Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank him and Mr. Harper for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.

Congratulations to the Committee on House Administration. I commend Congresswoman Brooks and Congressman

Deutch for their work on the Ethics Committee in this regard. I thank Mr. Raskin as well for his work.

Of course I want to thank Congresswoman Jackie Speier from California, who has made this part of her life's work in officialdom in her public service in the California Legislature and here. Today, the fruit of your labor, Madam Congresswoman, comes to fruition. Your strong leadership will ensure that no survivor of discrimination or harassment will face the injustice of having his or her voice silenced.

The ME TOO Congress Act is our promise, in a bipartisan way, to hold every person accountable to the rule of absolutely zero tolerance. No matter someone's contribution to our country, harassment and discrimination are always unacceptable.

With this bill, we are shining a blazing light on the scourge of workplace abuse, which has been allowed to fester in the shadows for too long. We are securing protections for all employees by streamlining and strengthening the resolution and reporting process.

We are holding Members personally responsible for settlements, and we are guaranteeing taxpayer money will never again be used to create a culture of complicity and silence around workplace harassment.

This bill is bipartisan because the fight against workplace harassment and discrimination transcends party or politics. This legislation is about protecting the personal safety of every person who comes to Congress to serve either as a Member or in the workforce. This is about upholding human dignity and the inalienable right to live free from abuse.

Our Nation is at a watershed moment in the fight against sexual harassment and discrimination. Brave men and women from Hollywood to Washington, from Sacramento--I might add, where my daughter has been involved in this campaign--from the boardroom to the newsroom, in the hotels, restaurants, and workplaces, in every corner of the country, people are standing up to say: Time is up.

But the Me Too movement has really made quite a difference. Their voices are correcting the culture around harassment and abuse.

But more needs to be done. The Congress must continue to work with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and others to forge a path forward to improve protection for all American workplaces. That is why I am so pleased to bring this bill to the floor.

Over recent times, Members of Congress listened to survivors and advocates, learned from public and private sector experts, and received constructive recommendations from many Members. We will not rest until every person in every workplace has full safeguards against harassment and abuse and discrimination. This is a time for shaking up the status quo, not for bowing to inaction and incrementalism.

Members of Congress are trustees of the people. We have a solemn responsibility to do well by the people, both the people who sent us to Washington, and those who serve by our sides here. Our values and our humanity compel us to take action and to finish this fight so that every woman, man, and child can live free from the fear of abuse.

Again, I thank Mr. Brady and Mr. Harper for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain why the House should consider this privileged resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect the American people. The House majority and its leadership have abandoned that duty.

It is imperative that the House vote to release the Democratic memo to set the record straight on Republicans' attempts to undermine the Russian investigation. It is also important to note that who knows what they have next.

The majority's decision to release highly classified and distorted intelligence is profoundly dangerous and gives a bouquet to Putin. As the Department of Justice warned, the public

release of the memo is an unprecedented action and extraordinarily reckless.

The FBI also expressed grave concerns about the material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy. The memo prepared by the House Intelligence Committee's Democrats must be expeditiously released after review and appropriate redaction of sources and methods by law enforcement officials: the Justice Department, the intelligence community.

The President must declassify the memo without any redactions based on any political considerations. This is an urgent matter of national security and intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to hear the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry, but if the Chair is not going to allow that to be heard, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I commend her for her extraordinary leadership on the Appropriations Committee, where important decisions are made about how to allocate the resources of our country to invest in the aspirations of the American people, to respect the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, and to honor the vows of our Founders for a country that is making the future better for every generation to come.

The distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, opened his remarks by saying he came to the floor to introduce the fifth continuing resolution. And the gentleman who followed him talked about this being the fifth continuing resolution.

The more is not the merrier. It is like golf: the lower the score, the better. To have five continuing resolutions is a statement of incompetence and ineptitude.

The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House; yet they are pressing forward on their fifth stopgap, short-term spending bill, demonstrating their failure to govern.

Since President Reagan was mentioned, I will mention our very first President, our patriarch, George Washington. President Washington, when he was leaving office, cautioned against political parties who were at war with their own government.

Does that sound familiar to you?

Here we are again, 2 days from another shutdown, careening toward another manufactured Republican crisis, demonstrating the Republican failure to govern.

We don't want to go to that place. As Members of Congress, we take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to protect the American people.

Democrats support a strong national defense. We, too, want our men and women in uniform to have the resources they need to keep them safe and to keep the American people safe as they accomplish their mission.

But we will not allow Republicans to use this continuing resolution, the fifth time they had to come to the floor because they could not govern, to hollow out our Nation's commitment to the health, education, and economic security of America's working families.

We all know that our military might is part of our Nation's strength, but the health, education, security, and well-being of the American people is also a source of that strength.

Instead of working constructively with Democrats to meet the needs of the American people, Republicans are trying to starve the domestic budget. I just want to remind our colleagues: One-third, 34 percent-- one-third--of the nondefense domestic budget goes to national security. When you starve the domestic budget, you are not making us stronger. One-third of the domestic budget is about security; Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, the State Department, and antiterrorism activities of the Justice Department.

But Republicans refuse to give our patriots funded on the domestic side of the budget the resources they need to do their job, just the chaos and uncertainty of yet another stopgap extension.

As Defense Secretary Mattis said, stopgap CRs ``just create unpredictability. It makes us rigid. We cannot deal with new and revealing threats. We know our enemies are not standing still, so it is about as unwise as it can be.'' And here are, as unwise as can be for the fifth time.

And while their continuing resolution seeks to ransack every other commitment to the health of the American people, Republicans hide behind a fig leaf of a 2-year extension of community health centers.

We all support community health centers. It was a very important part of the Affordable Care Act. A very important part. Our colleague, assistant leader Mr. Clyburn from South Carolina, was one of the great champions of all time of Congress on expanding funding for programs for care and for bricks and mortar for our community health centers. This is a very important piece for us. We should be extending it in a fuller bill to 5 years, except it is used here to hide from the fact of so much other domestic investment that we are not making.

Republicans are eliminating the Home Visiting initiative that is vital for maternal and child care, and cutting off workforce training for low-income Americans seeking good-paying jobs in healthcare.

The sole purpose of this Republican bill is to destroy our leverage to achieve parity in the caps, to eliminate any need for bipartisan compromise, to eliminate any need to invest in working families.

Why?

Because if they get their defense number, then they don't have to negotiate about the domestic number. And as I said, we support our men and women in uniform having what they need to be safe and to keep us safe. But the strength of our country is measured in other ways as well.

They don't believe that and they can't pass that, so they have to put the defense bill there. But we cannot support that because, again, it comes at the expense instead of as a source of strength to our country.

Democrats simply want action on the critical overdue and bipartisan priorities of the American people so beautifully spelled out by our ranking member, Congresswoman Lowey.

Again, we need funding for the opioid epidemic. The President talked about that. Show us the money. The opioid epidemic claims the lives of 115 Americans every day, and it is getting worse every year in every district in the country. Bipartisan support is there to fight the opioid epidemic. Let's do it.

We need more funding for veterans, to meet our responsibility and ensure that no veteran is denied the care they deserve upon returning from the battlefield.

We need emergency disaster funding for all communities ravaged by hurricanes and wildfires.

We need to save millions of hardworking Americans' endangered pensions.

We need to pass the bipartisan Dream Act immediately. This is a moral priority for us. This is about the character of our Nation, who we are as a country. A nation, over time, constantly invigorated by people coming to our country to seek the American Dream; a dream that is predicated on every generation working to make the future better for the next; a dream that takes determination, optimism, hope, and courage. And when these newcomers come to America with that determination, that courage, that optimism, that hope, they associate themselves with the values of our Founders to make the future better for the next generation. These newcomers to America make America more American.

So we asked to bring the Hurd-Aguilar bill to the floor. It is bipartisan. It has bipartisan support on the floor. It would pass. Have the courage to bring a bill that protects the DREAMers to the floor of the House.

These priorities that I mentioned are all bipartisan. They would pass if brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote. The GOP squandered all their time, energy, votes, and enthusiasm on tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest, with 83 percent of the tax bill going to the top 1 percent. And now Republicans need to get serious and get to work on a budget that funds both the military and the domestic investments that keep our Nation strong.

I just want to make one point about that tax bill again. Did you see that the Speaker of the House sang the glory of the tax bill because a woman was getting $1.50 a week more in her paycheck? Did you see that? Do you believe that that is a good thing when the top 1 percent were probably getting $1,500 a week compared to her $1.50 a week in their paycheck?

Thank God, after millions of people objected, the Speaker withdrew that tweet. But I don't think he withdrew that sentiment, because it is the same sentiment that haunts all of these negotiations about investing in the American people.

