Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 114, 115, and 116. I would like to indicate how I would have voted on each had I been present.

Roll Call 114: ``Aye''; Roll Call 115: ``Aye''; and Roll Call 116: ``Aye''.

Madam Speaker, it was an extraordinary day that started out quite beautiful for me. I live across the street, right next to the Supreme Court; and every day, almost without fail, there are demonstrators out on the Supreme Court who are peaceful. Some of them I agree with and some of them I disagree with, but it is a beautiful sight to see people exercising their First Amendment right.

That was a beautiful day, January 6, and I had time. We weren't scheduled to be here in the House until about 1 p.m. So I did something that is a privilege and just a joy for those of us who serve here in the Capitol. I took a walk from the Supreme Court to the Capitol, down to the Washington Monument, to the Lincoln Memorial, and back.

Of course, the Trump protesters at that point were there, as it was their right to be. But on the way back, I became somewhat alarmed because when I got to the White House, it was really much more like a mob with many folks with bullhorns talking about hanging Mike Pence and using horrible epithets I can't mention here directed towards Nancy Pelosi.

As they came back toward 4th Street, I came in sight of--and was standing by--two groups of people who were about 70 strong and were practicing marching in military formation, and as they marched, they were chanting, again, a word I can't use here, F those people, talking about the people in this building.

As Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said, people in this building were workers. They were Capitol Police who were in this building because they had to do an hour-and-a-half commute to do this job to protect this building that belongs to the people of this country so they could then pay the bills for their family and make that hour-and-a-half commute back. It was the cafeteria workers. It was everyday, hardworking, wonderful Americans.

Now, at that point I still didn't think anything about it because it never occurred to me, with all the anger and hostility I saw with those groups of people who were marching in a formation, that when I was later sitting up in that gallery with many of my colleagues as the proceedings were taking place, that this building would be invaded. I took it for granted that that just couldn't happen.

Of course, it did. The first sign we had of something amiss is when we saw the security people for our leadership--the Speaker, the minority leader, and our majority leader--rush them off the floor. We on the floor and in the gallery still had no idea what was going on.

Now, in retrospect, we find out the west side of the building was being breached, and one of the police officers said it was like a castle storming.

Mr. McGovern took the chair and began to continue the process of certification of the election until one of the Capitol Police officers told us that teargas had been fired, that people had breached the building, get out the gas mask, and lie on the floor.

Then I saw Capitol Police officers with guns from their holsters. I looked at these men and women and I tried at that moment to imagine what was it like for them that they actually had to have a weapon out. They had families, they had responsibility, and whatever fear they may have felt, their duty was to protect us, and they were going to do it no matter what.

How small I felt at that moment that because of someone who was doing their duty to protect me--I am no more worthy than any other person who works in this building--but that is their job. They were threatened.

Then, of course, we heard the shot when the mob was getting in to the door of the Speaker's Lobby. Then to get us out, they had to bring us all the way across this Chamber to the far door. We got stopped right over here where these two doors were being breached, and we heard the sound and saw the poles that were being pushed through.

You know the rest. We are going to hear more stories.

But I want to say that, in listening to my colleagues and experiencing it myself, where I had some fear, but then we were okay, there are two things that just stay with me. The first thing is that the tradition we have had in this country that is so commonplace, we do it every 4 years, the peaceful transfer of power, and how extraordinary it is that we do that every 4 years, was shattered. The second thing is that we saw something that allowed Jim Crow to thrive for over 100 years after the Civil War, and that was the use of violence as a political tactic.

We now have a Capitol ringed by these 7-foot fences with concertina wire. So the trauma that we are feeling, working in the sense of isolation, is the trauma to our democracy. Our goal, our responsibility is to restore that and not be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, our government is founded on the principle of all power flows from the people.

Donald Trump challenged this principle in two ways: Deceit and violence. The deceit is repeated in baseless assertions of an electoral fraud. The violence, the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, the mob was assembled by Donald Trump, incited by Donald Trump, and in service of Donald Trump's effort to overturn, through violence, what he lost at the voting booth.

The violent mob reached the Capitol; killed and injured Capitol Police; destroyed property; threatened the Vice President, Members of Congress, and staff, all to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.

If we want unity, we must have accountability. So the question before this Congress: Will Congress condone through acquiescence or condemn through impeachment Donald Trump's violent acts to overturn the election?

