of isolationism. It will not keep us safe. It will not make us stronger economically.

Ironically, this phrase paints a picture that is blatantly un- American. America First sends a signal to the global community that the United States no longer wants to carry the torch of freedom and democracy which shines brighter through inclusion and collaboration.

On the national security front, the United States has the strongest military the world has known. For decades, allies have counted on the U.S. to step up to the plate to work with them to protect the shared values we hold dear.

As we face numerous international challenges, both old and new, we need to put more faith and investment into our international and diplomatic institutions, not weaken them. The United States did not earn its reputation as leader of the free world by standing back and allowing darker forces to prevail.

As oppressive regimes like Russia seek to undermine democracies, including our own, America's commitment to democracy must be stronger than ever.

The President's threats to NATO and the U.N. have caused our trusted allies to question our commitment to collective defense. We know that when countries work in concert, the chance of conflict decreases.

Despite its challenges, globalization has led to one of the most peaceful and productive times in world history. Adopting protectionist policies would stifle this progress, and certainly won't put America first.

Our efforts to address difficult domestic and international challenges are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can and should happen simultaneously. We defeated communism, in part, by showing the world that a commitment to democracy and expanding

economic opportunity makes peoples' lives better and nations more secure. Meeting our commitments overseas also makes us stronger and safer here at home.

Standing up against the isolationist tide sweeping the globe is critical to preserving our leadership role. Take the President's decision to pull out from the Paris climate agreement as another example. By abandoning our partnership with every other country in the world, the President has put our credibility and our Earth at risk. We are now the only nation not participating in this historic climate pact.

To reassert our integrity for global leadership, we must lead by example. This includes recalling lessons learned from earlier periods of isolationism. Relinquishing ground in this area creates a vacuum which less friendly, less democratic actors are prepared and capable to fill.

Abdicating global leadership, praising authoritarian regimes, and belittling allies has been a hallmark of this Presidency. This does not put America or our interests first. Our U.N. and NATO partnership should not just be honored and preserved, but strengthened. We are serious about taking on terrorism, cybersecurity treats, and other dangers that jeopardize the peace of our planet. Instead of distinguishing between winners and losers and sowing division where it need not exist, we must acknowledge our shared goals and values with our allies around the world, because our commitment to democracy and diplomacy is what has always made our Nation great.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to shed light on the appalling state of our Nation's immigration detention centers.

Devoid of health services and basic medical standards, these ICE facilities are cruel and inhumane. Suicide rates are high, children and families are traumatized, and LGBT detainees are subject to alarming rates of abuse.

These centers are also very expensive. Daily operations cost $165 per detainee, and $2 billion, annually, despite detention alternatives that can cost as little as $9 a day.

Yet even with this track record, ICE funding has nearly doubled from the Bush administration to today, and transparency has fallen by the wayside under the current administration, all while conditions continue to deteriorate.

Inhumane treatment of the undocumented cannot be rewarded with repeated budget increases. It goes against our country's most fundamental values and cannot continue. We must cut ICE's budget until these concerns are addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to an initiative launched to raise community funds and to rebuild parks-- Midnight Circus in the Parks.

The program is presented in part by the Chicago Park District's Night Out in the Parks, which brings over 1,000 cultural events to neighborhood parks each year. The program is in its 5th year and the Night Out in the Parks series has brought more than 1,000 events to neighborhood parks throughout the City of Chicago, making community parks safe havens and hubs of cultural activity.

Jeff Jenkins, founder and executive director of Midnight Circus in the Parks, envisioned a perfect opportunity to bring his circus to the community and raise money for park improvements. Midnight Circus tours Chicago parks every year bringing over 15,000 people together in their park to celebrate and make a difference. This venture is a true family collaboration; Jeffs wife, Julie, is the artistic director; their son, Maxwell, is an acrobat and musician in the show, and their daughter, Samantha, does the trapeze. Their rescued pit bull also performs. Every year, they add new and incredible artists.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Jenkins Family for launching Midnight Circus in the Parks, and the Chicago Park District for having the vision to bring a circus to the Chicago communities and for all their countless hours of volunteer efforts.

Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago, 26 small children and teachers were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary, and Congress lacked the courage to act. Two years ago, the Emanuel 9 were murdered by a White supremacist, and Congress did nothing. Last year, in a hate crime against the LGBT community, 49 people were killed in the Pulse nightclub terrorist attack, and Congress did nothing.