Republicans must stop governing from manufactured crisis to crisis, and work with Democrats to pass many urgent, long-overdue priorities of the American people. As our distinguished ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, said earlier in her remarks, ``We must abandon these short-term bills.'' She spelled out very clearly why. I associate myself with her remarks.

Here we are, Mr. Speaker, another day to take a deep breath. As you know, our responsibility is to pass a budget that meets the needs of the American people. Since September 30, which was the end of the fiscal year, we have not done that.

Today, we are gathered to do our fifth continuing resolution. You know all the statements that have been made by Secretary Mattis and others about how destructive that is to our national security. I want to make a few points.

First of all, I want to say that a dark cloud is lying over the Capitol, and that is the Trump GOP tax scam. Under that legislation, nearly $2 trillion will be added to the national debt. That is bad enough in itself, but it also has cast a shadow over the ability of this House to honor its responsibilities to the American people.

We take an oath of office to protect and defend the American people and our Constitution. We know that is our first responsibility, and we stand ready to join in funding our military to do that. So for the Republicans to say that we are shutting down the government because we didn't want--we weren't shutting down the government. You shut down the government.

But let's put that aside for now as we go forward.

One, let us stipulate to the fact that we will all agree that we need to support our troops in the manner that the mission that is established calls for.

Two, the other part of that debate is about the domestic agenda. The domestic agenda includes opioids and veterans, issues like that, that are part of our national security, homeland security, Veterans' Affairs, State Department, and antiterrorism activities at the Justice Department--the list goes on--of things that are part of the security function that are on the domestic side.

Our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have been reluctant to support domestic agendas. That is just the way it is, and I think that is one of the reasons the Speaker has increased the defense spending so that he can get their votes even though they didn't want to vote for the domestic spending.

But if we are going to honor the commitment, not the dollar figure that is in the authorization of the Department of Defense bill, and honor the budget agreement, we will be adding $300 billion to the deficit maintaining parity.

I just want our Republican colleagues to know that when they are voting for a CR that takes us to the next step, that next step, if it honors the commitments that have been made, it will be $300 billion over and above the $2 trillion.

I just say that because I have heard you say: Well, we have a big deficit, so we have to look at Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all of those initiatives. If we are not going to honor that, and we are not going to honor other commitments because of this tax scam and this Trump shutdown, then we have a problem going forward.

So, yes, we are here about values. It is not about one set of children versus another. It is about our values. The Republicans have put forth what they did with CHIP--which the Senate has never shown much of an interest in--and all of a sudden, CHIP was their chit. CHIP was their chit. They put that on the table, and they said: America is a country of ``Sophie's Choice.'' You either choose the DREAMers, or you choose the CHIP kids.

We all support all of that. America can take care of all of its children--their safety, their health, and their well-being.

The dark cloud of the tax bill is a real problem as we go forward in the decisions we have to make to meet the needs of the American people.

As Mr. Hoyer said, this is a budget debate. The DREAMers part of it is a part that has come into it, but if there never was a DREAMer on the face of the Earth--thank God, there are DREAMers--but if there never were, we still have this challenge: the lack of interest on the part of Republicans in the House to vote for a domestic budget that meets the needs of the American people, using the excuse of the budget deficit, which didn't seem to bother them when they gave away the store to the richest people in the country, the top 1 percent and corporate America.

As we face this decision today, it is a no-drama event, as far as I am concerned. The Senate Democrats' movement, in terms of getting a commitment on how we go forward on the budget and how we go forward on DREAMers, good for them. Our Members will make their decision about how they wish to vote.

But understand this: this isn't just about the DREAMers. This is about who we are as a nation, in terms of honoring what we care about most in our country and how we put that into a budget in terms of fighting the opioid epidemic; meeting the needs of our veterans, especially in terms of infrastructure; issues that relate to the National Institutes of Health and their investments there; CHIP, really, with the community health centers; medical education for primary care doctors; and the list goes on and on.

This will be a lively debate about a number of subjects, as we go forward. But understand this: it is going to increase the national debt. It didn't have to have such an impact if we didn't have the GOP tax scam, which led to the Trump shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I associate myself fully with his remarks. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Hoyer, for his great leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican's latest stopgap funding bill. I take great pride in House Democrats overwhelmingly supporting the first continuing resolution in September to give the majority a chance to get the job done.

But after months of Republicans' excuses and extensions, I refuse to be an

enabler to the Republicans' failures any longer.

This past week once again exposed the utter incompetence of the Republican-controlled government. Here we are ending the Trump shutdown with Republicans' fourth stopgap short-term bill. The Republicans have failed to get their act together for the fourth time to fund the government for a full year.

In August, Defense Secretary Mattis was asked: What would be the effect of another stopgap short-term spending bill on the military?

You all know he replied: ``It just creates unpredictability. It makes us rigid. We cannot deal with new and revealing threats. We know our enemies are not standing still.''

``So it's about as unwise as can be.''

Mr. Speaker, there are also other statements for the Record to that effect from the Navy Secretary, et cetera.

Now, the Trump shutdown will end, but Republicans' wasteful incompetence continues. There is a dark cloud over the Capitol, Mr. Speaker: the deficit-exposing GOP tax scam, which has added nearly $2 trillion to the national debt.

The Republicans have made their choice: tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest are more important than certainty for our military.

Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They control what bills we vote on in Congress. We could have brought up a long-term bill long before now.

We have placed our suggestions on the table as to what would be on the domestic side of that: resources for the opioid epidemic that kills 94 people every day in our country, for funding for veteran infrastructure and services, for saving millions of Americans' pensions in crisis today, for funding community health centers and lifesaving research at the NIH, for childcare for hardworking parents, for protecting patriotic young DREAMers, and, as our distinguished whip said earlier, for making sure we have the resources for those affected by hurricanes, fires, and especially our folks in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Because of the Republican majority's weakness, we still do not have a long-term spending bill that funds the military and the domestic investments that keep America strong. We take an oath of office to protect and defend. Now we have to fund that.

We have not delivered strong disaster recovery funding to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other victims of hurricanes.

Congressional Democrats continue to propose bipartisan solutions, but Republicans refuse to take yes for an answer.

We have not protected our courageous young DREAMers. Not only should we protect them, we should embrace them and value them. We should be grateful for the inspiration they are to America.

This is about meeting the needs of the American people. It is also about honoring the values that have made our Nation a beacon to the world.

Today we end the Trump shutdown, but it does not diminish our leverage or our determination on the Democratic side to meet the needs of the American people. Democrats are united in our determination to get the job done. We are unified for a better deal, better jobs, better pay, and a better future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Republicans' latest stop-gap funding bill.

I take great pride in House Democrats overwhelming support for the first continuing resolution in September.

But after months of Republican excuses and extensions, I refuse to enable Republicans' failure any longer.

The past week has once again exposed the utter incompetence of Republican-controlled government.

Here we are, ending the Trump shutdown with Republicans' 4th stop- gap, short-term bill; the 4th time Republicans have failed to get their act together to fund the government for a full year.

In August, Defense Secretary Mattis was asked: what would be the effect of another stop-gap, short term spending bill on the military?

``It just creates unpredictability,'' he said. `` It makes us rigid. We cannot deal with new and revealing threats. We know our enemies are not standing still . . . So it's about as unwise as can be.''

Navy Secretary Richard Spencer has said: ``We have put $4 billion in a trash can, poured lighter fluid on it, and burned it . . . Four billion is enough to buy a squadron of F-35s, two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, 3,000 Harpoon missiles. It's enough money to buy us additional capacity that we need. Instead, it's lost, because of inefficacy in the ways of the continuing resolution.''

Now, the Trump shutdown will end, but Republicans' wasteful incompetence continues.

There's a dark cloud over the Capitol: the deficit-exploding GOP tax scam--which has added nearly 2 trillion to the debt.

Republicans made their choice: tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest were more important than certainty for our military.

Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House--they control what bills we vote on in the Congress.

So, my colleagues, why haven't we voted:

For resources for the opioid epidemic that kills 94 people every day?

For funding our veterans' infrastructure and services?

For saving the millions of American pensions in crisis today?

For funding community health centers & lifesaving research at NIH?

For child care for hard-working parents?

For protecting patriotic young DREAMers?

Why were tax breaks for billionaires and corporations so urgent?

120 days after allowing CHIP to expire, Republicans suddenly claim to care about children on CHIP--but only as part of a cruel Sophie's choice to pit sick children against DREAMers fearful for their future.

Because of the Republican Majority's weakness, we still do not have a long-term spending bill that funds the military and the domestic investments that keep our nation strong.