Congress must impeach.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this rule makes in order an amendment that is of great consequence and urgency, and that amendment would require that before the President initiated any military action against Iran, he has to come to Congress and get approval through an Authorization for Use of Military Force.

And make no mistake about it. That amendment is essential for our security.

What the President did on May 8 was that he tore up the Iran nuclear agreement, with no alternative in place. He says now his objective is a nonnuclear Iran.

That is what we had. Our intelligence agencies confirmed that Iran was in compliance with that agreement.

Instead, he has embarked on a policy that is bellicose in rhetoric and ineffective in outcome.

He has torn up the agreement that was supported, not just by this Congress, but it was supported by our allies, including our frenemies Russia and China, and our good friends Britain, Germany, and France. Instead, he substituted it with the maximum pressure that has met maximum resistance, and what we see now is an enormous escalation in danger and in rhetoric.

Madam Speaker, the most important decision that a President can make is to recommend whether we use the awesome force of our military, and the most important decision that Congress can make is whether to authorize the use of military force.

Regrettably, we are operating on a stale authorization from 2001 that has nothing to do with present circumstances.

It is on Congress if we, as Republicans and Democrats, given that awesome power, fail to be accountable by having that vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the authorization.

The President's policy right now is escalating the likelihood of military confrontation with Iran. We must make certain that that cannot be done without a vote of this Congress and every Member in it.

Madam Speaker, there is a crisis at the southern border. That is true. This past month, 140,000 people showed up seeking asylum: 84,000 families, 11,000 children.

But everything--every single thing--that the Trump administration is doing, led by President Trump himself, is making a very dire situation worse.

First, start with the definition that our President gives for what is going on. It is the arrival of rapists, of criminals, of gang members, when every single one of us who has been on that heartbreaking trip to the southern border knows it is children, women, and families who are fleeing violence, who are fleeing gang members, and who are fleeing destitution and grinding poverty.

Those are the people arriving at the border. Their crime, made criminal by the administration, is to seek help, to knock on America's door and ask for help.

We may not be able to do all that we would like, but is it a crime for a person to ask for assistance?

Second, by defining the crisis as an invasion of criminals--the Trump definition--the Trump policy is to treat these people worse than criminals, first starting with the family separation policy where children, literally, were yanked out of the arms of their parents.

Many of those children still don't know where their father or their mother is. That is being done in your name and mine, with the full authority of the American Government and the widespread opposition of the American people.

Then, when these people are in our custody, it is the imposition of cruel and brutal conditions on children and innocent people whose crime is to seek some assistance.

We had a Trump attorney, in Federal court, arguing that when it came to fulfilling the duty that we had of holding in custody children, it was okay to deny them toothbrushes, soap, access to showers, and sanitary conditions, and to have them sleeping on cement floors in frigid conditions.

This is shocking. It is unnecessary. It is inhumane. In short, it is a policy of calculated cruelty, family separation, and affliction of wholesale suffering.

It must end. We must immediately return all children to their parents and provide humane, sanitary, and safe conditions for those seeking asylum.

We must work with El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala to improve conditions in those countries to address humanitarian conditions.

We must not withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, as the President decrees.

Mr. President, the response to this crisis must not be cruelty.

Enforce our laws, yes. Work with Central American governments, yes. But treat all who seek America's help with respect and dignity.

Madam Speaker, this is a bright day in the history of the House. We are going to provide relief to people who are innocent.

We have the debate about immigration, no question about it. But we are talking about children, infants, in some cases, who were brought here through no decision of their own. They then went to school here, began a career here, built a family here. In many cases, they served in the military here and served as first responders.

This is finally an opportunity for those Dreamers to have legal status, 2.5 million of them.

We are also going to provide temporary protected status to other law- abiding people living and contributing here.

This is a big deal in Vermont. First, for the people, for those affected, it is

relief. It is about time. Second, they are contributing to the economy with the jobs that they perform and the taxes that they pay, about $3.5 million in Federal taxes and $2 million in State and local taxes.

One, in particular, is a student at the University of Vermont Medical School, Juan Conde. He was brought here from Mexico when he was 9 years old. His mom later died of cancer.

His goal in life is to help cancer victims. First, he got a master's degree in chemistry and a Ph.D. in molecular biology, doing research to advance a cure for cancer. Now he is a student at the University of Vermont Medical School, and he is dedicating his life to cancer research and cancer treatment.

