Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, is this institution broken or has our leadership fled the field?

This rule will deprive the House of having a debate on the Dreamers. Eighty-two percent of the American people think these innocent kids who came here should be given legal status.

The leadership has refused to allow us to debate. With the help of Mr. Denham, in a courageous display of independence, he has a discharge petition, the last remaining tool for a majority of this House to say to leadership: Give us a vote. Let us debate.

But in an act of extraordinary irresponsibility--and I would say cowardice--the leadership is quelling, crushing, and incinerating the last vestige of independence in their own party.

This rule takes away from the House that tool to rise up and say: We are ready to work for the American people and give legal status to the Dreamers.

That is a disgrace. That is a reason why, if we care about ourselves as an

institution responsible to the people who elected us, we will assert our insistence that we vote. Vote ``no'' on this.

Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 2018, Mrs. Karen Richard will retire after 31 years of service to the town of Colchester, Vermont. Mrs. Richard was elected in 1998 as Colchester Town Clerk and Treasurer after 11 years of work in the local assessor's office. She quickly led the town in replacing outdated voting machines and optimizing the town's election process. Perhaps her greatest contribution to the town was her efforts to digitize the town's land records. Because of Mrs. Richard, Colchester was one of the first towns in Vermont to digitize their land records and by the end of the year, all the records will be available for the public online. At a time when many municipal employees are being asked to go above and beyond for their residents, Mrs. Richard's leadership was transformational. Her hard work was recognized when she earned the awards of Vermont Clerk of the Year in 2007 and Vermont Treasurer of the Year in 2014.

Outside of her elected role, she has been Chair of the Vermont Municipal Clerks and Treasurers Association's Legislative Committee, a member of the Champlain Water District Board of Commissioners, and Clerk/Treasurer for Colchester Fire District No. 3.

Mr. Speaker, her exceptional work on behalf of Vermont communities will surely be missed and I wish Mrs. Richard well in her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has enacted a policy of stunning cruelty: cruel in its impact on innocent young children, cruel in its impact on terrified mothers seeking safety from violence and rape.

The cruel policy: the aggressive and forceful practice of separating a child from her mother when that mother presents herself at our southern border for the sole purpose of seeking safety.

The cruel policy, Mr. Speaker, is the Trump administration's decision--willful, voluntary, calculated decision--to make it a crime for a mother to do what mothers do everywhere and always: protect their children.

Whatever challenges we face at the southern border, none will be solved by ripping families apart, sending a child to one place-- strange, unknown, unfamiliar--and the parents to another, neither knowing when, if ever, they will be reunited.

This policy is not only cruel, it is unnecessary and ineffective. Mr. Speaker, the President must end this un-American cruelty now and forever.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the VA medical services account by $5 million for the purpose of strengthening the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.

Burn pits, as you know, Mr. Chairman, were commonly used on U.S. military sites during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to burn all types of waste--from chemicals, paint, medical waste, and human waste to munitions, petroleum, plastics, and rubber. But, as you know, many members of the military who were exposed to burn pits are beginning to experience negative health effects from the toxic smoke that they inhaled. And that is why I

am offering this amendment, to increase funding to address and assist those suffering more aggressively and quickly.

On May 7, Mr. Chairman, I met with a group of Vermont National Guard members led by Pat Cram, who have been impacted by burn pit exposure. Pat is the wife of Sergeant Major Mike Cram of the Vermont National Guard who died this past December from prostate cancer that is believed to be a direct result of his exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sergeant Major Cram first deployed to Iraq in 2004 with a group of MPs from the 42nd Infantry Division of the Vermont National Guard. They joined up with the 278th Tennessee National Guard Calvary in Iraq. All 21 soldiers from this group that deployed together for 18 months returned home to their families safely.

But since their safe return, this same group has lost two members from prostate cancer and another has been treated for it, and they believe their exposure to burn pit toxins is the reason.

This group is still close, they stay in touch, their families support each other. I was so inspired to hear about how they have stuck together throughout the years. But those members that have not had the direct health issues that some of their comrades have are now wondering whether they, too, will get sick.