This week, at least 59 people have been killed and over 500 injured in the worst mass shooting in modern American history. Will Congress yet again lack the courage to act?

Will we prioritize thoughts and prayers at the expense of substantive action that saves lives? Will we hide behind the ``it's too early to talk about gun violence'' excuse? If so, when is the right time? A week from now? a month? a year? or perhaps after the next mass shooting?

For the over 1,500 mass shooting victims since Sandy Hook, the right time to talk about gun violence has tragically come and gone, but we can and must turn the page today. Let us not continue dishonoring their memories because of political pressure and fear to do what is right.

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

I rise in support of this amendment. I appreciate the chairman's inclusion of amendments from Democratic Members. I am particularly pleased to see amendments increasing funds for small-business programs that support investments directly into our communities.

Specifically, this amendment boosts funding by a total of $20 million for entrepreneurial development grants. In addition, this package provides increased funding for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly program at the IRS, ensuring that more elderly taxpayers receive efficient and quality tax assistance. It also boosts funding for the Community Development Financial Institution Fund for Native Communities programs.

Another especially effective and much-needed program in this bill is the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Act. This amendment provides an additional $15 million to the amount provided in the underlying bill.

The Drug-Free Communities program, also critically important, benefits from a funding increase.

These are Federal investments that matter, and I support them all.

I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out that some of the offsets relied upon in this en bloc give me pause. Due to the irresponsibly low funding level allocated in the Financial Services bill, it is, frankly, not possible to find pay-fors that will not cause damage elsewhere in the bill. So I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a way to increase the total resources available for this bill as we move forward in the process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, ideological riders have no place on the appropriations bill. The substance of the amendment should be debated as a stand-alone piece of legislation and under the proper committee of jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, the fiscal 2018 Financial Services appropriations bill before us today is already loaded full of policy riders that don't belong on spending bills.

Furthermore, this amendment would block the ability of Boeing to complete the $30 billion worth of aircraft sales to Iran, resulting in the loss of U.S. jobs. It would put U.S. in breach of JCPOA.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

This is an interesting debate, Mr. Chairman. Normally it would be heard for the would-be candidates for the District of Columbia City Council, but the issues remain far more important.

This amendment would, once again, overreach by prohibiting funds for D.C.'s Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Amendment Act of 2014. That law prohibits discrimination based on reproductive health decisions. The Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Amendment Act protects workers in D.C. from workplace discrimination if the employer disagrees with the employee's use of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and even perhaps a medically necessary abortion. The law prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on reproductive health decisions of employees, their spouses, and children.

Without RHNDA, employers could fire a woman for having an abortion due to rape, fire a man for using a condom, reduce the pay for a parent buying birth control for their child, and decline to hire a woman for using in vitro fertilization. D.C. is protecting workers from losing their jobs if their supervisors do not agree with their most personal decisions. This amendment would strip those protections from D.C. workers.

For those who thought this bill infringed on employers' religious beliefs, D.C. passed a statutory clarification that no employer was required to provide insurance coverage related to reproductive health decisions.

During the congressional review period, the Republican-controlled House passed a resolution disapproving this bill, but the Republican- controlled Senate did not. The Congress had time to act on this issue, and it failed to do so.

D.C. residents should not be subject to endless efforts to overturn their laws. People should be judged at work based on their performance and not on their personal, private reproductive healthcare decisions. That is why D.C. passed this law.

To my friends across the aisle, I understand they see this as a constitutional challenge, but, with all due respect, they are anti- Federalist and Federalist when it is convenient--and not just because of D.C. It has to do more with issues they don't agree with. They are very much for States' rights and local control unless it has something to do with issues like gun violence or a woman's right to choose. This is inconsistent and, frankly, with all due respect, somewhat hypocritical.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to cut the pay of the IRS Commissioner to zero. It is nothing more than a gratuitous, partisan cheap shot, an amendment offered last year that failed. I know and I am sure there are plenty of people out there who think that Members of Congress should be paid nothing or have their salary reduced to next to nothing because they disagree with them or they don't like their actions.

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

Mr. Chairman, there have been extraordinary attacks on the IRS Commissioner in a wide variety of ranges, but an amendment similar to this failed last year, which meant there were Republicans who opposed it as well as Democrats. There were attempts to offer impeachment on this matter, and those were partisan efforts in a nonconstructive way. This is just one more element toward that end. It is unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Before Dodd-Frank, consumer protection laws were enforced by a patchwork of different regulations, each focused on their own issues. The CFPB enhanced and simplified consumer regulation, consolidating enforcement into a single authority devoted to all aspects of consumer protection ranging from oversight over mortgages and credit cards to unregulated products previously, like payday and student loans.