What a win it is for this country to have the services of this bright, idealistic young man. This legislation is going to allow him to have the security that we all need in order to be the best that we can possibly be as a contributing member of society.

A confident nation welcomes people who are law-abiding citizens. Pass this legislation overwhelmingly.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is going to help make healthcare more affordable and more accessible.

There are two things:

One, we finally are attacking the explosion in the cost of prescription drugs, and I thank my Republican colleagues for participating in that effort.

In Vermont, we just had a 16 percent rate increase for requests from Blue Cross Blue Shield, and 9 percent of that is attributable to the increase in pharma costs. This is happening because pharma has been ripping us off for far too long.

This bill does two things: One, it ends their abusive, outrageous practice of paying generic companies to delay bringing their lower cost drug to the market. There is no excuse for that. This bill ends it. The second thing it does is deny pharma the opportunity to withhold samples so that generic companies can come up with a competitive product. That is tremendous, it is overdue, and it is just the beginning.

Second, this makes healthcare more accessible by funding navigators. My colleagues disregard that, but, in fact, navigators help people make the complicated decision about what is the best healthcare plan for them.

It also provides money for outreach. We want folks to know what is available for them, make the best choice, and have the security of healthcare.

Finally, there will be protection for the auto enrollment program. Everybody is busy. If the default position is you are back in the plan you had, that is good. There is security in that. People can make options to get out or to change their plan. We want them to shop. This makes healthcare affordable and more accessible.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I will describe in a moment, is about improving and preserving the Affordable Care Act. The word ``sabotage'' has been used here. We don't need that word. We have a very straightforward, very transparent difference of view.

The Democrats supported and passed the Affordable Care Act. We have been defending it for years. The Republicans opposed it. President Trump made it a campaign pledge to get rid of it, and they came within a vote in the Senate, except for John McCain, of repealing the law altogether.

We don't have to use words that are pejorative. We think we should have the Affordable Care Act. We think we should make it stronger, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to vote against it and now want to repeal it.

One of the ways to make the Affordable Care Act effective is to have automatic reenrollment. If a family is in the Affordable Care Act and the time for reenrollment comes up, if they take no action, then they are automatically reenrolled in the plan that they are already in.

If you take away the automatic reenrollment, folks fall off, oftentimes for no particular reason. They were doing other things; they didn't notice it; they didn't have the time; or they didn't get to a navigator. There are lots of things that come between automatic reenrollment and picking your own plan.

By the way, studies have shown that automatic reenrollment, like automatic withdrawal to go into your retirement account, is very, very effective.

The President has indicated a desire to get rid of the automatic reenrollment program. He hasn't done that yet. This amendment would prohibit him from doing so.

There is a reason why the administration would like to get rid of automatic reenrollment. The evidence suggests that that would mean about 2 million Americans would then lose access to their healthcare because they hadn't reenrolled.

We don't want that to happen. We want those American families who depend on the healthcare that they have to continue receiving that healthcare next year just like they received it this year.

This amendment makes it very clear that that automatic reenrollment program would continue to be part of the Affordable Care Act.

Keep in mind, it in no way limits the ability of a family or an individual to decide to get into a different plan or to affirmatively say they don't want to be in any plan. That can still happen. There is total and complete freedom of choice, but it gives security. It is going to be very beneficial to about 2 million American families.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, so I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, we just have a difference of opinion. We think the Affordable Care Act is important to preserve and important to improve. My colleagues, when they have had an opportunity, have voted to repeal it.

Failing to repeal it, what the Trump administration has done is chip away at it. We don't want the administration to be able to get rid of automatic reenrollment, which would likely result in the loss of 2 million families having access to healthcare.

There has been a number of other things that have happened: slashing funding, slashing funding for consumer outreach and enrollment education by 90 percent, cutting back the uninsured rate for 4 years, and 1.1 million Americans losing coverage last year.

In the latest ACA marketplace final rule, the administration openly contemplated getting rid of this automatic reenrollment. This amendment protects the automatic reenrollment. It is going to protect continued access to care under the Affordable Care Act for 2 million Americans.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, if we want to level with the American people, let's acknowledge something: We have a difference of opinion on healthcare.

When we passed the Affordable Care Act, it provided, for the first time, protections for people who have a preexisting condition.

Every single one of my colleagues on the Republican side voted against that and then spent the next several years--69 times--voting to get rid of the protection for preexisting conditions.