We have not delivered strong disaster recovery funding for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other victims of hurricanes and wildfires.

Congressional Democrats continue to propose bipartisan solutions. But Republicans refuse to take yes for an answer!

We have not yet protected our courageous young DREAMers. Not only should we protect them, we should embrace them--value them. We should be grateful for the inspiration they are to America.

This is about meeting the needs of the American people. This is about honor the values that make our nation a beacon to the world.

Today, we end the Trump shutdown, but it does not diminish our leverage or our determination to meet the needs of the American people.

Democrats are unified in our determination to get the job done. We are unified for our Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future. And our fight continues.

Mr. Speaker, last night, on the eve of the first anniversary of President Trump's inauguration, President Trump earned an F for leadership.

President Trump and congressional Republicans' obsession with passing a tax scam to benefit the wealthiest in our country and corporations has blinded them to their responsibilities to the American people.

Despite controlling the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Republicans were so incompetent, so negligent, that they couldn't get it together to keep the government open.

They could get it together to pass a tax credit, 83 percent of which benefits the top 1 percent, but they couldn't get it together to pass CHIP and its fuller complement to meet the needs of America's children and families and seniors.

President Trump said about President Obama at the time of the 2013 GOP government shutdown: ``I mean, problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top. And the President is the leader. And he's got to get everybody in a room, and he's got to lead.'' President Trump then.

President Trump now, as President, President Trump tweets: ``Our country needs a good `shutdown.'''

Your wish has come true for your 1-year anniversary because of all- around incompetence, inefficiency, and prioritizing with all your heart and soul that 1 percent at the expense of the rest of the country.

Now, there is no such thing, as we know, as a good shutdown of the government. Republicans' total inability

to govern is once again threatening our economy, weakening our communities, and dangerously depriving the military of the certainty they need to keep our Nation safe.

I say the economy because a shutdown hurts the economy. The facts are there from their previous shutdown.

I am proud the House and Senate Democrats' unity is insisting on a budget that supports our military and the domestic investments that keep our Nation strong and honors our values by protecting our DREAMers.

I hope that we can now conduct bipartisan negotiations--bipartisan negotiations--in a transparent way that unifies the country, where we can find common ground to honor our responsibility to meet the needs of the American people.

It is important to note that this is the fifth Republican shutdown. They don't believe in governance, so shutting down the government is sort of a means to an end for them.

I just want to note that in 2013, when the Republicans last shut down the government--it is really important--that 231 Republicans voted to shut down the government to zero on their side--231--and that included Speaker Ryan, Leader McCarthy, Whip Scalise, and Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers.

Later, on October 16, when it was time to open up the government, it was just a kind of a remarkable thing.

I said 231. It was 229. Let me be fair, 229.

When it was time to open up the government, it was remarkable because the Republicans still did not want to do that.

On October 16, 144 Republicans voted to keep the government shut down--144. 198 Democrats voted to open up the government to zero. Nobody voted to keep the government shut down.

So what is this? What are they taking about? Do people not think that people have a record to see what their votes have been?

This is their fifth shutdown since the nineties. This is their fourth CR since September. Get it together. Wipe the tears of joy from your eye about passing a tax cut that benefits the wealthiest in our country. Get down to business for everyday people in America and stop using children as a shield to cover up what you are not doing for the American people.

When we had the majority and President Obama was President, one of the first bills we sent to his desk was CHIP. That has always been our priority. But it must be accompanied by legislation to support community health centers, which serve 27 million Americans, including those CHIP kids, medical education for primary care doctors who serve the needs of those children, Medicare extenders. The list goes on and on of what that package is but what the Republicans did not want to pay for in their ill-founded CR that they put forth.

A CR weakens the government. A CR weakens our national defense. Secretary Mattis has said that over and over.

This action shuts down the government. The CRs debilitate government. Let's get serious. Get it together. Stop romancing yourselves about that tax bill and start getting serious about meeting the needs of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership. I also thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for the time that they put in bringing rules to the floor that relate to a vast array of legislation that we deal with here.

Today, we are talking about martial law so that we will be prepared to take up something that will open up the government and meet the needs of the American people.

It is interesting to see the enthusiasm on both sides on these subjects because we have a long history on some of these issues. We have a long history and a commitment to CHIP. When we brought it to the floor when I was Speaker, when we first had a Democratic President who would sign the bill, 144 Republicans voted against that bill. But that is then. This is now.

I think that now we are closer than the debate here would indicate. I think there is a path forward. I think that is how we have to be thinking about what is next.

We all have our, shall we say, reputations for where we have been on certain votes about CHIP, about shutting down the government, and the rest, but let's put that aside. The challenge that we have right now is what is that path.

That path has four corners to it. One of them is the caps parity. We have talked about parity. Other Members have talked about it. I am sure Mr. Hoyer did again today. It is about parity. If you are going to have increases in defense, we need the same increases in domestic. If that is what the Defense Department decides its missions require, then we want to be respectful of that.

But we also know that in the domestic budget, one-third of the budget--34 percent--are security functions: Homeland Security, antiterrorism activities at the Department of Justice, Veterans Affairs, the Department of State. That is 34 percent of the domestic budget.

We are saying that the strength of our country is not measured just in our military might--as important as that is and respectful of it that we are--but also in these security functions in the domestic budget. In addition to that, in the health, education, and well-being of the American people, which are also on the domestic side.

So I think on the caps, we just have to get in a room and make those decisions. The challenge that I see is that it has been reported to me that there are those on the Republican side who have some unease in increasing the domestic budget because they know that they already had a big increase in the deficit in the tax bill and are reluctant to add any more investments for fear that it would increase the deficit.

However, these investments in research and development, in education, and in infrastructure, really bring revenue to the Treasury, so they help decrease the deficit. In fact, I think most economists will tell you that nothing brings more money to the Treasury than the investments in education, early childhood, K-12, higher education, postgrad, and lifetime learning for our workers.

So in that spirit of saying they want more in defense, and we are respectful of that, we need more in domestic, and hopefully you will be respectful of that. I think that we can come to terms on that.

And then there is the question of pay-fors: How is that--or is it-- paid for?

So that is one thing. That is just you sit down, you negotiate, and you get it done.

I am not an appropriator. Mr. Hoyer is an appropriator; Mr. Clyburn is an appropriator; Mrs. Lowey, as our ranking member with such distinction; and Mr. Frelinghuysen on your side. Appropriators know how to get it done. They know the numbers. They can do the math, left to their own devices. It is when other factors weigh in that it becomes more challenging.

Let's just say: let's see if we can get that done, because that will be more dispositive of shortening the time between where we are now and if we get a solution.

The DREAMers are a value to us. We told the President right from the start that it is not an issue, it is not a bill, it is a value of who we are as America. I think that we can come to terms on that subject as well.

But make no mistake, if there never were one DREAMer in our country, we still would have this challenge on the money side of the debate. Let's not try to assign responsibility to the DREAMers for the fact that we don't have the increase in defense. We are willing to go to that place as we go, honoring parity. That is what we agreed to in the budget agreement. That is what the Speaker agreed to as chair of the Budget Committee.

Why are we departing from that and then blaming it on the DREAMers?

And the security, we all believe in securing our borders, North and South. We can come to terms on that, if we really believe that we should.

None of us believes in a--well, I can only speak for our side of the aisle--shutting down the government. We believe in a government role in meeting the needs of the American people. We subject any initiatives to do that to the harshest scrutiny because we know that the American people need effective initiatives to meet their needs.

Let's take a deep breath. Let's calm down.

Now, for example, Mr. Welch led the way with a large number--100-some Members of the House--signing a letter to the President.

I think it is really important for you to realize this. When we said we wanted more domestic investment, here is what we were talking about. We were very clear to choose only those initiatives that are bipartisan that would pass on the floor with strong bipartisan support.

That means preserving the Bipartisan Budget Act, as I discussed, and delivering urgently needed resources to communities fighting the opioid epidemic. That is what we said to the President. This is one of the increases on the domestic side: addressing the opioid epidemic.

Rescuing heroic veterans, who are facing a dire shortfall at the VA.

Opioids. Veterans.

Supporting access by funding CHIP, community health centers, medical education for primary care doctors--the package that always went together.

Preserving America's endangered pensions. We had bipartisan support for that. That needs more discussion, but we want to do it.

Providing additional disaster recovery for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Texas, Florida, California--States impacted by wildfires.

There is nothing partisan about this, in addition to protecting our DREAMers, which, again, has bipartisan support in the House and in the Senate. We would want to pass the Dream Act, as well as then engage in the discussion on the borders, which we are completely open to.

This is not a: Just give us some money. It is shared values-- Democrats and Republicans--and we are saying to the President: Help us on this money side of the debate because it is so very important.

