Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. It was wonderful to see the gentleman out in Seattle exploring our maritime sector.

We are very proud of the maritime industry. And in the State of Washington, and in my district, the Seventh Congressional District of Washington State, sometimes people know about us for Boeing airplanes, but they really should know us for our national deepwater port and all of the maritime that we have there.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, since Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico last month, residents have been without power. Many of them have not had access to relief supplies, including food and water. Many have lost their lives. It has been heartbreaking to watch. We all stand united in pushing this administration to do everything possible to ensure that the people of Puerto Rico have access to relief supplies and that the administration is doing everything it can to assist and rebuild.

These are American citizens, and we have an obligation to do everything we can to help after this devastating hurricane.

The reason I am here today is to join my colleague, the gentleman from California, because in the wake of Hurricane Maria, we did see a false narrative spreading through the media and social channels about the Jones Act. It caused us to reflect on the fact that perhaps not everybody knows the history of the Jones Act. Not everybody understands exactly what it does and how it supports so strongly American jobs that benefit so many of us.

There are people who thought that perhaps the Jones Act was to blame for the fact that supplies were not making it out of the docks and into Puerto Rico, and so I am very grateful to the gentleman from California, and Republican colleague across the aisle, Representative Hunter, for holding an informal hearing on this very topic and inviting in shipbuilders, shipping companies, as well as the maritime labor industry to tell us a little bit about what was happening in Puerto Rico.

And so this is an opportunity, really, for us to talk about what the Jones Act means, because when you are talking about Make It In America, when you are talking about better wages, better jobs, and a better deal for the American public, then the Jones Act, in many ways, is the epitome of exactly that.

The Jones Act has been in effect for nearly 100 years and inspired by cabotage laws that were in place since the first session of Congress in 1789. The law requires that when goods are shipped via water between two points in the United States, they must be shipped on U.S.-made vessels that are owned and operated by Americans.

This is where the critical industry comes in. In terms of Puerto Rico, the Jones Act is not the reason that the distribution of relief supplies has been slow to move in Puerto Rico. In fact, reports are that thousands of containers containing fuel, emergency housing, food, water, and other essentials are trapped at the Port of San

Juan. To date, at least 11,300 containers with millions of pounds of relief supplies have been delivered.

To put this in perspective, just one such state-of-the-art container ship arrived in Puerto Rico just 3 days after Hurricane Maria made landfall, carrying more than 35 million pounds of cargo, the equivalent of about 1,900 cargo planes. You can see here on the chart that the Jones Act current capacity is 22,000 TEUs with a maximum carrying capacity of 1.079 billion pounds.

So just imagine that the additional surge capacity, as of now, is 5,430 TEUs with a max carrying capacity of 258 million pounds. So the issue has not been that ships are not delivering. Our American ships are delivering supplies. But unfortunately, because of the infrastructure, the lack of infrastructure, the destruction to the roads, and the issues around refrigeration across the island-- unfortunately, warehouses have been destroyed--there is nowhere to store those products, and there is no refrigeration.

So what we are seeing is the capacity at the docks continuing to increase. So over the next 2 weeks alone, Jones Act vessels will deliver more than 9,000 containers to Puerto Rico, including at least 3,300 FEMA loads full of relief cargo.

So despite these volumes, the residents of Puerto Rico are suffering, not because ships aren't being able to deliver there, but because of the lack of infrastructure that I mentioned, lack of refrigeration, all of those things.

So currently, the point that is very important, I think, for everybody to understand is that American flagships have the capacity to meet Puerto Rico's relief cargo needs, and the emphasis needs to be on moving cargo from the Port of San Juan into the island, and focusing on rebuilding the infrastructure that has suffered because of this devastating hurricane.

Mr. Speaker, some have called for an outright repeal of the Jones Act despite these facts. Why should Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle support the Jones Act? Because it is incredibly important to our country's economy and to the maritime industry, which supports nearly 500,000 jobs and is responsible for over $92 billion in gross economic output each year.