Then when they were in the majority, the first opportunity they had, they passed a bill out of the House to take away the protection for preexisting conditions.

And thank you to Senator John McCain for protecting the American people.

Every single opportunity to stand up and protect people who are sick, who lost their job but were sick and wanted to get insurance, you voted ``no''; we voted ``yes.''

You are talking now about waivers. I like waivers--we have benefited in Vermont--but not this waiver. If you pass this waiver, you are going to wave good-bye to the protection that we fought long and hard for for preexisting conditions.

We fought for your families. We fought for our families. We fought for all American families.

What kind of world is it if you are sick and you can't get healthcare? That is what is at stake now. That should never be in debate.

We will not back down on protecting people from preexisting conditions. We will not back down on assaults on Medicare. We will not back down on assaults on Medicaid.

Mr. Chairman, let us pass this bill and continue to protect Americans' healthcare.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to pay tribute to Neighborhood Connections of Londonderry, Vermont which will be celebrating its 10th anniversary on May 17th. I especially want to recognize the vision of its two founding partners, Dr. Dolores Barbeau and Gloria Dawson, who identified a need in their community and had the energy and skills to deliver results that have improved the lives of their neighbors.

Today Neighborhood Connections serves nine towns in rural, south- central Vermont. This is an area of my state where many residents are vulnerable to poverty, food and employment insecurity, lack of transportation, mental and physical health issues, disability, isolation and simply not knowing where to turn for basic support.

Neighborhood Connections is a vital organization committed to welcoming all people through its doors, regardless of challenge or financial status, to help them navigate a range of personal difficulties by connecting them with all forms of available assistance. Its focus is on the most vulnerable and those who face barriers to care.

It offers a myriad of services from connecting people to transportation, housing, heating and employment assistance to helping people access disability and income benefits,

Medicare, Medicaid and tax preparation assistance. The small professional staff offers counseling, crisis management assistance and home visits primarily to elderly and disabled residents. They ``walk with'' those they serve, offering support for ``as long as it takes.'' In a given year, Neighborhood Connections delivers over 1,200 services to individuals and families, 90 percent of whom fall below the federal poverty level and 80 percent of whom have significant mental or physical health issues.

Neighborhood Connections is committed to the ``total well-being'' of communities to improve health and quality of life for all. In short, it exists to foster hope, particularly for vulnerable individuals and families, by delivering care and connecting everyone who walks through its doors to comprehensive wellbeing support.

The motto of Neighborhood Connections is simple: ``Neighbors Helping Neighbors.'' For ten years they have been fulfilling their vital mission and I know they will continue their work for many years to come.

Madam Speaker, I urge the House to join me today in paying tribute to Neighborhood Connections, Dolores Barbeau, and Gloria Dawson for the countless ways they have improved the quality of life for people in south-central Vermont. Congratulations on this remarkable milestone and best wishes for many more years of success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.

Climate change is here, and it is worth highlighting some of the impacts that are underway.

This year, we have seen record flooding in the Midwest, unprecedented wildfires in the West, and record temperatures across the country.

In Vermont--and talk about economic impacts--the ski season is getting shorter. In one study, it has noted that, even under the most optimistic climate change models, all the ski areas in southern New England will no longer be economically viable by 2040. That would be thousands of jobs melting away as a result of climate change.

We have had 16 disasters in 2017 with damage exceeding $1 billion, spending $306 billion on weather-related disasters that year.

Climate change is a priority for young people and local officials. It now must become a priority for Congress.

The Climate Action Now Act takes an important step in this direction by keeping us--or getting us back into the Paris climate agreement and not taken out by the action of a single person. This bill is just the start of fulfilling our obligations and our opportunity to slow climate change.

Now, some folks are fearful about the economic consequences of addressing climate change, but a confident nation faces its problems; it doesn't deny them. It is in facing these problems that we are actually going to create jobs, not lose jobs.

So, Madam Speaker, I commend Representative Castor for her leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as the beginning of undertaking the opportunity that we have economically to build a stronger and safer environment.

Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, and 167. I would include in the Record how I would have voted on each had I been present.

rollcall 157: ``Aye'', rollcall 158: ``Aye'', rollcall 159: ``Aye'', rollcall 160: ``Aye'', rollcall 161: ``Aye'', rollcall 162: ``Aye'', rollcall 163: ``Aye'', rollcall 164: ``Aye'', rollcall 165: ``Aye'', rollcall 166: ``Nay'', and rollcall 167: ``Aye''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is in the Mueller report and neither do you. The American people don't know what is in the Mueller report, but they want to know. And I want to know, as you do, and why not?