We can talk all day about who said what about what and all the rest of that. I don't think shutting down the government is cool, as Mr. Mulvaney said, but let's leave him to that.

We do know that government by CR is not the best way to go.

I think that we could take one day--take this evening--sit down: Caps parity; pay-fors--probably easy; there is not a whole lot of opportunity there, but whatever it is--and DACA, the DREAMers.

Again, if there never were one DREAMer, we would still be having this discussion about the money side of it.

My view--and correct me if I am wrong--is that there is a resistance on the Republican side of the House--I can't speak for the Senate, and I haven't seen evidence of the Senate--to resist parity when it comes to increasing funding, even for these priorities that we spelled out, because it will increase the deficit, which has been greatly increased by the tax bill.

So I would see, for some remaining, if existing, deficit hawks, that you might have that concern.

Let me just also add that if there were not one DREAMer in America,

America would be at a loss. These young people have come to this country with their parents. They have made us so proud with their diligence, with their attendance at school, service in the military, working. I have heard from champions of industries, many of whom celebrated the passage of the tax bill, saying: The people who work in our firms are exemplary. They are stars in our company.

So why don't we not use them as an excuse not to face the reality that we have domestic responsibilities that we must deal with.

But there is a path. Our appropriators are used to working together. The leadership has to make these decisions. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to do this by tomorrow and then give the appropriators the time to write it up, but to come to those terms.

So let's all take a deep breath, let's understand our responsibilities to the American people. Let us withhold, as I have done, some of the--I have curbed my enthusiasm about certain other things I have heard said and done here. I haven't even brought the President's picture out saying, on his one-year anniversary: ``What this country needs is a good `shutdown.'''

He said it earlier, but now he got one for his anniversary. Well, it didn't completely curb my enthusiasm in that regard, but I do say that we have more common ground than is reflected in how this has proceeded.

Let us find a better course so that we can stay on that course as we meet other challenges that face our country.

God has blessed us with the privilege to serve here. We respect each other. If we don't respect each other, respect the people who sent us here. We owe them a lot more than the government being shut down.

So let's take a path to open it up, understanding that it will involve compromise. It is going to involve bipartisanship, transparency, and openness in how we get it done, but in a way that brings unity to our country. I think that that is something we all subscribe to. I certainly hope so.

I call upon my colleagues to join us in sitting down and getting it done. I call upon the Speaker to be willing to bring some legislation to the floor that will do this and which would have bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I commend her for her great leadership as our ranking member on the Appropriations Committee--as we say, the almighty powerful Appropriations Committee on which I was proud to serve with the gentleman, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and Congresswoman Lowey.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed, though, that the legislation that is brought to the floor today falls so very short of our responsibilities to the

American people. When it comes to considering this bill, which the Republicans are bragging supports CHIP, it is important to review the facts. The facts are these: the CHIP proposal that the Republicans boast was on the floor in October, this or that, was funded by taking money from other children's programs, and that is why it was not to be supported by us. It is also important to remember that the CHIP reauthorization expired September 30.

So here we are with our fourth continuing resolution. That means, on September 30, we were supposed to not only reauthorize CHIP but to pass an omnibus bill to fund the government. Republicans were not able to make the decisions necessary to do that, so we had one extension, another extension, another extension. This is the fourth extension.

Now, for somebody who doesn't know what a CR is, that is our Washington lingo. It is a continuing resolution. What it says is that the funding for the country will be continued at the same rate as it was in the previous year regardless of the fact that other challenges have emerged.

So, by engaging in the failure to pass an omnibus bill and engage instead in these short-term continuing resolutions, this inadequacy does not give certainty to our military. General Mattis has told us that the military cannot go on these every-2-weeks, every-month CRs. We need to know. We need to have an omnibus that recognizes the full complement of our needs, and they are different from last year.

It does not fund the fight against opioid addiction. We have talked about this. We have authorized language. We have put up some money. But throughout our country, there is an opioid epidemic that needs to be addressed with full funding for it--not just conversation or rhetoric, but funding.

It does not address some of the crises facing our veterans, whether it is their infrastructure, housing, whatever, or additional funding that is needed for our veterans over and above whatever it was last year, and this ignores that need.

It ignores the fact that we have some issues that we have to address regarding endangered pensions in our country, which have a direct relationship to the economic well-being of America's working families, pensions paid into, pensions having a shortfall, to honor the responsibility.

It doesn't protect the DREAMers. We could protect the DREAMers in all of this, but it is missing an opportunity.

This takes us right back to the CHIP. It does not fund community health centers that provide primary care for 27 million Americans.

So these priorities are bipartisan. Nothing I mentioned on this list is anything that does not have bipartisan support in the Congress, that has not been openly discussed--bipartisanship, transparency, unity-- unifying us around these issues. We did not put priorities forward that were partisan, but those that had bipartisan--strong bipartisan-- support.

So when our colleagues come to the floor and say, ``Oh, we are doing CHIP,'' CHIP is a wonderful initiative. It was one of the first bills that I passed and sent to President Obama when I was Speaker of the House. This is of high value to all of us on both sides of the aisle, but not high enough of a value to put it in its proper context. So this reauthorization of CHIP that they are putting here, this funding for CHIP is not really funding.

Let me just make a distinction. We wanted 10 years for CHIP, to make it permanent--so we don't have to go through this--and remove all doubt, remove the uncertainty as to whether this healthcare would be available to those children who need it. We said, 10 years, you save $6 billion; $6 billion, you save. You do 6 years, as in this bill, you save $1 billion. Why wouldn't we want to save $6 billion?

Nonetheless, my concern is that they chose to bring a bill to the floor that isolates CHIP away from the other essentials that are a part of the delivery of that healthcare service to children. It does not reauthorize community health centers which provide, as I say, vital care to 26 million Americans. It does not extend the Medicare extenders so necessary, especially for our seniors with home visiting care and other initiatives.

It does not address the Medicaid DSH, disproportionate share challenge that is across America. Ask your friends in rural America, especially, about that. Therapy services, diabetes, and teaching health centers for primary care doctors, all are completely out of this bill.

That is why I am so proud of the legislation introduced by Congressman McEachin today which has the full complement. It is nothing additional. It is how we have always proceeded with the priority of children's health in a package that is about family health and delivery of service.

As the President, himself, tweeted this morning: ``CHIP should be part of a long-term solution, not a 30-day or short-term extension.'' We like it 10 years; they have it 6 years. But it shouldn't be in this bill because this bill is sort of a half-baked facade to make it look as if we are keeping government open.

We are keeping government debilitated by not addressing, coming to agreement on the omnibus bill that we know that we have to do that addresses the needs of our military, as it recognizes the security provisions in the domestic bill that are about security, whether it is the State Department, Veterans Affairs, homeland security, or antiterrorism activities of the Justice Department; and also, the fact that the strength of our country is measured in many ways: certainly, our military, which we are very proud of, and the agencies I mentioned, but also in the health, education, and well-being of the American people.

So we are here. What does government do?

Government does transportation. How can you, if you are in the Transportation Department, make commitments when you are on a short fuse of--what is it?--2 weeks in December, now 4 weeks that they want to go forward.

Why don't we just settle it? Grow up. Take responsibility. Get this done for the American people.

Nobody I know wants a shutdown of government--well, maybe except for the President, who said, ``Our country needs a good shutdown.'' He said that in May. I think with his experience as President now, he probably knows there is no such thing as a good shutdown. We don't want a shutdown.

By the way, if there is one, this would be the first time there would be a shutdown in recent history that took place when one party had the White House, had the Senate, and had the House of Representatives, had full responsibility for managing and for leveraging, for getting the job done to fund our country for another year with certainty. This has 2-year provisions in what we are negotiating with the Republicans.

So, really, coming to the floor and hiding behind CHIP to hide the shortcomings and the lack of taking responsibility for our responsibilities to the American people is really a sad thing. That is why Mr. McEachin's bill and our previous question, which had the full complement to make CHIP really work, was the way to go.

Sadly, although I object to the process of one short-term continuing resolution of last year instead of looking to the future for next year--I disapprove of that process--the substance of this legislation makes it totally unacceptable, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the House of Representatives for coming together on the floor of the House and in our various caucuses and conferences to discuss the important challenge that we all face: the balance that we have to protect the American people. That is the oath we take: to protect and defend. As we defend the Constitution, we defend the privacy and the civil liberties of the American people.

It is difficult.

Over 20 years ago, I was on the Intelligence Committee for the purpose of protecting civil liberties and privacy, and also to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, two really important overarching issues. So I come to the floor today as one who has worked on this issue for a very long time.