The Wells Fargo fake account scandal, which CFPB played a key role in exposing, and the more recent Equifax data breach show precisely why we need a well-resourced and functional CFPB.

By subjecting the CFPB to the appropriations process, the goal is not to provide necessary oversight. Considerable accountability measures already exist. It is to starve them of funding and weaken their ability to do their job. We have seen this before with other financial regulators like the FCC and CFTC, who are still struggling to carry out Dodd-Frank rulemaking.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to preserve the independence, stand on the side of consumers, and vote ``yes'' on the Ellison amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this type of amendment bluntly imposes cuts to government function without regard to merit or consequence. Indiscriminate cuts to the administration accounts in this bill would lead to weakened cybersecurity and increased threat of cyberattacks to the Department of the Treasury systems, poor administration of grants to small businesses, longer wait times for citizens seeking assistance from Federal agencies, longer processing times for issuing Federal payments, reducing the ability of the IRS to detect and deter tax cheats, costly short-term spending decisions, and widespread delays in civil and bankruptcy cases, just as a few examples.

The underlying bill is already dangerously underfunded, having been cut by 6 percent below current levels. Furthermore, the administrative accounts were a large source of this reduction to total funding, and this amendment blindly strips nearly $600 million more out of these offices.

This amendment would not encourage the agencies to do more with less. Simply put, it would force the agencies and our constituents to do less with less.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, just across-the-board cuts are an abdication of responsibility. It is up to us as appropriators to determine exactly what needs funding and at what levels. For those reasons, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer), the distinguished vice ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I want to thank Mrs. Lowey and the chairman for their leadership throughout the appropriations process.

Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, I also thank Chairman Graves, whom I have gotten to know and work more closely with over the last few months. Our discussions have been both passionate and

productive, and I thank Chairman Graves for his willingness to compromise on shared priorities.

Of course, I would like to thank Dena, Kelly, Ariana, Marybeth, and Brad on the majority staff and our talented staff director, Lisa, on the minority staff for all of the time and effort they spent working together to putting the FSGG portion of the bill together. And to my own staff, Doug, who writes these things and doesn't put his own name on there, I want to thank him anyway.

Unfortunately, the FSGG portion of the bill before us will make it more difficult for us to grow small businesses, enforce consumer protections, and promote good governance. With $1.6 billion in cuts from fiscal year 2017, many successful and established programs will suffer.

The Small Business Administration is cut by $39 million, with most coming from reductions to entrepreneurial programs that assist millions of small-business owners.

The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund is cut by $58 million, or 28 percent, which means fewer resources to spur economic growth and revitalize our most underserved and neglected communities.

GSA has zero funds to start new construction and completely rescinds the money provided in the FY17 omnibus for the new FBI headquarters, compromising our national security.

And the IRS, which has already lost over a billion dollars in funding and 18,000 staff over the past 7 years, is further weakened by additional cuts that weaken the agency's ability to close the tax gap, catch tax cheats, and provide sufficient services for honest taxpayers.

In addition, the FSGG bill contains a long list of policy riders that will undermine enforcement of the Affordable Care Act, restrict the ability for a woman to make personal healthcare decisions, and block the District of Columbia from using local funds to make local decisions.

Furthermore, this bill contains 88 pages of authorizing text to repeal key provisions of Dodd-Frank and weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Less than a decade ago, a financial crisis sparked the biggest global recession since the Great Depression and pushed our economy to the brink of collapse. No serious person would argue that the status quo, which almost crippled our economy, was working before the crisis. We need to make our financial markets safer, more transparent, and more accountable, and that is exactly what Dodd-Frank did.

Lastly, as I mentioned in my testimony before the Rules Committee, it is worth mentioning again how disappointed I am that the Rules Committee decided to unilaterally strip a provision agreed to by the committee. Congressman Aguilar's language, which passed by voice vote in the course of committee markup, was adopted according to regular order.

The provision is straightforward. It simply clarifies that DACA recipients be eligible for Federal employment. Yet, without any explanation, this section has disappeared as if it never existed. Given the administration's shameful decision to rescind the DACA program, I anticipate that we will rigorously debate this issue over the next couple days.