So in my home State of Washington, which ranks sixth in the country for Jones Act jobs, this law supports over 16,000 jobs and helps generate approximately $1.1 billion in labor income. More than 19 million tons of cargo originate from my home State of Washington every year, and the State imports more than 28 million tons annually. Without these jobs, our economy would suffer tremendously.

In my district, Washington's Seventh Congressional District, the Jones Act directly supports nearly 2,000 jobs, indirectly supports more than 6,500-related jobs. And to be clear, everywhere in the country where we have Jones Act jobs, they are better jobs, better wages, and a better future for our Americans across the country.

Shipyard jobs pay incredibly well. They earn workers about 45 percent more than the national average for private sector jobs. And this is an area, as we saw in the hearing that was had, this is an area where business and maritime labor, our merchant marines, are proud to work together to make sure that we provide for the national security of our country through the Jones Act, and also that we provide these deep investments in good-paying union jobs.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we have to invest in Puerto Rico by providing comprehensive relief, including water and food and housing and medical care, and we have to do everything we can to rebuild the infrastructure. But at the same time, we must make sure that we continue bipartisan support for this bedrock maritime law.

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to the victims and the families impacted by the horrific shooting in Las Vegas. Gun violence is a public health crisis that has claimed thousands of innocent lives, and we

must do everything we can to address it.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of being outraged, of sending thoughts and prayers, of seeing men, women, and children die because the gun lobby puts profit over people. That is not what our Founders intended by the right to bear arms.

With rights come responsibilities: the responsibility to stop gun sales loopholes, to enact protections that make sure our kids and those with severe mental illnesses don't have access to guns, to address funding for mental health, and to oppose any efforts to make it easier to purchase silencers.

Mr. Speaker, 87 percent of gunowners and 74 percent of NRA members support those commonsense solutions, like criminal background checks.

I have a plea for gunowners across this country: urge the NRA to represent your views; show them that you mean business by speaking out or even terminating your NRA membership; show them that you care about your fellow Americans. Act now. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say in the strongest possible terms that this body must do what the majority of the American people want and pass the Dream Act. The Dream Act is smart policy that combines American values of compassion and humanity with what is best for our economy and our society. This bill will protect 1.5 million undocumented Americans from deportation.

Every day that we fail to act is another day that 800,000 DACAmented young people live with an unshakable fear that they will lose their ability to live without fear of deportation, be able to support themselves and their families, to know that they can plan for the future, whether that be attending school or buying a home, or a car, or starting a new business.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, this bill will help all Americans regardless of legal status. Nationally, the cruel end of this program will cost $460 billion in GDP over the next 10 years; whereas passing the Dream Act would actually bring $22 billion in income to our country every year.

Mr. Speaker, this is about more than economics. It is about human lives, and I urge my colleagues to do what is right. Pass the Dream Act. Let's help these young people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank my home team, the Seattle Seahawks, for joining nearly 200 NFL players across the country who exercised their First Amendment right to protest during the national anthem. I fully support their right to do so.

These players used their platform to draw attention to the racial and social injustices of our time and to condemn the racism and divisive rhetoric coming from President Trump.

Athletes practice unity in a way that few others do, coming from every walk of life and pulling together to model unity every single game.

Let us be very clear: these protests are not about disrespecting the flag or our country's brave men and women in uniform. They are about the oppression of people of color, the number of black men gunned down by police, and the school-to-prison pipeline. These protests are about speaking out about unacceptable behavior and rhetoric and fighting for justice.

I thank our players and the Seahawks for addressing these issues with unity, compassion, and truth. I thank Colin Kaepernick for starting this important conversation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my profound disappointment in the President's decision to repeal the DACA program.

This repeal is destroying the lives of nearly 800,000 young people. In my home State of Washington, there are over 17,000 Washingtonians who have been granted this deferred action status. One of them is Larissa Reza Garcia who came to the United States when she was 3 years old. Larissa works with underrepresented young people to connect them with opportunities to pursue their dreams within the education system. DREAMers like Larissa strengthen the fabric of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my disappointment that the House will take up H.R. 3697 tomorrow, a bill that would promote racial profiling, expand mandatory detention, and criminalize immigrants without any due process protections.