I thank our men and women in the intelligence community for the work they do. We are so proud of what they do.

In those days, almost 25 years ago, when I was first on the committee, it was about force protection and trying to have enough intelligence to avoid conflict, but if we were to engage, we would have the intelligence to protect our forces. It was about force protection. In the nineties, it became more about fighting terrorism and other overarching issues as well.

We live in a dangerous world and force protection on the ground, in theater, is still an essential part of what the intelligence community does. Again, I thank the men and women in the intelligence community for their patriotism and their courage.

The issue that relates to fighting terrorism is one that sometimes has a frightening manifestation on our own soil. But as we protect and defend the American people and the Constitution and their rights, we have to have that balance. It was Benjamin Franklin who said: If we don't fight for security and freedom, we won't have either.

I want to particularly thank our ranking member on the Intelligence Committee. He has made us all proud in going across the country to honor our Constitution, talking about undermining our election system, talking about protecting the American people in ways that is consistent with our Constitution. I thank Mr. Schiff and I support him today in his support of the bill that came from his committee.

Is it perfect?

I have never voted for a perfect bill in this House.

I also thank Mr. Nadler, a genius on all of these issues that relate to our Constitution. I also thank the members of the Judiciary Committee.

We have very few members on the Intelligence Committee who are deputized by the Speaker and by the leaders of each party to go to the Intelligence Committee to deal with issues that relate to the balance between security and privacy.

With all the respect in the world for the magnificent members of the Judiciary Committee, all of whom I respect, it is not right to say there is nothing in this bill that protects the privacy of the American people.

In fact, when I was supporting the Judiciary Committee bill, outside groups were complaining. They wanted the Zoe Lofgren amendment. They didn't want that bill. They were complaining about it. Now, today, they are saying that is what they want.

Studying the issue, I think one of the differences along the way is when it is appropriate in terms of a warrant. That is why I am so pleased that we will be offering a motion to recommit that addresses just that concern, which is what I am hearing about from folks.

The amendment, the motion to recommit, addresses concerns of people on both sides of the aisle, certainly in our Democratic Caucus, that seeks to secure the highest possible protections for American civil liberties. At the same time, it ensures that the intelligence community and law enforcement can continue to keep Americans safe.

This amendment would go a step further from the modified bill that is on the floor under consideration to ensure law enforcement secures a warrant before accessing Americans' information.

Let me repeat that. The amendment will go a step further than the modified bill under consideration to ensure law enforcement secures a warrant before accessing Americans' information.

Under this amendment, a court order would be required to access Americans' data in connection with any nonnational security criminal investigation by the FBI.

This amendment removes predicate--that is the operational word-- standards and it expands the universe of investigations that would require a warrant.

A vote for this amendment--and I hope it would be bipartisan, especially from those who are objecting to the bill on the floor--is a vote for privacy protections and for civil liberties. We would have preferred to have this in the original bill that is coming to the floor. We couldn't get that in committee. Hopefully, we can get it on the floor.

Voting against the motion to recommit means fewer protections, less oversight, and more risk that Americans' rights will be violated.

In the course of this, I mentioned this issue about the warrant and arrest. I talked about the Judiciary Committee's bill. At the offset of all of this, we all opposed the first Intelligence Committee's bill. We supported the Judiciary Committee's bipartisan bill being criticized by some outside groups for supporting it, rather than the Lofgren amendment.

But changes were made in the Intelligence Committee's bill to this effect. We asked the Speaker to take out the masking provisions, which have no place in this bill. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Nunes, foolishly put that in this bill. It made it a complete nonstarter. I thank the Speaker for removing it.

By the way, somebody should tell the President because he thinks it is still in the bill. With that being said, I personally directed the unmasking process be fixed. It isn't fixed in the bill, Mr. President. That would be a second tweet of the day, confusing matters even worse, unfortunately. The administration, although they probably would like an extension of the status quo, understands we have to do more than that.

The other provision that was in the bill was an expansion of agents of foreign governments. Agents of foreign governments opened up more people who would be subjected to surveillance. We said: That doesn't fly. That has to be closed. The Speaker did that.

Then, on the ``abouts'' language, I think most people who understand that--it is a complicated issue--understand that it is really not a factor in this discussion. People don't want it mentioned, but the fact is that it had to be addressed. It is not being used and it is unconstitutional. Until it can be proven to be constitutional, it can't be used. When it is used, they would have to go to the FISA court to get permission, and then come to Congress for ratification of that. So there are many protections there.

It is hard, I know. I had a hard time when I was Speaker and we passed a bill to address the gross violations of Vice President Cheney doing the Bush-Cheney surveillance. It was appalling, in my view. I considered it unconstitutional, others did not. But, nonetheless, we put in many, many protections where there were none, and then renewed and improved them when we renewed the bill subsequently in its reauthorization.

This isn't about the other side of the aisle that is saying you don't care about privacy if you support this bill. It isn't about that. It is about where you strike the balance when you weigh the equities.

We have to come down in favor of honoring our Constitution and our civil liberties, but we cannot do that completely at the expense. And I believe that the Members and Mr. Nadler understand that full well, and I commend him for his deep understanding of the vital national security issues and the invaluable work that his committee has done to strike a balance between security and privacy and has made a difference.

But the choice we have today is to pass something that is--defeat this bill. Okay. You have done that, if you want to do that. Pass an amendment that won't go anyplace, you can do that, and we will be left with extension of the status quo of the current law.

As one who has participated in writing it those years ago, I understand its merit. I also understand the changes in technology, of tactics of terrorists who are out there, and that we have to improve the bill.

I don't consider it a reform bill. It is not that vast. It is some improvements in how we can collect, protect, again, keep the American people safe as well as protect their civil liberties.

Just a couple other things about it. Since this legislation was designed to address concerns related to the use of information collected under FISA section 702, an important foreign intelligence collection authority--we have to keep that emphasis on ``an important foreign intelligence authority.''

So, my colleagues, to that end, this modifies that it requires a court order based on probable cause for FBI criminal investigators to view Americans' communication in the section 702 database and mandates an inspector general study of 702 data. So let's keep the vigilance on, even as we go forward. It contains refined language related to ``abouts'' collection. It requires the executive branch to secure explicit approval from the FISA court for collection. It further objects ``abouts'' collections to--subjects a 30-day congressional review process. I know Mr. Sensenbrenner said nobody can do anything in 30 days, but I think we can.

The bill strengthens the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. That was something I was instrumental in establishing when I was on the Intelligence Committee. I know it is important, but I also know that it has to be strengthened and it has to be respected as a watchdog.

So, I mean, the list goes on requiring public reporting on the use of 702 data, just saying to the intelligence community: Don't try to minimize any violations that may have occurred; we want the facts; we want the truth.

And that is why I am so glad it has expanded whistleblower protections and briefings to the Oversight Committee, which we have required. Unlike the original House Intelligence bill, which I oppose, this bill does not include language that would have likely expanded the universe of FISA targets who are now, as I mentioned before, agents of foreign policy powers. It excludes the language on unmasking; somebody tell the President.

It gives me great pride in our Caucus, if you could have heard the beautiful debate between Mr. Nadler and Mr.

Schiff on this subject. We are not that far apart. I think that the motion to recommit addresses most of the concerns we have been getting from the outside groups, and communities have dedicated their--whose organized purpose is to protect the civil liberties of the American people.

But, again, with great respect for everyone's opinions and whatever they have put forth, again, saluting our men and women in the intelligence community for the work that they do, we want to be sure we strengthen their hand in terms of protecting the national security of our country, which is our first responsibility, keep the American people safe, and, as we do so, to honor our oath of office to the Constitution, to honor the principles of the Constitution.

Our Founders knew full well the challenge between security and civil liberties. They lived in a world when they were under attack. The War of 1812 came very soon after the establishment of our country, so this was not a foreign idea to them, and they bequeathed to us the responsibility to protect, defend, protect our liberties.

And, again, respectful of this debate on this issue, I myself will be voting to support my ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff, our ranking member, and Members will follow their conscience on this. I just wanted you to know, from my experience in all of this and with weighing the equities involved, that that is the path that I will take.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join our distinguished Speaker in honoring Congressman Don Young, who ascends to the position of dean of the U.S. House of Representatives following nearly 45 years of proud service on behalf of the people of Alaska. Congressman Young also holds the distinction of serving as the first dean of the House from the Republican Party in 80 years.

Congratulations.

On behalf of the Democratic Caucus, I extend my congratulations to Don; his wife, Anne; and his entire family.

Despite our differences, it is clear that Don cares deeply about our Nation. Don serves because, in his words, he is ``enthusiastic about meeting people and trying to solve their problems.''