This funding would provide resources to the VA to make necessary improvements to the registry and prepare for the long-term care for those affected veterans. It would also allow, Mr. Chairman, the VA to hire analysts and epidemiologists who can connect the registry entries to health outcomes, make necessary technological updates to the registry, and increase the funding for essential clinical research.

The cost of a war must always include the cost of caring for the warrior, and this critical funding helps to do just that.

I want to thank Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz for their attention to this issue and willingness to help. I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying water resources development legislation.

In communities across the country, our infrastructure is falling apart, as colleagues on both sides of the aisle have pointed out. This is evident in the state of our Nation's dams. In communities like Waterbury, Vermont, dams are rapidly aging and the risk of breach continues to grow.

In 2016, Congress took a very positive step to address this issue with the passage of the WIIN Act. Section 1177 of the WIIN Act authorized funding for the Army Corps to rehabilitate some of the Nation's oldest Corps-constructed dams that are classified as high hazard potential. As you know, the failure of a dam that is so classified is anticipated to cause the loss of life.

While section 1177 was a positive start, its limited authorization and per project cap have hindered its effectiveness. To that end, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their willingness to work with me to address this matter.

Section 105 of the legislation before us addresses these shortcomings by increasing the provisions in authorization and giving dams greater authority to accrue Federal funds over multiple years.

The benefits of these changes to communities like Waterbury, Vermont are very clear. In 2011, Mr. Speaker, Waterbury suffered a devastating flood during Hurricane Irene. Despite the damage that the village suffered--totally flooded--the flooding in Waterbury would have been far more catastrophic if it weren't for the Corps-built Waterbury Dam, a 1930s-era construction in need of significant repair. Section 105 will give the Corps the tools it needs to get work done rehabbing high- hazard dams like Waterbury across the country.

Both parties agree we need to improve our infrastructure. This bill will take important steps to do that and address some of our most outdated, hazardous dams in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands and my cosponsor, the lead sponsor, Mr. Nolan. I also want to thank Chairman Bishop.

Chairman Bishop, I want to thank you as well. You did something for us in Vermont with the Missisquoi River, and everything is working out. You had your same skepticism of certain agencies, but Vermonters are very grateful. You helped us then, and you are helping us now.

I will take issue with a little thing you said. You presented the fact that this is going to go into Vermont. I heard it as an afterthought. I may be a little sensitive, but the whole point of walking 4,600 miles is to get to Vermont. That is what it is about.

This is covering all these States, starting up in the Plains and coming around that bog hopefully, and it is going to connect up to the Appalachian Trail that not only runs through Vermont, Mr. Nolan, but runs by my house. I am going to wave to you next year when you have the time of being a retired Member of Congress and you are marching across that trail, when you get to Vermont, we are going to say hello and invite you in.

The points you made are true. The economic benefit of this is really substantial. It gets people out and around and into the communities. The spin-off economic benefit is very substantial. In Vermont, our whole trail system, which we are very proud of, as I note you are in Minnesota, we estimate that about one in seven Vermont jobs depends on outdoor recreation, about 51,000 jobs and about $5.5 billion in consumer spending. And that is a big deal.

The other point you alluded to is something I really think is important. It is good for the bottom line, but it is good for the soul: the camaraderie, the family participation, the connection that people have to where they live and the beauty of where it is they live.

It is interesting you have got sponsors from all of the States through which this trail goes, and it didn't matter if it was Republican or Democrat because all of us have so much engagement with our citizens and ourselves where they have a sense of place in that location where the trail goes through their land, and they get out there, like you say, with the chain saws, and the amount of volunteer work that goes into making these trails passable in winter and summer is extraordinary.

So this whole effort on this trail and in all of our trails is something that I think Congress should be doing as much of as it possibly can. It is good for the economy, it is good for the heart, and it is good for the soul.