Again, while I cannot support this bill, I remain committed to working with my colleagues on the majority side to strengthen funding and remove harmful and unnecessary riders.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, some of us in this room are old enough to remember duck and cover. As kids, the notion was that, if you hid under a half-inch plywood piece of desk under a thermonuclear attack, you would be safe. It is not a particularly rational idea, but not much more rational than our current nuclear posture.

For decades, Presidents and Members of Congress from both parties have worked together to prevent the use and spread of nuclear weapons and materials. Starting with President Reagan's leadership, American Presidents have reduced the size of America's nuclear arsenal from its Cold War peak. In fact, Republican Presidents have cut the arsenal far more aggressively than their Democratic counterparts, yet this year's Energy and Water bill doubles down on an outdated Cold War strategy by unnecessarily diverting precious resources to build new nukes.

It remains unclear how these weapons will solve 21st century national security threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks, or global warming.

Rather than wasting dollars to keep up the status quo, we must find ways to replace the U.S. nuclear arsenal while maintaining a force capable of deterring nuclear attack against the U.S. and its allies.

In 2013, the Pentagon determined that the U.S. could reduce its deployed strategic nuclear force by one-third below its current levels and still meet security requirements. According to the former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military utility of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, such as the B61, is practically nil. Defense Secretary Mattis has raised doubts about the need for the new ICBMs, and they need to take a closer look at the new nuclear-armed cruise missile.

Rather than wasting tax dollars to keep up the status quo, we must find ways to replace the U.S. nuclear arsenal while maintaining a force capable of nuclear deterrent.

It is worse than that. This bill proposes to add nearly $1 billion to the nuclear weapons activities account by gutting the Department of Energy office responsible for research and application of technology to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy. DOE's EERE has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support and is crucial to research and development in clean renewable energies, energy use reduction technologies, vehicle engines, geothermal technology, and advanced batteries.

This is a government success story. The $12 billion we invested in EERE, through 2012, yielded a more than $230 billion benefit to the U.S. economy, and EERE has an annual return on investment of more than 20 percent. Entire industries are built on the back of the work EERE does, stimulating a robust domestic clean energy economy.

The role of EERE is also critical to furthering the transition to a low-carbon economy and ensuring long-term, robust, sustainable economic growth. That is why this amendment would take $922 million from nuclear weapons activities and give it back to EERE.

Just to be clear, this would still be a cut to that office. The current bill funds EERE at $986 million less than the current enacted level, but it would go a long way towards fixing this mistake.

Mr. Chair, I urge committee members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, respectfully, what the gentleman is talking about has been done many times. Again, in 2013, the Pentagon said we could do this with one-third of the weapons we have now.

The cost of restoring a weapon like the B61 is more than its weight in gold. We have already been told we have too many. So the plan here is, let's restore as many as possible, build as many as we possibly can, and maybe in the future we will be told again that we don't need this many. In the meantime, we are using those resources to cut necessary programs.

Mr. Chair, I ask for Members' support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Village of La Grange Park as it celebrates its 125th Anniversary.

The Village was founded July 14, 1892, when 300 residents living in the southwest comer of Proviso Township came together to form what was then a unique suburb--a bedroom community with no business district or rail transportation.

La Grange Park prides itself in being one of Illinois' most lively and inclusive villages, in addition to being one of the most economically successful. Originally settled in the 1840s by Chicago residents who fled the rapid population growth of the city, La Grange Park quickly became a prominent lllinois farming town. From its quiet beginnings, La Grange Park has grown into one of the Chicago area's most livable communities for its 13,579 residents.

In recent years, the Village has seen an influx of new residents, as young families have been drawn to the award winning private and public schools that serve the community, including Nazareth Academy, Lyons Township High School and Riverside-Brookfield High School. LaGrange Park also cherishes its senior citizens, providing three first-class senior living facilities.

Today, La Grange Park is still home to many residents of Irish, Italian, and German heritage, but the village has come a long way

from its humble beginnings as a farm town. With its gorgeous homes, safe communities, good schools, and over 13,000 residents, it's no wonder that La Grange Park was named one of ``The Best Places to Live'' by CHICAGO Magazine. The village is also home to many prosperous businesses and attractions that draw visitors from other various parts of the Midwest.