As a former teacher, he is an advocate for quality education for all. As a former U.S. Army tank operator, he believes in ensuring that servicemembers, families, and veterans have the care they have earned. In honor of his late, beloved wife, Lu Young, he has been a champion for the Native children of Alaska.

The motto of the State of Alaska is ``North to the future.'' In his commitment to progress and better futures for the people of Alaska, Don honors those words.

The dean of the House has the honor of administering to the Speaker, as the Speaker indicated, the oath of office, which begins: ``I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' As dean, Congressman Young will now have the special responsibility not only of defending the Constitution, but of defending the integrity and dignity of this institution, which he has done all along.

Following in the footsteps of great leaders before him--Sam Rayburn, John Quincy Adams, Carl Vinson--it is now Don's solemn duty to help foster a climate of civility in the Congress and to hold our colleagues accountable for behavior beneath the standards of this body.

I told Don I would tell you this story when I just congratulated him. He has been very helpful to us in making the Presidio go from an Army post to a special kind of national park. I hope he considers establishing the Presidio in San Francisco part of his legacy. We would love to welcome him and honor him in San Francisco anytime he is ready for that.

But in the course of our conversations over those times, I noticed one day that Don had on this beautiful tie. It had a bald eagle and a baby seal on it. It had these beautiful animals on it. I said: Don, what a lovely, beautiful environmental tie you have on.

He said: I call it lunch.

Again, we know that Don Young will always honor the important obligations, as he always has, and now his new obligation as dean of the House of Representatives. That is historic.

I congratulate him and thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I also thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for the exceptional service they provide to the House in reviewing legislation that will come to the floor.

I particularly want to thank my colleagues on the Democratic side for honoring the values of our country by advocating for an amendment to include the Dream Act as we go forward. I would hope that most of our Members would vote ``no'' on this rule and not allow for the previous question to come forward so that it will allow for the Dream Act to be considered.

I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the distinguished Members on the Republican side, as well as the Democratic side, for the hospitality extended to the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer; the chair of the Hispanic Caucus, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham; and to me.

At that meeting, Mr. Speaker, I told the colleagues that we are in a tradition of having great Democratic and Republican Presidents who have been supportive of newcomers to our country and who recognize that immigration is the constant reinvigoration of America.

When people come to our country with their hopes and dreams and aspirations to make the future better for their families, they are identifying with an American ideal: all of us having the responsibility to make the future better for the next generation. And their commitment, their courage, their optimism, their determination for a better future makes America more American. Every newcomer who comes here with that determination makes America more American.

Among those people are our DREAMers. This is a very discrete group that we are hoping to protect in the Dream Act. Certainly, as our colleagues acknowledged this morning, we have important work to do on comprehensive immigration reform. We have a responsibility to protect our borders, North and South, and anything that flies in, East Coast, West Coast, and through the Gulf. But the fact is that--as was pointed out by our colleague, Congresswoman Lujan Grisham, the chair of the Hispanic Caucus: think of the DREAMers as a discrete piece that needs protection now and not wait for the entire comprehensive immigration reform to be resolved before we deal with this emergency.

Just as we treat CHIP, 9 million children are depending on CHIP, but we are not waiting until we revise the whole healthcare system in order to pass CHIP, nor did we. When we passed CHIP, it was before the Affordable Care Act had passed.

But let me say why it is really important for this to happen now. Unfortunately--and, really, I was pleased that our Speaker registered his disagreement with President Trump when he took the action he did in regard to DACA in September. When he did that and said, ``I will give Congress until March to pass a law,'' what he didn't understand is that he was putting these DREAMers at a distinct disadvantage.

Every day, over 100, 120-some DACA recipients, DACA-eligible recipients, lose their status. That means, if they are working or whatever they are doing, they lose their status to do that in our country. Over 10,000 have lost status since the President's announcement--well over 10,000.

So we can't wait until March to do this because it had consequences known to us but unforeseen by the White House and by the President. And I don't think, in his heart, that the President intended to hurt these people in the very cruel way that they are being hurt by the actions that are being taken.

We can't wait until March. We need action. We need it soon. We need it to be bipartisan. That is what we have been working on--not me; Members, Member-driven bipartisan cooperation in trying to find a path that addresses the concerns that some have about the border--and we all do--and also addresses the Dream Act.

As the President said: Let's call it DACA.

Okay. We will call it DACA.

So here we are. I said at the beginning of my remarks that we have been blessed in our country by Presidents who have recognized the value of immigration; that our country would be in stagnation if we didn't have this constant reinvigoration of visitors to our country.

When President Obama acted because Congress had not acted to protect the DREAMers and their parents, that was really important for him to do because Congress had not acted. However, it is important to note that President Reagan, when he was President and President George Herbert Walker Bush was at that time Vice President, Congress did act through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. They did act. And President Reagan's observation was they didn't go far enough.

So he took further executive action called Family Fairness to protect people in our country, immigrants in our country. Actually, President Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush protected a higher percentage of newcomers to our country than President Obama did with his DACA and DAPA action, a higher percentage because they understood the value to our country of newcomers.

President Clinton continued all of that. President George W. Bush was a champion and continues to be a champion on recognizing the value of immigration. He has spoken about it intellectually, with respect, from the heart for people coming to our country, and he has urged us to do so.

He couldn't get the cooperation of his own party when he was President to cooperate for comprehensive immigration reform, even though when we had the power as Democrats, we supported it. But he could not get the 60 votes in the Senate. But, nonetheless, he continues to be a champion, really, for immigration reform.

And here we have a new President who campaigned on the backs of newcomers to our country and who made immigrants villains. It is a complete change from the Republican Party, from a commitment to valuing newcomers and diversity in our country. It is a complete departure from President Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, President George W. Bush, just to name the Republican Presidents.

So we find ourselves in this situation, but that doesn't change the fact that we have a responsibility to all of God's children to treat them with respect, and when we can do something to be helpful, we should.

There is harm that is coming to the DREAMers every day, because they are losing status. Regardless of what some may say, some are being deported. This may be unknown to the President, but it is not unknown to us in this Congress.

I want to thank Congresswoman Lujan Grisham, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and her members. I want to thank Congresswoman Judy Chu, the chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; Congresswoman Yvette Clarke,

who, working with the Congressional Black Caucus, has been a champion in that caucus; and all of the Members on both sides of the aisle who are striving to find a path.

One path that we have open to us is to defeat this rule, to allow the Dream Act to come up, and to put that in the mix as we go forward.

Again, this isn't an issue, this isn't a bill. It is a value, and that is the conversation we had with President Trump. This isn't an issue, but it is a value. This is about who we are as a nation and how we respect who we are as a nation. That is why, I believe, that President Trump will be receptive to signing a bill. He does want--and we are all concerned for--border security. We will work with him on that, but let's start by putting on the Record the support of this House for a recognition that we are immigrants, by and large. Unless some of you are Native Americans--and how proud we are of our Native American community in our country and how blessed we are--most of us come from immigrant families.

It was interesting to me in doing some reading on some of this. I am very proud of my own Italian-American heritage. My grandmother was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Her parents were from Venice and Genoa. My father's family from Abruzzo. We are very proud of all of that, which makes us respect the pride that other people take in their heritage.

What was interesting to me in recent days, because I remember--I didn't suffer this, but I know my father and others did: Italians were called ``wops.''

Do you know what wops means?

It means ``without papers.'' That is what they were called: without papers.

These people are without papers, but in every way they are American.

I just want to tell you a couple of stories. One is Fernando Meza Gutierrez. Fernando lives in my district. Fernando's family came to the U.S. Fernando came to the U.S. when he was 9 years old. In high school, Fernando was an AP scholar and received the International Baccalaureate Diploma and the Achievement Award in Foreign Language for French.

Fernando continued to excel academically at Santa Clara University, where he graduated cum laude with a double major in biology and French.

Now a third-year doctoral student at UC San Francisco, Fernando also works at UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, where he is working hard to provide new insights into many diseases and disorders.

I just want to tell you one other story. Lisette Diaz was just 6 years old when her family brought her to the U.S. from Chile. Growing up in Long Island, Lisette excelled in school and was involved in her community. She went on to attend Harvard, where she received numerous awards and participated in a variety of extracurricular activities. Lisette recently graduated from Harvard with honors.

Lisette and other DREAMers have so much to contribute to our country, but Donald Trump and other Republicans have made their agenda clear. They want to shut down DACA and DAPA and deport hundreds of thousands of DREAMers and parents of Americans.

That is what DREAMers think. We don't want them to think that. We want them to think that the President understands their value, the value of our DREAMers, and the challenges that they face.

If we don't do something soon, Lisette will be deported back to Chile, a country where she hasn't lived since she was 6 years old.