We should be voting on the Dream Act, not legislation to criminalize immigrants. We have the votes to pass the Dream Act if it were brought to the floor, and I hope and call upon Speaker Ryan to have the courage to bring it to the floor

Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001 was on a Tuesday.

I remember watching the horrible destruction unfold, and thinking that the world would change for all of us. In those days and weeks after 9/11, Americans from the South Asian, Muslim, and Arab American community were subjected to hate crimes simply because of how they looked. Muslim students were pulled out of school because of fear for their safety, Sikh men were shot at for their turbans, and many of us were told to go home, back to our own country--even though America is our home.

But in the wake of that destruction, I was part of forming powerful coalitions to fight against hate of all kinds and to protect our civil rights and civil liberties.

As we reflect on the events of that day and honor first responders and those who lost their lives, let us also remember that America's true

values are about equal rights for all, inclusivity, resilience, generosity and abundance.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which undercuts an important rule meant to protect our public lands and the species that inhabit them.

The National Park Service has an important mission, which is ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects in the wildlife by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''

As a result of this mission, the National Park Service has implemented an important rule that protects a variety of species critical to the ecosystem in our national preserves in Alaska.

In 1994, Alaska did pass a law that undercut those efforts by allowing for extreme predator control, which led to fringe practices that could hardly be called traditional hunting.

Now, the other side may argue that this amendment is a States' rights issue, but that simply isn't true. These are Federal lands and are, therefore, subject to Federal regulation.

These national lands are intended to be enjoyed by all Americans, including those who visit and hope to have the rare opportunity to see bears and wolves in their natural habitat.

Now, to be clear, Mr. Chairman, the rule that this amendment aims to reverse is not intended to ban hunting in its entirety. The rule simply regulates that there be no use of bait, which has been as extreme as grease-soaked doughnuts and bacon, allowing for point blank shots, no use of artificial light to spotlight black bear dens, no killing sows or bear cubs, no killing pups or wolves and coyotes during the denning season, no hunting of big game that is swimming, no use of dogs to hunt big game, and no predator control simply for the purpose of increasing stocks for human consumption.

Now, these are reasonable regulations that prevent cruel hunting practices. Let us be very clear, Mr. Chairman, that reversing this rule would actually be thumbing our noses at the voices of tens of thousands of citizens who took part in a public comment period process that was extensive.

Before the rule's adoption, the National Park Service held two separate comment periods which resulted in 26 public hearings, two teleconferences, and three tribal meetings. More than 70,000 public comments were received, and the majority of those supported the existing rule. Ignoring this process and the thoughtful public input would be a major slight to the democratic process and to everyone who participated.

These processes are in place to ensure that the voice of the people is heard, and circumventing this is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the gentleman's words taken down. The gentleman has already impugned my motives by saying that I don't know a damn thing about what I'm talking about.

He's now called me ``young lady,'' and Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words be taken down.

Reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman from Alaska. I do accept your apology. I thank you for it. We have, obviously, some work to get to know each other. But I can tell you that I care about my State, as deeply as you do, and I look forward to getting to know you.

Mr. Chairman, let me continue by saying that the reason I do feel strongly about this is I also believe that this amendment would be bad for the economy and for the people who depend on it.

Every year, wildlife watchers contribute more than $2 billion toward the economy. According to the National Park Service, in 2016, 2.8 million park visitors spent an estimated $2.8 billion in local gateway regions while visiting National Park Service lands in Alaska. These expenditures supported a total of 18,900 jobs, $644.7 million in labor income, $1.1 billion in value added, and $1.9 billion in economic output in the Alaska economy.

I do believe--and the reason I am speaking up so strongly about this, we all have very strong perspectives on all sides. I do believe that we must do everything we can to preserve our natural lands and their inhabitants, particularly as climate change takes its toll all over the country and the world. In my home State of Washington, which I care deeply about, wildfires are destroying thousands of acres of land and threatening homes, while across the country residences of Houston are reeling from Hurricane Harvey and Floridians brace for Hurricane Irma.