La Grange Park's contributions to the 5th District of Illinois and the state in general, cannot be understated, and I am truly honored to be a part of this historic recognition. Mr. Speaker, I ask you all to join me in celebrating the Village of La Grange Park during this momentous occasion, and may they enjoy many more years of continued success.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the President tweeted the

word ``covfefe.'' We still don't know what it means, why the President tweeted it, or if it was simply an innocent typo, something we are all guilty of making. But what is more important than the creation of a random, now infamous, word in a tweet is that the President deleted the post less than 12 hours later. This is just 1 of 18 tweets the President has deleted since his inauguration, and, each time, the question is raised whether or not he can legally do that, because when the President deletes a tweet, it is equivalent to him destroying a record.

That is why I have introduced the COVFEFE Act, Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement. It is a silly name, but a serious issue. By expanding the Presidential Records Act to include social media, it would ensure that all tweets posted by the President from his personal account are archived and preserved and would finally answer the question on whether or not the President can delete tweets.

Although the bill's name is a little tongue-in-cheek, the focus of the legislation is more important now than ever. If the President is going to take to social media to make sudden public policy proclamations, we must ensure that these statements are documented and preserved for future reference. As Sean Spicer has said, each @realDonaldTrump tweet should be taken as an official White House statement.

Tweets are powerful, and the President must be held accountable for every post, from commenting on NATO, to the Paris Agreement, to his Muslim travel ban, and his response to the devastating terror attack in London. And on Monday, we learned that the appellate court cited the President's tweet in ruling against the travel ban.

The President's frequent unfiltered use of his personal Twitter account as a means of official communication is unprecedented, and we must respond accordingly. Sometimes it takes a creative acronym to drive attention to a much larger issue.

This is the second bill I have introduced this Congress to address the lack of transparency in the administration. Back in March, I introduced the aptly named ``Mar-a-Lago Act'' to require the White House visitor logs, or visitor logs from any other location where the President conducts official business, to be made public to the American people.

Unlike the Obama administration, the current administration stated they are unwilling to do so. For these reasons, it is critical that we push commonsense policy that promotes government accountability and transparency, because in order to maintain public trust in government, elected officials must answer for what they do and say. That includes 140-character tweets and records of who has the President's ear at the White House, Trump Tower, or his southern Florida home. If regaining the public's trust is the first step, then taking action to maintain that trust for the long term is the next.

Standalone transparency legislation is absolutely necessary, but it is not enough. We must stop treating transparency and accountability as peripheral issues and proactively incorporate them into everything we do.

Going forward, I will continue to promote efforts to increase public access to the Federal Government and ensure that all elected officials are being held accountable for their words and their actions.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I spent our congressional recess in the Rocky Mountain National Park, home to some of America's most unique and breathtaking natural wonders, in an attempt to better understand the mounting impacts climate change has on our national parks and all of our public lands across the country.

More than 4.5 million people from across America and the world visit the Rockies every year to take in the snowcapped peaks, the winding rivers, and the endless evergreen forests. They see herds of elk and bighorn sheep, and hear the screeching call of the mountain pika, a small furry creature that I can personally attest makes one of the most distinctive sounds in the mountains.

Visitors to the park, like me, can experience all four seasons in an hour as they drive up Trail Ridge Road from the sunny, low-elevation valleys, to the top of 12,000-foot peaks covered in 20-foot snowdrifts. It is impossible not to appreciate the intricate balance of nature while standing in that environment, the way that each species is finely tuned to survive in its surroundings and the way that each depends on the other.

Unfortunately, this careful balance is being shaken to its very core by manmade climate change as well as the denial of its existence by a very small group of post-science, post-research skeptics.

For centuries, bark beetles and lodgepole pines maintained a special relationship. Beetles, held in check by deep, cold winters, ate and killed some of the largest and oldest trees, opening up valuable forest real estate for new, younger trees to thrive. Now, however, thanks to warming global temperatures, those cold winters haven't come and beetle populations have boomed, killing literally millions of trees in the Rocky Mountains.

Formerly green mountainsides are dotted, or even dominated, by the silver skeletons of pines, it is one of the most conspicuous changes to visitors of the park.

The little pika is another of many species whose way of life is disappearing as global warming drives temperatures higher and higher. As summer temperatures spike, many of these creatures are dying out. Humans are not immune to these impacts either.

Warming winters cause more and more of the mountain's precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow, allowing it to run off or soak into the soil. The snowpack, which for generations has fed the Colorado River, is diminishing and, with it, our reliable and already taxed water source for seven Western States.