There are just thousands and thousands and thousands of stories of success, of those serving in our military, attending our schools, teaching our children, working in high-level positions, because they all have that immigrant attitude of hard work, hard work ethic, a work ethic, a faith ethic, a family ethic, a sense of community.

In the sense and spirit of community, let's defeat this rule and allow the Dream Act to come forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and, once again, I commend him for being a champion of middle class families.

I want my colleagues all to hear the esteem in which we hold our Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee. I thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Neal, for being our ranking member and for your extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's middle class working families, and that includes millions of veterans. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day in the history of America because we have, on the floor, probably the worst bill in recent time to come to the floor. That doesn't mean it doesn't have stiff competition from other legislation the Republicans have brought to the floor, but this is the worst because so many people are affected in such a negative way and because trillions of dollars of impact on our economy have been voted upon without any hearing, without any hearing from the people who will be most affected by it--no hearings, no experts, no listening to the American people.

Yesterday, our Republican colleagues stood on this floor and voted for a GOP tax scam that the American people oppose 2 to 1. Our Republican colleagues stood on the floor and cheered. They

cheered a bill that will raise taxes on 86 million middle class families and hand a staggering 83 percent of its tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent.

Shamefully, the Republicans were cheering against the children as they robbed from their future and ransacked the middle class to reward the rich.

Today, the Republicans take their victory lap for successfully pillaging the American middle class to benefit the powerful and the privileged.

I come to the floor with stories of men and women and children that Republicans shamefully cheered against yesterday.

Yesterday, I wish the Republicans had heard, as we did, the story of Ady Barkan, 30 years old, father of a beautiful baby son, and Ady is suddenly stricken with ALS, 30 years old.

From his wheelchair, with a strong but wavering voice, he begged Congress not to pass this bill. He pleaded with anyone who would listen not to vote for this tax scam that will raise his health benefits and condemn Medicaid to devastating cuts as the logical next step. He has been lobbying on Capitol Hill against this bill for a while. Ady said yesterday it would do so much damage.

It would deprive me of the Medicaid I need to stay alive a

little longer and see baby Carl learn to read and teach him

how to play chess and watch him go to first grade.

But Republicans didn't listen, said ``no,'' and cheered.

Yesterday, we heard the story, and I wish our Republican friends could have heard it, of Laura Hatcher, mother of sweet and kind 11- year-old Simon, one of the Little Lobbyists.

Simon has a rare disease and cerebral palsy. His mother spoke of how their family watches the Muppet version of ``A Christmas Carol'' and how Simon sees himself in Tiny Tim, another kind boy with braces on his legs. Unfortunately, this story, as of today, does not have the same kind of happy ending as ``A Christmas Carol.''

But the story is not over, and like Tiny Tim, Simon and his family now find their future in danger because of the greed of those with power, the cruelty that is in the heart of the tax scam.

As Simon's mother, Laura, said:

Very soon I could, once again, be facing a future where I

don't know how I will be able to care for my child. This is a

thought I simply find too difficult to bear.

Since you didn't hear yesterday, I will go on to say what she said.

We parents of medically complex kids understand

consequences. We know what will happen if this tax bill

passes, if our country does not turn from this destructive

and immoral path.

But the Republicans didn't listen. They said ``no,'' and they cheered. They cheered against Simon because Republicans value the wishes of the special interest lobbyists over the Little Lobbyists, the voices of Little Lobbyists, sick children standing up for themselves and for their siblings, children standing with their siblings.

Yesterday, we heard from faith leaders, too. They implored Congress to reject this bill that punishes working families and rewards the wealthiest 1 percent.

I repeat: 83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent; 86 million American working middle class families will have their taxes raised.

Sister Simone said she wept for the fact that our Representatives are not weeping over the damage they are doing to families across America.

They challenged us to honor our faith in this holy season, to remember that our first responsibility is to those who have the least, not to enrich those who are already privileged and powerful.

They challenged us to heed not only the message of Christmas, but to remember the words of Jesus enshrined in the Gospel of Matthew.

But Republicans didn't listen. They said ``no.'' They cheered. They cheered. They cheered against little Simon. They cheered against Ady Barkan. They cheered against people in need.

The GOP tax scam is a monumental con job, but who got conned? President Trump will sign the bill whenever he signs it. I know it is supposed to be today, but I hear the special interests are weighing in for him to delay it for some reason or another.

President Trump will sign a bill that betrays the promises he made in the campaign.

President Trump promised to eliminate the carried interest loophole; yet the Republicans wrote a tax scam that not only continues this outrageous loophole, but it gives even more loopholes to the wealthy and well connected.

President Trump promised to stop corporations from shipping jobs overseas, but Republicans wrote a tax scam that gives corporate America even bigger incentives to ship jobs overseas.

President Trump promised tax reform focused on middle class families, tax breaks for middle class families. Republicans wrote a tax scam that raises taxes on 86 million middle class families in our country.

President Trump promised he would protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but Republicans wrote a tax plan to explode the deficit and use it as an excuse to cut Medicare and Medicaid. They have made no secret of their plans. They have even said this week, to raise the Social Security age.

So who got conned? Did the people get conned by the promises? Did the President get conned by the Republicans? Is he signing a bill that betrays his promises to the American people?

It is all about the Republicans in Congress. They have in their DNA trickle-down economics. Tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for corporations, and the former Speaker even said: If trickle-down creates jobs, that would be good. If it doesn't, so be it. That is the free market.

As Republicans head to the White House for their victory lap, hopefully they won't trip over the wheelchair of Ady Barkan and other Americans with preexisting conditions.

I caution them not to trip over the wheelchair of Simon Hatcher and other children with severe medical needs. They will be in the path of your victory lap.

Don't trip over the sisters and brothers and mothers and fathers who tend to the health and well-being of their sick children and their siblings and who will not stop fighting to protect them.

I told you yesterday in a public forum:

I caution you not to get in the way of a mother and father

of a child with special needs and disabilities or extreme

medical conditions. They will do anything to protect that

child, and they notice what you are doing here.

As you are on this victory lap, you will probably have to put on earphones so you can block out the pleas of faith leaders speaking up for hardworking American families.

I know the Republicans want to talk so they can't hear the truth about their bill, but the American people won't forget the false representations you have made. They won't forget how loudly you cheered when you hurt their families, their children with special needs, their families struggling to attain some financial stability.

And why? These people say to me: How could they be so cruel as to put the health provision in this bill that would possibly eliminate 13 million people from the rolls of health insurance? How could they do that? Why did they do that?

Why? The answer is always the same: to give them room to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country and to corporate America, unpaid for, permanently.

Our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts will show his credit card again today. They are putting this bill on a credit card that our children are going to have to pay for, robbing from their future.

This holiday they are talking about giving people a Christmas present? Well, Joe Sixpack, whom the President said he was there to help, and I hope that that is true, Joe Sixpack will be delivering the champagne to their parties. That is how this is. This isn't about anything better for working class families. This is about champagne glasses clinking and wealthy families across the country.

I don't begrudge them their success or their wealth or their achievement. I just don't want to see it at the exploitation of America's working families.

Shame on you for voting for this outrageous theft from the American middle class.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing in this people's House and vote ``no'' on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I salute him for his extraordinary leadership and being a champion for America's working families. I commend him and the Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee for putting forth the facts on what is in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today we choose what kind of country America will be: one that champions the ladders of opportunity for all or one that reinforces the power of the wealthiest and well connected.

Outside the Congress, the American people have already made their decision. Polling shows that Americans oppose the GOP tax scam by a margin of 2 to 1. Hardworking families see right through the brazen con job Republicans are trying to sell them.

So why aren't our Republican colleagues standing with their constituents? Why aren't they joining us on insisting on A Better Deal for American families? Why aren't they joining us in demanding that we write real bipartisan tax reform that puts the middle class first?

Because helping the middle class has never been their goal.

From day one, the donors, lobbyists, and the wealthy and well connected came first. The Frankenstein monster of giveaways and special interest loopholes we are voting on today proves it, and this monster will come back to haunt them, as Frankenstein did.

Republicans claim that their bill is a middle class tax cut. The fact is, according to the Tax Policy Center, their bill raises taxes on 86 million middle class households.

When The Washington Post asked Edward Kleinbard, former chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, if the tax package in aggregate would mean a middle class tax cut, he said: ``That is delusional or dishonest to say. It is factually untrue. The only group you can point to that wins year after year and wins in very large magnitude is the very highest incomes.''

That is from the Joint Committee on Taxation former chief of staff.

The only greater delusion in this bill is the ludicrous Republican insistence, their claim that these giveaways to the wealthiest will pay for themselves.