Mr. Speaker, 81 percent of the American people polled say they want to know, and that includes 79 percent of the Republicans. That is good news.

Because what we do know, without knowing the details of the Mueller report, is that really bad stuff happened in the last election. Some of it was in a campaign, and some of it was in a foreign country that is our severe adversary; and I speak, of course, of Vladimir Putin's Russia.

But the bad stuff: a former campaign foreign policy adviser indicted and convicted, Mr. Papadopoulos; a former campaign manager on his way to jail, Mr. Manafort; a former campaign aide and Manafort's long-time junior business partner indicted; a former foreign policy national security adviser pleaded guilty, Mr. Flynn.

This is the high level of a campaign where crimes are not just being discussed; there have been convictions and guilty pleas. What is behind all of that? We need to know.

And, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the American people are footing the bill for this--about $25 million, as far as we can tell. They have got a right to know.

But, in addition to whatever happened in the campaign, really bad stuff happened in Russia. We know from our own intelligence agencies that Russia made a concerted effort and a determined effort and a well- financed effort to interfere in our election.

Mr. Speaker, outside interference goes to the heart of our democracy. The most important challenge for our country is that we, the citizens of this country, make the decision on who is our President, who are our Senators, and who are our Representatives.

We have to get to the bottom of what Russia did and how they did it so that we can take steps to make certain that that does not happen in the future. It is the American people who decide who is their leader.

Release the Mueller report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member; the chairman; and the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Cartwright, in persistent advocacy.

What Mr. Cartwright said really makes sense. It is pretty bad, the condition of many of our schools throughout the country. About 43 percent are in substandard condition. It has a real impact on learning, but it also has an impact on expense. It means that kids are in cold and drafty schools or it is too hot; it is one or the other.

Energy efficiency programs can make a huge difference, and there are some that are available.

As Mr. Cartwright said, the teachers and the principals want to focus on instruction and taking care of the kids. They don't have time to manage and investigate what are all of the programs out there that may allow them to rehab their schools.

This allows the Secretary to essentially provide a blueprint so that, whether you are in a small town like Norwich, Vermont, where I am from, where we have got a population of about 3,000, or you are in an urban district in the middle of Chicago, you are going to be able to get the information you need without absorbing a lot of staff time.

And then, by the way, kids are getting involved in this question of climate change. This is a big deal because, at our schools and our high schools, there is a lot of leadership that is saying we have got an obligation to protect our planet. What is going to happen when we embrace energy efficiency on a large scale but start locally is that it is going to reduce carbon emissions.

In fact, when we passed the Waxman-Markey bill in the House--it didn't get through the Senate--where the goal was 80 percent carbon reductions by 2050, 40 percent of those carbon reductions were coming from energy efficiency.

It is what Mr. Tonko says. It is our fuel of choice. It is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions.

The other thing is, every time you are doing energy efficiency, it means local tradesmen and -women are doing the work. So it is those kids who are going to have a warmer or a cooler school, and it is their moms and dads who are going to be doing the work to make that happen. So this really makes a lot of sense.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this legislation and leadership on the committee for their work in bringing it forward.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I have listened to the arguments of my colleagues who say that Saudi Arabia is an ally and a partner and we have to support them. Saudi Arabia is a questionable ally--we all know that--and it is time to reexamine that relationship.

But I have a question that this raises: If we have an ally that is engaged in violent strikes killing innocent civilians, including children, do we turn a blind eye and condone that behavior because it is ``an ally''?

Do we condone the bombing of schools, of hospitals, of funerals because it is a partner or an ally?

Do we disregard our own responsibility as human beings to oppose violence against innocence because that violence is being perpetrated by an ally?

And, yes, it is true, our troops are not there, but our bombs are, our mid-air refuelers are, our targeting folks are.

We are allowing ourselves to be complicit in what is the greatest humanitarian tragedy that is on the face of this Earth at this moment. We should not be doing that, and we should stop by voting for this resolution.

Mr. Chair, we have a proud tradition in this country that both sides want to honor, and that is to stand up for freedom and for human decency and dignity.

This policy of Saudi Arabia to bomb and bomb again and bomb yet again, despite the devastating impact upon innocent people, despite how reckless and ineffective it is, must end. Let's end it.