It was uncanny, Mr. Speaker, to be standing at the headwaters of the Colorado River, a mere creek in the Rockies, learning about the ways manmade warming is changing the world around us at the same time the President was withdrawing the United States from the historic Paris Agreement.

It was tragic irony to be in that environment to hear this devastating announcement. It was truly inexplicable to be surrounded by one of many national treasures as our Federal Government announced their decision to abandon them when they are needed most.

The agreement, an unprecedented show of global will to tackle a truly global problem, isn't an end-all, as some less-enlightened critics have said. It is a framework, a roadmap to get the pollution reductions started, to ensure a safe, sustainable, and economically prosperous future. It supports an economic model built for the long haul, one that protects lives and livelihoods, while wasting less and producing more. These are irrefutable costs to leaving the Paris Agreement.

By removing us from the agreement, the President isn't canceling it. He is simply ensuring that we are the ones who will be left behind as the world moves forward without us. We will be left behind with the cost of polluted air, preventable and expensive illness, and shrinking, uncompetitive fossil fuel industries that imperil their workers and drag the economy down.

It will cost us standing as a world leader in innovation as other countries step forward to fill the void that we have created and realize the benefits of clean-energy jobs, reliable public transit, and stable supply chains for businesses.

They understand that climate change affects us all, no matter our income or whether we are in the middle of a major city or on the top of the great Rocky Mountains.

The 194 nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will continue to act, not because the U.S. once told them to do so, but because it is the right thing to do and it is in their best interest from economic gain and public health to national security and stewardship.

I encourage everyone to go visit the mountains. Go spend a week with the incredible men and women of the National Park Service who have dedicated their lives to understanding and protecting America's precious natural

places. Then come back here, and I guarantee that you will understand why we need to act.

Mr. Speaker, today is World Press Freedom Day, a day that deserves commemoration now more than ever.

Undermining the credibility of the free press and attempting to turn the American people against the media is reminiscent of authoritarian tactics, not the conduct of the leader of the free world. Yet the President has referred to the press as the ``enemy of the people'' for simply doing their job: reporting the facts and holding all of us accountable.

He has also dismissed distinguished publications as fake news, again, for simply doing their job and has threatened to change libel laws that will weaken the First Amendment, making it easier for him to attack and sue the press.

This antagonistic relationship between the President and the press is not only beneath the dignity of the office, it is also dangerous for our democracy. We have seen strongmen and autocratic countries suppress the media through intimidation and by discrediting the integrity of the very institution of journalism.

It is hard to believe that I have to say this in this country at this point in our history, but as Thomas Jefferson said: ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent of mine, Joseph Kolb, a native Chicagoan, who is set to retire after a lengthy and illustrious career in law enforcement.

Mr. Kolb began his career in 1983 as a Deputy Sheriff with the Cook County Sheriff's Department. In 1987, Mr. Kolb began his federal government service career with the former United States Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) and during his tenure was promoted to the rank of the Assistant Port Director for INS at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois.

When Congress created the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in March of 2003, Mr. Kolb was selected by the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) Assistant Commissioner in Washington, D.C. as the interim Assistant Director for Immigration Policy and Programs at the Chicago Field Office. His vast knowledge of immigration law and policies combined with experienced leadership skills proved invaluable during the creation and implementation of the newly created agency.

Assigned as the Chief CBP Officer Program Manager for Admissibility Passenger and Programs, Mr. Kolb served as a subject matter expert, administering admissibility and immigration policy, managing and developing admissibility programs for the Chicago Field Office 12 state area.

He also performed the important role of liaison to the Foreign Consular Corp, Immigration Law Advocate groups, Community Based Organizations, U.S. Department of State, FBI, City of Chicago and Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Later, Mr. Kolb was assigned to Washington, D.C. for CBP and DHS Headquarters to author and administer national immigration policy, as well as provide guidance to the field. This latter task involved contributing to a number of national programs along with writing recommendations to Congress regarding special projects.

Mr. Kolb's long career took him to international posts throughout the world, working with the U.S. Department of State and DHS Headquarters in London, Amsterdam, Rome, Dublin, Helsinki and Tallinn, Estonia.

For his outstanding service, Mr. Kolb was nominated in 2016 by the Chicago Federal Executive Board as Employee of the Year.