We need to invest in our public lands for all Americans so that generations in the future can continue to enjoy the beauty that our country has to offer.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will eliminate $535 million in new funding for ICE officers and provide $30 million to the DHS Office of Inspector General and $10 million to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Simply put, my amendment makes it clear that we must increase oversight and accountability over the Department of Homeland Security.

Reports of unlawful turnbacks of asylum seekers have only increased. The May 2017 Human Rights First report, ``Crossing the Line,'' flagged 125 incidents where asylum seekers were denied full access to the process. Just last month, the American Immigration Council and others filed a class action lawsuit challenging CBP's continued practice of turning back asylum seekers requesting protection at ports of entry.

The Trump administration's anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy appear to have emboldened the CBP practice. CBP personnel also reportedly stated: ``Donald Trump just signed new laws saying there is no asylum for anyone . . . `'

We have also heard reports of CBP turning away asylum seeks through threats, coercion, and intimidation. CBP reportedly threatened to take away asylum seekers' children unless they left the port of entry and let loose dogs unless they exited the port of entry.

We have also heard CBP turning away asylum seekers through verbal and physical abuse. CBP reportedly threw an asylum seeker's 6-year-old daughter to the ground and knocked a transgender asylum seeker to the floor and then stepped on her neck.

These are not only unconscionable, Mr. Chairman, they may violate U.S. and international law. They violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, which guarantees the right of an individual present within the United States or arriving at a U.S. port of entry to apply for asylum.

Also, they may violate the principle of non-refoulement, articulated in the 1951 Refugee Convention and enshrined in U.S. law in the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. This prohibits the return of asylum seekers to a country where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of protected ground.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to just remind my colleagues again that ICE has plenty of money to carry out their activities. What we are asking for through this amendment is to have some oversight and accountability to make sure that we are not seeing the kind of abuse and turn backs that we have been seeing.

Let me just remind my colleagues of the grave and critical need on one level to address sexual assault and abuse in detention.

Between May 2014 and July 2016, the Office of the Inspector General received, at minimum, 1,016 reports of sexual abuse and detention. In other words, they received more than one complaint of sexual abuse each day over the course of 26 months. According to CIVIC, a detention watchdog, only 2.4 percent of those complaints were investigated.

So I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I think what this amendment is trying to say is we desperately need to ensure that we use the funds that we are appropriating here, the funds that we are taking away, in order to make sure that we have accountability for the Department of Homeland Security, and to make sure, for example, that when we have Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations to prevent sexual assault in immigration detention, that we have adequate funding to the Department of Homeland Security's Civil Rights and Civil Liberties department so that they can carry out the audits to ensure that immigration detention facilities are in compliance with those regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will accept that we still are going to have plenty of money for ICE to do its job, but we want to make sure we have accountability.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the United States already operates the largest immigration detention system in the world at a cost of $2 billion annually. In fiscal year 2017, ICE had the capacity to detain an unprecedented 39,324 men, women, and children. Although a large amount of funding is dedicated to detain these people, the system is plagued with inhumane conditions and inadequate oversight. Mr. Chairman, my amendment imposes a moratorium on the construction and expansion of immigration detention facilities.

This year, we are seeing the highest number of deaths in ICE custody since 2011. Private, for-profit detention facilities in particular have not abided by basic standards necessary to protect civil and constitutional rights, and all of this is occurring at the same time that the administration is increasing enforcement, including expedited removals with inadequate due process, elimination of the longstanding division between local police and Federal immigration enforcement, and this is all tearing families apart.

The overreach of these detention facilities combined with an overreach on enforcement in general, instead of focussing on more practical, humane, and, frankly, economically viable options of alternatives to detention, are issues that Congress must address.

We should not be funding these dangerous overreaches by expanding immigration detention with no accountability. This amendment ensures that we focus on fixing this broken system as opposed to funding an increased detention expansion, and this is deadly. It is a deadly powder keg, and I don't use the term ``deadly'' lightly.