This is very, very important to us in Vermont. The Appalachian Trail goes through part of Vermont. The Green Mountain Corridor goes through all of Vermont, and we have a number of other trails that sometimes link up with snowmobile byways, some of which go across the land my wife and I own. And your legislation I think is building on a very, very ambitious and wonderful trail, the North Country National Scenic Trail.

When you think about it, a person--you showed it on the map--can walk all that way. Do you know what? There are people who are going to do it. They are doing the Appalachian Trail, they

are doing the Pacific Coast Trail, and it becomes a lifetime effort for them. They plan it, and they arrange with friends to meet and do it. Whether you can do all of it, like Mr. Bishop probably could, and you could, or some of it, which I could do, it is an opportunity out there that awaits us, our kids, our grandkids, and future generations.

So, Mr. Nolan, I have got to say that it has been an enormous pleasure to serve with you in Congress. You are one of the most direct and forthright people whom I have seen here. I think as a piece of legislation to pass upon the soon departure of your second round here in Congress, this is really something that generations of Americans, generations of Minnesotans, and generations of Vermonters are going to have very, very fond feelings, look back and thank you, Rick Nolan, for taking up the leadership on this tribute to our land and to our people.

I want to thank you for letting me be part of this effort.

Mr. Speaker, Jane Curtis will be 100 years of age on June 7, 2018. She continues to enjoy a vigorous and productive life. She is revered by generations of Vermonters for all the work and community contributions she and her renowned, departed husband, Will Curtis, provided to the people of Vermont. She and Will had dairy farms in West Harford and Hartland, Vermont. They were great readers and owned the magnificent Yankee Bookshop in Woodstock, Vermont for many years. And Jane has worked for decades for the improvement of the Connecticut River watershed.

Jane's husband Will was a renowned commentator on Vermont Public Radio, and Jane collaborated with him on that effort, as well as many others. Jane and Will published books together, many with their dear friend Frank Lieberman, ranging from antique wood stoves to histories of the Billings family, Woodstock, the Long Trail, the Farm and Wilderness Camps, Calvin Coolidge--who was born nearby in Plymouth, Vermont--and the art of Monhegan Island, Maine.

Jane served on the board of the Connecticut River Watershed Council for years. She also served social service agencies in the Upper Valley of Vermont and New Hampshire. At 100, Jane Curtis is still actively writing. Recently, she wrote an essay on the fall of the Roman Republic, with analogies to the present day.

Mr. Speaker, we celebrate in Vermont a century of contributions by Jane Curtis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most closed Congress in my lifetime. Eighty- four closed rules. That means we don't debate on the floor.

That is also on top of the fact that we don't debate in committee. The tax bill that was passed out of the Ways and Means Committee had no discussion, no debate, and no publication until it was brought up for a vote. The same thing is true for the healthcare bill.

We need to be debating things.

One of them was allowing citizens to import safe prescription drugs from Canada at a lower cost when those prescriptions were manufactured in FDA-approved facilities. I offered that amendment, and we were denied the opportunity to vote on that.

Mr. Speaker, had we been allowed to vote on it, it would have passed, and Americans would have saved billions of dollars--and I said the word ``billions''--on safe prescription medication if we could crack the lock that Pharma has on price gouging for pharmaceuticals.

We could do that if the majority would allow us to vote on amendments that pursue the opportunities that Americans need to be safe and secure.

Mr. Speaker, this farm bill is outrageous. What it is doing is breaking what has been traditionally a bipartisan commitment to including a nutrition title that helps people in all of our districts who need the food. This bill has had no process. It is a continuation of an effort to ratchet down any help that Americans need.

That healthcare bill was going to help on healthcare by taking it away from 24 million people. This nutrition bill, supposedly, is going to help people by taking $23 billion worth of benefits away from children, veterans, the elderly, and the disabled who need that food.

Why?

Well, there is a reason. We passed a tax cut. By the way, it wasn't paid for. $2.3 trillion added to the deficit for a tax bill where 87 percent of the benefits go to wealthy multinational corporations and individuals earning over $890,000 a year.