Bruce Bartlett is the architect of Jack Kemp's supply-side economics. As Bruce Bartlett has testified in our hearing and in public, when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy paying for themselves, he said:

It is not true. It is nonsense. It is BS.

He said the whole words.

In a few minutes, Republicans will vote to explode catastrophically our national debt at minimum of $1.5 trillion, likely $2.2 trillion or more.

Where are the vaunted Republican deficit hawks? Are they endangered? Are they extinct? Do they care about the deficit when we pass giveaways for the rich and big corporations?

They don't care about deficits, then. Tax breaks for the rich, corporate tax breaks: they don't care about the deficit.

Do Republicans only care about the deficit when the issue is helping children, seniors, our veterans, who are a large part of hardworking Americans?

My colleagues, my fellow Americans, remember this vote. Remember the vote, when they will cheer at the end of this vote, they will stand up and cheer, adding trillions to the national debt in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent and to big corporations. They will cheer that.

They will cheer when they say we can't afford to protect the health of our innocent children. They will cheer that.

Remember, they will cheer when they tell you we can't afford the next step, we can't afford Medicaid, Medicare, and a dignified retirement our seniors spent a lifetime earning. That is an applause line for them.

Remember this day when Republicans cheer for a bill that hands a $4,000 child tax credit to families of four earning $400,000 a year. If you earn $400,000 a year, you get $4,000 in a child tax credit.

But if you are poor, a single mom, a mother of two earning only $14,500, guess how much you get?

Seventy-five dollars. Seventy-five dollars.

Today we gather on this floor in the midst of a holy season. In this season, we celebrate the miraculous blessings of God. We reflect on the wondrous joy of children and our responsibility to them.

We remember our duty to live justly. For those of us blessed to serve in this Congress, we must remember our special responsibility to govern fairly, to meet the needs of all of God's children.

In this holy time, the moral obscenity and unrepentant greed of the GOP tax scam stands out even more clearly.

As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said early on, ``. . . this proposal appears to be the first Federal income tax modification in American history that will raise income taxes on the working poor while simultaneously providing a large tax cut to the wealthy. This is simply unconscionable.''

They will be cheering it. Unconscionable. Remember what the Bishops said.

Now, here, get back to the Republicans. This is in sharp contrast to the words of Senator Hatch. Now, he is the chairman of the Finance Committee in the United States Senate and an author of this bill. He said: ``I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won't help themselves, won't lift a finger, and expect the Federal Government to do everything.''

How about that?

Tell that to the moms we just saw speaking out with their children, children with disabilities, who wonder how this could be so cruel.

This is an act of misery, but not according to Senator Hatch. And that is in terms of getting back to our Bishops. In his encyclical, God is Love. And I have said this to my colleagues before, but with, obviously, no effect on the Republican side.

Pope Benedict quoted the urgent moral wisdom of St. Augustine 17 centuries ago, my colleagues. Seventeen

centuries ago, St. Augustine said: ``A State which is not governed according to justice is just a bunch of thieves.''

Pope Benedict went on to say: ``The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now.''

In his words, he cautioned against ``the danger of certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.''

Mr. Speaker, is there justice in a bill that rewards corporations shipping jobs overseas? Jobs of hardworking American men and women and veterans, shipping those jobs overseas? Is there justice in that?

No, I don't think so.

Is there justice in a bill that spikes healthcare premiums and may add 13 million Americans to the ranks of the uninsured?

No justice there.

Is there justice in a bill that raises taxes on 86 million middle class families?

Here we are. Raises taxes on 86 million middle class families, and they try to present the delusion that it is a middle class tax cut.

Is there justice in a bill that hands a breathtaking 83 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans? Eighty-three percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent?

Is there justice in a bill that explodes the national debt to give the wealthy and the well connected a break and sticks the debt with our children? Is that justice?

I didn't think you thought so. I wish our Republican colleagues would join us.

This GOP tax scam is simply theft, monumental, brazen theft from the American middle class and from every person who aspires to reach it. The GOP tax scam is not a voice for an investment in growth or jobs. It is a vote to install a permanent plutocracy in our Nation. They will be cheering that later.

It does violence to the vision of our Founders. It disrespects the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, who are a large part of our middle class, and to whom we owe a future worthy of their sacrifice. It betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children.

It morally demands a ``no'' vote from every Member of this House of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my fellow San Francisco Representative, Jackie Speier, as well as my Congressional colleagues, Representatives Barbara Lee, Judy Chu, Madeleine Bordallo, Lou Correa, Keith Ellison, Anna Eshoo, Al Green, Jimmy Gomez, Colleen Hanabusa, Jared Huffman, Ro Khanna, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ted Lieu, Alan Lowenthal, Mark Takano, Norma Torres, Grace Meng, Stephanie Murphy, Grace Napolitano, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Jim Costa, and Nydia Velazquez, in great sorrow to pay tribute to a dear friend and an extraordinary leader: Mayor Edwin M. Lee, who died suddenly and tragically on December 12.

Ed Lee served as Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco with devotion and distinction. All who knew Ed understood him as a true gentleman of great warmth, positivity and kindness.

His passing is not only a tragic official loss for our city but also an immense personal loss for all who were fortunate enough to call him friend.

Even through our heartbreak, we think of the exceptional person Ed Lee was, and we smile.

Born the fourth of six children to hard-working Chinese immigrant parents of modest means, Ed was raised in public housing, and lost his father at the age of 15.

Ed excelled at academics, winning a scholarship to Bowdoin College in Maine, where he graduated summa cum laude in 1974. He then graduated Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley in 1978.

Ed began his career as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer fighting for fair housing and on behalf of immigrant communities.

He started his public service as director of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, going on to serve as Purchasing Manager, Director of Public Works and City Administrator.

Ed then served seven remarkable years as Mayor of San Francisco, an office he held with exceptional dignity and great effectiveness. He took pride in being the first Asian American Mayor of a city with such a rich and robust Asian American heritage.

Ed's firm commitment to equality made strong progress toward securing affordable housing and a living wage for all.

His unwavering belief in justice helped combat the moral crisis of homeless in San Francisco, particularly for our veterans.

And his bold, hopeful vision for the future further secured San Francisco's role as a model city for the nation.

In all aspects of his life, Mayor Lee's first priority was always the people.

He fundamentally understood that the strength of a community is measured by its success in meeting the needs of all its people.

Mayor Lee's greatest source of joy was his beloved family. Our city owes a debt of gratitude to his wife Anita and his daughters

Brianna and Tania for sharing this remarkable man with us.

Our deepest love and prayers are with his family. May it bring them some measure of comfort that so many mourn with them and continue to be inspired by him.

During this difficult time, our full support is also with Acting Mayor London Breed, the Board of Supervisors and all the people of San Francisco.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to pay tribute to a dear friend and an extraordinary leader, Mayor Ed Lee of San Francisco.

All who knew Mayor Lee understood him to be a true gentleman of great warmth, positivity, and kindness. His passing is not only a tragic official loss for our city, but an immense personal loss for all who were fortunate to call him friend.

Mayor Lee's first priority was always the people. His strong moral compass was rooted in his identity as the hardworking son of an immigrant family of modest means and was guided by his years as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer.

Ed fundamentally understood that the strength of a community is measured by its success in meeting the needs of all its people. He knew the rhythms and the workings of San Francisco at the most granular level, and dedicated decades to improving the lives of all San Franciscans.

As mayor, Ed Lee served with exceptional dignity and great effectiveness. His values-based, pragmatic leadership helped drive the city into a strong economic expansion.

His firm commitment to equality made immense progress toward securing affordable housing and a living wage for all. His unwavering belief in justice helped combat the moral crisis of homelessness in San Francisco, particularly for our veterans. His bold, hopeful vision for the future further secured San Francisco's role as a model city for the Nation.

Mayor Ed Lee's public service leaves an enduring, inspiring legacy that generations of San Franciscans will enjoy. As Ecclesiasticus says: The people will tell of His wisdom and the congregation will continue to sing His praise.

Mayor Lee never had an unkind word for anyone, and no one ever had an unkind word for him. Even though our hearts are broken, we think of the person Ed Lee was, and we smile.

Mayor Lee took deep pride in serving as the first Asian-American mayor of San Francisco. But his greatest source of joy was his beloved family. Our city owes a debt of gratitude to his wife, Anita; and his daughters, Brianna and Tania, for sharing this exceptional person with us.

My deepest love and prayers are with his family. May it bring them some measure of comfort that so many people throughout the world mourn with them and continue to be inspired by him.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are joined by so many Members of Congress from the California delegation and from the Asian Pacific American Caucus as well.