I would like to take a moment to talk about Jacinta Morales, a woman from Oregon detained at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. Jacinta found out she was pregnant while she was in detention. She said: I was thrilled to be pregnant and thrilled at the prospect of being a mother again.

When she found out she would be deported, torn from her 11-year-old U.S. citizen son as well as her long-time partner, Jacinta was devastated. She experienced pain and nausea, and not long after, she woke up bleeding. After an hour, she went to the doctor, where she waited another hour. One of the people who was seen before her had a toothache.

When the doctor finally saw her, they requested an ambulance to take her to the hospital, but the ambulance didn't come for a long time, and so they took her in the back of a patrol car where she was forced to sit up, making the bleeding worse. When Jacinta finally arrived at the hospital, she learned she had a miscarriage.

Jacinta is one of 292 pregnant women ICE detained between January and

April of 2017, alone, and part of the 60 percent of detained women. Formerly detained women and their attorneys and advocates have reported that pregnant women only receive the bare minimum of services and accommodations and are routinely denied extra blankets, additional food, and adequate prenatal care.

When pregnant women are referred to outside obstetricians, ICE policy does not prohibit the shackling of pregnant women during transport. Moreover, the stress of detention and fear of miscarriage may lead detained women to abandon their asylum claims.

One of these women, I am going to call her Ana, accepted deportation back into the hands of her abuser because she was so afraid that being detained would harm her unborn child.

ICE's own detention standards and directive on the detention of pregnant women acknowledges the complexity and risks of detaining pregnant women, but implementation and oversight are not enough to protect these women.

It is irresponsible to expand detention while the agency struggles to conduct even basic oversight and hold facilities accountable for inhumane conditions. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I will just say that we currently have almost 40,000 people in detention. We are not proposing eliminating all detention centers. We are saying we are putting a moratorium on expansion of detention centers. Those people would still be able to stay there. We could detain up to that many people.

I don't think that is the right policy for the United States of America, but I am not saying that we are going to eliminate all of that detention space. What I am saying is that we need accountability around the detention system, and as long as we don't have that accountability and we have pregnant women who are losing children in the ICE detention facilities, I believe that we should ensure that we have accountability.

I will tell you that we are continuing to detain and not hold these detention centers accountable for any of the things that happen within the detention centers, so, again, I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment and allow us to bring some accountability back to our detention system.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today, with Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina, I am introducing bipartisan legislation to raise awareness regarding the alarming rate at which the South Asian community is developing heart disease and to invest in ways to reverse the trend.

Coming from countries including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, South Asians are the sixth largest and fastest growing ethnic group in the Nation.

Despite a traditional diet that is high in lentils, vegetables, grains, and spices, heart disease is on the rise in these communities. A Stanford study has found that South Asians have a four times greater risk of developing heart disease than the general population and have a much greater risk of having a heart attack before the age of 50. Coupled with the prevalence of diabetes in the South Asian community, something needs to be done. That is why we are introducing the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act.

Specifically, our bill will create grants at the CDC, NIH, and USDA to fund heart health research and promotion among South Asian populations. We hope, through doing this, that we can help save lives, develop tools, and support valuable research that can broadly benefit the American public.

Mr. Speaker, to quote Ronald Reagan: ``Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge; it's common sense.'' Yet, this week, my Republican colleagues continued the trend of pushing through bills that deeply undermine critical environmental protections.

H.R. 806, the ``Smoggy Skies Act,'' is an attack on the Clean Air Act that will lift protections against harmful pollutants that put the health of our communities at risk. Republicans also made it clear that they are prioritizing dangerous pipelines while shirking environmental review processes.

But despite their efforts, we are looking ahead and putting forward a bold vision for protecting our environment and our economic future. I am proud to introduce, with Congressmen Polis, Grijalva, and Huffman, the 100 by `50 Act, which aims to bring the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.

Climate change is the biggest threat to our planet, our economy, our children, and our communities, and our bill lays out a bold roadmap for ensuring that we transition to a clean and renewable energy economy while prioritizing good jobs for workers and investments in our communities.

This is the time to be bold.