Mr. Kolb graduated from Gordon Technical High School and holds a Law Enforcement degree from Oakton College. In 2001, he received the Alumni of the Year Award from Oakton College.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in recognizing Mr. Kolb's distinguished service to our country and his exemplary career as a law enforcement official.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot going on around here lately. We have been conducting investigations, holding hearings, and some of us have even tried and failed to fundamentally change the way we provide health care in this country.

It has been easy to get distracted by the dozens of different headlines and breaking news stories we see each week. But no matter what else is going on here in Washington, one thing continues unabated: each day, the United States, like every other country on Earth, continues to release tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and now we are starting to see the effects.

Over the last couple of years, the U.S. has joined 20 other countries from around the world in growing its economy while reducing its annual emissions into the atmosphere. This is not a small feat, and decoupling emissions from growth is the first step toward the substantive action needed to address the growing climate crisis. But I find this concept of reducing emissions can sometimes be a little misleading.

In the last few years, the U.S. has reduced the rate that it emits greenhouse gases. But even if we are doing it more slowly, we are still emitting harmful pollution into our air.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, standing at the edge of an empty swimming pool with a garden hose. For a while, water was spewing out of that hose at a torrent; and each year, the volume got greater and greater. Now, the water is still running, but we have begun to turn the speed down. However, even if we manage to slow the rate of water going in, the pool still has more water than when we started and is still filling up.

Our atmosphere is that pool. For nearly 100 years, it has been filling up with greenhouse gases. And they don't just go away when the calendar flips. Reducing the annual emissions is vital, but we can't lose track of all the gases that have been accumulated year after year.

If we are going to hit the international goal of limiting climate warming to 2 degrees Celsius, we need to start acting now. Yet, this august body has been behind the curve on this issue for years.

Our colleagues seem content to ignore the climate crisis, to hold hearings with discredited, crank pseudoscientists bought and paid for by corporate interests, or to deny the value of scientific thinking altogether, an approach that is all too familiar given the post- research, post-intelligence, post-truth mindset that we have seen from this administration. They have adopted a ``hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'' approach to climate change, hoping they can ignore it until it goes away. Sadly, that is not the way the world works.

We can't unfill the pool by pretending there is no such thing as water. This form of denial has been evolving over time. First, we heard that there was no way that climate is changing at all.

Now that the changes in the atmosphere are beyond doubt, we are starting to hear that climate is changing but there is nothing we can do about it. In addition to being flat out false, that type of thinking is unbecoming of a nation that put the first man on the Moon, pioneered instantaneous communication, and has led the world in the fight against countless deadly diseases.

Last month, we heard the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency question the very fundamentals of atmospheric science, a particularly dismaying thing from the man charged with leading the fight against climate change. This type of willful scientific ignorance has serious consequences. It will cost lives.

Children will be exposed to harmful, asthma-inducing pollution because we didn't act fast enough to clean our air. They will die because crops that could be counted on for generations will no longer grow. They will be forced from their homes because melting polar ice is driving sea levels higher and higher.

We cannot deny these impacts. We cannot continue to hear no evil and see no evil when these changes are happening all around us, resulting in devastating consequences that affect every aspect of our life.

Instead, the time has come to speak up and speak loudly like our lives and the world depend on it, as it truly does.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will celebrate 7 years since the President signed the Affordable Care Act into law. The following day my colleagues across the aisle will vote to eradicate the undeniable progress it has made.

On Thursday, when the House votes on the American Health Care Act, we will vote to take away health insurance from millions of Americans; we will vote to raise premiums on seniors; we will vote to damage women's healthcare programs; and we will vote to reduce access to care for LGBTQ people.

Policies that were once derided as socialist are now mainstream, considering so many of the popular parts of ACA are retained in the Republican replacement.

The majority of the country does not want to repeal ACA but to improve it in a bipartisan way. The only way to create a meaningful change for the American people is to work together across the aisle.

As Lincoln said: ``We cannot escape history. We . . . will be remembered in spite of ourselves.'' A vote to repeal ACA will be a stain on that legacy.

Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a resolution of inquiry requesting that the President and Attorney General provide the House with any evidence in their possession relating to President Trump's claims that President Obama illegally ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower, a task not welcomed but necessitated by the President's seemingly baseless accusations that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower during the Presidential campaign. These accusations should be taken literally and seriously.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have seen absolutely no evidence that supports the President's claims. President Trump and the Department of Justice have a responsibility to completely clarify the President's statement on Twitter.

If the White House and Department of Justice are unable to produce this evidence, as I suspect will be the case, the President owes the American people a thorough and immediate explanation and apology.