Well, the bill has come due, and we have a proposal here to come up with $23 billion to pay for it, and that is taking meals off the table of disabled people.

And, by the way, the work requirement, what is it really? Because that sounds good.

By the way, who doesn't want to work? Everybody wants to work. You need a job.

We are going to pay for this so-called work requirement by taking money away from nutrition, paying bureaucrats, and giving them the impossible job of putting people who are not able to work into jobs that don't exist. Talk about cynical; that is what this bill is.

I am from Vermont where we have lots of folks who need help, and we have lots of Vermonters who, with very little money, with enormous volunteer effort, are doing things that put meals, good meals, on the tables of those families.

Don't pass this farm bill that takes that nutrition away from our Vermonters and our American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the beginning of Building Safety Month and to recognize the men and women of the International Code Council (ICC) who have dedicated their livelihoods to ensuring the public safety of Americans.

Building safety and fire prevention officials, architects, engineers, builders, tradespeople, design professionals, laborers and others in the construction industry work year-round to ensure the safe construction and maintenance of buildings. It is through their efforts that our nation continues to address critical safety issues in the built environment that affect our citizens in both everyday life and in times of natural disaster.

These individuals, who are dedicated members of the International Code Council, develop and implement the highest quality codes to protect Americans in the buildings where we work, live, and play.

The International Codes, the most widely adopted building safety and fire prevention codes in the nation, are used by most U.S. cities, counties and all 50 states including my State of Vermont. These modem building safety codes also include safeguards to protect the public from natural disasters, such as hurricanes, snowstorms, tornadoes, wildland fires, floods and earthquakes.

Each year, in observance of Building Safety Month, which is sponsored by the International Code Council, Americans are encouraged to raise awareness of the importance of safe and resilient construction, fire prevention, disaster mitigation, and new technologies in the construction industry.

The theme for Building Safety Month 2018, ``Building Codes Save Lives,'' encourages appropriate steps everyone can take to ensure that the places where we live, learn, work, worship and play are safe, and recognizes that countless lives have been saved due to the implementation of safety codes by local and state agencies.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking ICC Board President Mr. Jay Elbettar, the International Code Council leadership, and its Members as they recognize Building Safety Month.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

We have the wealthiest country in the world, we have the healthcare system that is the most expensive in the world, and we have more costs and more people not covered than is at all necessary. The fact is, we have had as a goal in this country, since the Presidency of Harry Truman, a goal that all our citizens be covered and have access to healthcare.

And that dream made a solid step forward when Lyndon Baines Johnson was the President and Congress, on a bipartisan basis, passed Medicare, which provided healthcare protection for all Americans 65 and older and provided Medicaid for low-income children and families. We made a second step forward, unfortunately not on a bipartisan basis, with the passage during the Obama administration of the Affordable Care Act. That extended coverage to millions of Americans who otherwise never would have had access to care. It also made some significant improvements in how we deliver care.

We are continuing with that battle. Those are two solid steps forward. Medicare and Medicaid passed in the Johnson administration and the Affordable Care Act during the Obama administration. Yet we are still spending the most on healthcare with outcomes that are not the best and, in fact, in many cases, are not even in the top ten. So we are spending the most and getting the least.

The program for healthcare that has the most popularity in this country among Republicans, among Democrats, and among Independents is Medicare. The reason: all of us pay into the Medicare fund, and then when we are eligible at 65, we are all covered. It is simple. It is not a government-run program. It is financed by taxpayers, and taxpayers are the beneficiaries of that program itself. It makes sense. It has the confidence of the American people.

It also puts us in a position to try to control costs, not at the expense of throwing 24 million people off of the healthcare rolls, which is what would have happened had the repeal of the Affordable Care Act been passed; but by bringing down, for instance, the cost of prescription drugs, where something that was costing $7.50 suddenly cost $1,500 per pill because the owner bought up a company and then had a monopoly power and stuck it to the consumers.