Would the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to go back to this question of Medicaid, because I think you have raised such an important program that is really a mainstay for the American people. A lot of people don't understand exactly how much it covers. You have mentioned 62 percent of seniors in nursing homes.

One in four births in this country is covered through Medicaid. I was just talking to our good colleague, Mr. Yarmuth of Kentucky. Over half of the births in Kentucky are covered through Medicaid.

Then if you look at kids with disabilities, Medicaid covers 60 percent of kids with disabilities.

So when you talk about cutting $1.5 trillion from Medicaid, as was the case between TrumpCare and what was proposed in the budget, which I know our good friend from Florida is going to talk about, you actually had $1.5 trillion in cuts to a program that serves 72 million Americans. So it really is a travesty when you think about how much this program supports.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There really hasn't. And I want to say that, if you look at the budget, you really get a sense of where the priorities are. They are not investing in climate. They are cutting healthcare dramatically. They are not investing in jobs and infrastructure.

Now, as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) said, when I was in the State senate--it was

actually a Republican-controlled senate--together, we worked on a package and we invested $16 billion into infrastructure because we knew that that was good for Republicans and for Democrats.

If you look at what this President has to say, this was a tweet that he just put out:

``Really great numbers on jobs and the economy. Things are starting to kick in now. . . . ''

But the thing is that, this week, the White House is calling this ``Made in America Week.'' Well, maybe somebody should let the President know that everything should be made in America, because I happen to take a look at some of the products of the Trump Organization--and I am talking about Ivanka Trump's products and all of the President's organizations' products--and here is what I found:

Here is one of the products of Donald J. Trump's signature collection, made in Mexico.

Here is another one from Ivanka Trump, made in China.

So if the President is so incredibly committed to making things in America, I have a proposal--and perhaps we should have an amendment to this effect--that he should start with the Trump Organization. In fact, much of the steel that was put into buildings that were built by the Trump Organization was not steel that was made here in America.

I actually have one of the largest steel manufacturing plants in my district in Washington State. Nobody ever thinks about it that way, but we do have steel being manufactured in Seattle. And we are in a situation now where this President and this Republican-controlled Congress has yet to introduce a single bill that would actually invest in jobs or infrastructure.

In fact, the budget takes money away from job training. It takes more money out of infrastructure investment than it puts into infrastructure investment. And when you think about the Federal Government's role in infrastructure--of course, we all want public-private partnerships, where possible--the Federal Government has a very strong role in making sure that we are investing in all of our infrastructure, not only our roads and our bridges, but also all of our water sources, and making sure that we are investing in transit. These are all ways to put Americans back to work.

Yet, for a President who ran a campaign based on jobs and infrastructure and a Republican-controlled House, we have yet to see a single job emerge. And even the jobs that he says he has created, recently reports that he had created 45,000 coal mining jobs, but, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen is the numbers show only 800 jobs created in the coal mines.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman for raising that because this elimination of TIGER grants affects cities across the country--red States, blue States, Republican, and urban. We have a lot of those TIGER grants that have paid for our roads, rails, transit, ports, and new transportation projects.

Perhaps I will turn it back to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. Would you be surprised to know that the budget actually slashes job training programs for distressed workers by 65 percent?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Congressman Brian Higgins and I introduced H. Res. 441, legislation that would require a Congressional Budget Office score before a floor vote. This resolution clearly enshrines in House rules a fundamental and very simple principle of good governance: namely, we should know the budgetary and practical impact of legislation before we vote on it.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it should not be necessary for us to introduce this legislation. For years, the CBO has been an important nonpartisan player in crafting legislation and giving an independent assessment of what a bill costs and whom it will benefit or whom it will hurt.

Unfortunately, we have seen House leadership rush major legislation to the floor without a CBO score, preventing Members from knowing the impact on their constituents and the budget before voting.

The most egregious example, of course, was the May 4 vote on the TrumpCare bill that barely passed this Chamber and would strip 23 million Americans of healthcare. That bill was rushed to the House floor before it had a CBO score, and Members voted blindly on it without knowing the impact on their constituents.

Our resolution simply says transparency, accountability, and know what is in the bill. No score, no floor; it's that simple.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous and divisive amendment that is the latest attempt to criminalize the religious beliefs of Muslims in this country.

Let me remind my colleague from Arizona that our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, and the First Amendment guarantees that right.

In calling for a strategic assessment, this amendment tramples on our Constitution's separation of religion and State, singles out the Muslim religion, its practices and leaders, and it does nothing to keep our Nation safe. In fact, fear-mongering undermines trust and national security, and pits neighbor against neighbor, community against community, and is an insult to our American Muslim communities.

This amendment doesn't even apply its arbitrary surveillance equally, because if it did, it would include assessments of White supremacist terrorism or terrorism committed against abortion clinics and doctors.

Mr. Chairman, our fight against terrorism is not against any religion. It is against the acts that are committed and those who commit the acts. It violates our Constitution and runs counter to who we are as a nation.

Frankly, it is horrifying, and I urge my colleagues to resoundingly oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the reality is that our economic security is part and parcel of our national security, and so it is in line with these values today that we introduce Amendment 334 to the National Defense Authorization Act, which states a sense of Congress that any appropriated increase to the combined national defense budget and the overseas contingency operations budget are matched dollar for dollar by nondefense discretionary spending increases.

For years now, these spending increases have occurred concurrently and equally, keeping important parity between defense and nondefense discretionary spending. Because genuine national security depends on the health, vibrancy, and safety of our communities, we must ensure that the spending parity continues and that this Democratic Party principle carries on into fiscal year 2018.

Nondefense discretionary spending includes a host of funds that are crucial to the American people, from education to research, to veterans' healthcare, to transportation and even homeland security. NDD funding is absolutely essential to moving our country forward.

Mr. Chairman, as vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, I echo the comments made earlier by our ranking member, Mr. Smith, about the dysfunction that we have, as we have yet to consider a fiscal year 2018 budget resolution, and we have only 23 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins.

The effort to push through $696 billion in defense spending will trigger sequestration under the Budget Control Act, and our communities will pay the price in cuts to vital programs. This is senseless brinksmanship, and we must reject it.

Sequestration would, further, hinder job creation and stall economic growth by cutting $2 trillion in discretionary spending for infrastructure that makes our communities thrive: roads, bridges, transit, railroad systems, broadband, ports, airports, waterways, schools, and safe, clean water systems. It will erode our investments in education, worker training, public health, and community development that strengthen the middle class and working families; and these shortfalls, Mr. Chairman, will hurt the American people and our economy and make us less secure as a nation.

Budgetary gimmicks don't make our Nation safer either, and that is why in the People's Budget, which we introduced in the Progressive Caucus, the overseas contingency operations budget is actually zeroed out, as it is essentially a zero accountability slush fund used to avoid the restrictions imposed by the Budget Control Act.

Some have pointed out that $10 billion of the $631.5 billion for the military base budget needs is actually labeled OCO purely as a technicality to evade the Budget Control Act caps. This is in addition to the clearly marked $65 billion of OCO funds.

By including OCO funding one-to-one match in our amendment, we are sending a message that we will not accept these efforts to undermine the best interests of our country and its people.

Increasing opaque funding sources comes at the expense of our Nation's infrastructure programs, education, and all the other things that I mentioned earlier. So to the extent that Congress provides relief from the post-sequestration funding levels for our military, responsible Members of this body should be united in insisting that the same relief would apply to domestic discretionary spending. This amendment underscores the reality that economic security is national security.

For these reasons, and to support the continuation of this important principle, we urge support of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that this is conditional because we still don't have a budget resolution. So in the absence of a budget resolution, the reality is we are looking at a budget that could potentially raise $676 billion for defense, but at the expense of all of the other programs that we have mentioned.

And the reality is that families in the armed services also care about education, about healthcare, about roads, and about everything else that is funded in domestic spending. So we have to make sure that these two things are interconnected. And, yes, we have got to make sure that the State Department is funded and that we continue to push for a budget that keeps parity between defense and nondefense discretionary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.