I believe we should strive to get Medicare for every single citizen in this country. Would there be hard questions that we have to address? Sure. There are. But what we have now with this fractured system is young girls who, because they don't have access to healthcare, because the bureaucracy takes so much time to see if she is eligible for Medicaid, or Medi-Cal in the case of this young girl, they don't get access to care, and the tragedy of that situation is that this young woman lost her life.

Had there been healthcare where the parents weren't terrified about what that bill would be, about how they might have to take out a second mortgage, about how they would be bearing the burden of escaping the clutches of bill collectors, that person would have been able to get to a doctor in time to get limited care that would have taken care of what, at that point, was a very limited challenge.

So I thank my colleague (Mr. Ellison) for convening this here tonight. And the goal that I believe we should have in this country is to have a healthcare system where everybody is covered and everybody helps pay for that system and is about affordable, quality care where the emphasis is on the patient and on the taxpayer.

By the way, this is not about making government run the healthcare. That is

the important thing to remember. If you are on Medicare or Medicaid or ObamaCare, you get to pick your doctor, you get to pick your hospital. This is about having the security of a system that works for you regardless of your income, regardless of your job status, regardless of your medical situation. It works in all the other industrialized countries of the world; it can work here.

By the way, the cost is starting to kill us. If we don't start dealing with the cost of healthcare, it doesn't matter whether it is the taxpayer who is footing the bill, the employer who is footing the bill on behalf of his or her employees, or the individual trying to reach into his or her pocket to pay. We have got to bring these costs down, and an organized system without a broken market, I think, is the way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ellison very much, and I applaud him for his work.

That is really a good question. But that example about that pill going from costing $7.50 to $1,500 means that the owner of that pill--and Martin Shkreli is the guy who did it; he is now in jail--was able to corner the market and then just make people who absolutely have to have that medication pay through the nose, and more than they can afford. That is an example.

We have all of these stops along the way where private profit is the motive. The market is about profit; it is not about having a system that is going to work and be affordable. I think that is a big reason.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it: through their words and actions, President Trump and his allies are doing everything they can to destroy the independent investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller through provocative tweets: a witch hunt;

Through reckless actions: firing Director Comey and Assistant Director McCabe; and

Through provocative statements: his personal attorney calling for an end to the investigation.

The question, Mr. Speaker, is not what the President wants to do or may do. The question is: Will Congress do what it must do, which is protect the Mueller investigation?

A number of us have a bill that would do just that. Our bill would require a three-judge panel to approve any dismissal of Mr. Mueller.

Mr. Speaker, no American is above the law, no Member of Congress is above the law, and no member of the executive branch is above the law, including President Trump.

Mr. Speaker, let the House vote on our bill. Make each one of us be accountable to our constituents on the rule of law.

Will we vote to protect the Mueller investigation or will we acquiesce to the President's threats and temper tantrums?

Mr. Speaker, let us vote.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 113.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 48.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that we are all fortunate in this House and in this country to have the chairman of the Armed Services Committee that we do, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

He identified a problem. When we are operating by continuing resolutions, no one has any certainty or stability, particularly the military. This is the fourth continuing resolution in the fourth month of the budget year.

Give us a budget, a year budget. That is what we need and that is what the military needs.

Secondly, to the majority leader, my friend, if we are going to have Democrats involved, they have to be at the table. And there has been a decision made that to get to 218 votes, it is going to be the Tea Party that has the final say, not Democratic participation. Let's change that.

Third, the budget issues are not all that difficult. They have been mentioned: DACA, to be sure. It is the opioid crisis. It is veterans funding. It is community health centers.

Then, finally, on DACA, let's have an open rule. Let's bring to the floor the Goodlatte bill. Many favor it on your side. Let's bring to the floor the Hurd-Aguilar bill. It is bipartisan. Let's promise to put on the floor whatever bill may be passed in the Senate. That is called an open process. It is called taking accountability.

We are in a situation of our own making. None of us want to be here. We all know it is wrong for the American people and it is bad for the reputation of the government.

Let us have an open process, an open rule, and we will set America free.