Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement by Greg Stanton, Former Phoenix Mayor, Congressman-Elect.

Arizona lost one of its greatest servant leaders with the

passing of Congressman Ed Pastor. His humble nature, gentle

style and beautiful sense of humor belied a brilliant

tactician. His tremendous success in public service is

directly related to his understanding of human nature: treat

everyone, regardless of station in life or political party,

with sincere dignity, respect and love. And he delivered

overwhelmingly for the people of Arizona. Millions of

people's lives were helped because of ``the big guy.''

Without Congressman Pastor's leadership, in Arizona, there

would be no light rail, no bus service improvements, no Rio

Salado riparian habitat development, no Sky Harbor Airport

upgrades, thousands of students would not have been able to

afford college. The list is virtually endless. The impact on

our state due to his strategic action is unsurpassed. But he

never once bragged about his success. He was a true

``workhorse'' not a ``showhorse''.

But his legacy goes way beyond physical improvements to our

state. In an era of such partisan tribalism, Congressman

Pastor showed by his actions a wiser path: he was a partner

to both Democrats and Republicans in this Congress. Members

of both parties, and all wings within those parties, liked

him and trusted him. We can all learn much from how he went

about his business.

And he loved everyone right back. Its why he took the time

to mentor thousands of people looking to make a difference in

our community through politics and policy: myself included.

He taught all of us to lift up the next generation. That's

his most important legacy which will pay the most long-term

dividends for our state.

Nicole and I loved Ed Pastor. He passed on his passion for

public service to his family, all of whom are great leaders

in our community. I had the good fortune to work closely with

City Councilwoman Laura Pastor. We offer Verma, Laura, and

Yvonne our sympathies . . . but mostly we give them our

thanks for sharing this great leader with the people of

Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, tens of thousands of Arizona teachers took to the streets to demand that Governor Ducey and the Arizona State Legislature do right by Arizona students. It did so because Ducey and the State GOP have crippled the State's public education system.

Arizona spends the second lowest amount of money per student in the country, and Arizona's teachers are paid at the second lowest rate in the country. Students and teachers alike describe textbooks held together by tape, moldy ceilings leaking on students, and classes so overcrowded that kids have to sit on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what schools in the richest country in the world should look like. That is why Arizona's teachers championed the Invest in Ed proposition, to secure over $600 million in annual education funds for Arizona after Governor Ducey failed to provide the resources our students so desperately needed.

Over a quarter of a million Arizonans signed their names to get the Invest in Ed proposal on Arizona's ballot this fall. That is democracy in action. But last week, the Arizona State Supreme Court ordered the removal of the Invest in Ed proposition from State ballots based on a small technicality.

This appalling ruling is an insult to Arizona students, teachers, families, and to democracy. It is a blow to Arizona's education system and our economy. It is a naked power grab by the GOP that undermines our democracy by removing the right of voters to choose what is best for their kids and their communities.

Invest in Ed wasn't defeated because a majority of Arizonans votes against it. It wasn't defeated because it was opposed by an elected politician who can be removed from office in the next election. It was killed by Doug Ducey's supreme court, a court that Ducey and the Arizona Republicans packed with conservatives.

Governor Ducey fully understood the power a court can wield when he ran through his court-packing plan in 2016

to increase the size of the Arizona State Supreme Court. He knew the incredible power of a supreme court pick, even at the State level.

Mr. Speaker, we in Congress must not underestimate that power, especially now. Donald Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill a seat in the U.S. Supreme Court, and here is what we know:

Judge Kavanaugh believes that a woman has no legal right to full autonomy over her own body;

Judge Kavanaugh believes that the agency created to protect consumers from fraud and predatory lending is unconstitutional;

Judge Kavanaugh believes that access to affordable healthcare should be determined by your age or your gender or your preexisting condition;

Judge Kavanaugh believes that the President should be above the law.

Here is what we don't know:

We don't know what is in the hundreds of thousands of pages of Kavanaugh's records that the Trump White House has refused to release, contrary to a century of Supreme Court precedent. That is unacceptable.

The Invest in Ed decision in Arizona is a blatant example of judicial power gone wrong, judicial power used to undermine democracy.

If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh would join a panel of Justices with this very same power: the power to keep gutting the Voting Rights Act, the power to keep green-lighting partisan gerrymandering, the power to keep signing off on GOP efforts to purge the voter rolls.

We cannot allow this to happen. Doug Ducey's State supreme court set back democracy in Arizona. What Doug Ducey did to Arizona, Donald Trump will do to America with this Supreme Court. We cannot let that happen.

My colleagues in the Senate should reject Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. Our democracy depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, despite their united control of Congress, my Republican friends seem to think there is nothing they can do when Donald Trump acts in a matter that is contrary to our laws and our values. Here is what they have been saying:

Congressman Ryan Costello: There is nothing we can do to stop the President, let alone this President, from saying what he thinks or what he wants to say.

Speaker Ryan on immigration policy: The last thing I want to do is bring a bill out here that I know the President won't support.

Lastly, again, Speaker Ryan: Every morning I wake up in my office and

scroll through Twitter to see which tweets that I will have to pretend I didn't see later on.

I yield to the gentleman.

But, Ted, did you know that there are actually concrete steps the majority party can take to exercise its power over the administration and hold it accountable for its actions?

That is right. When the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, it included checks and balances that allow the legislative branch, us, to oversee the executive branch, the President. It is part of what makes our Nation great.

That is a great question. Maybe our friends in the majority have forgotten how to use their power.

Great idea. So, let's start with a new class that we call Welcome to Congressional Oversight 101 or, as I like to call it, Congress for Dummies.

Isn't that hard?

What are some of the issues that Congress can pass legislation on, Ted?

Ted, for example, could we actually be protecting the Special Counsel from being fired by the President?

I believe there is an actual bill that has been introduced, specifically, that Ryan could actually bring to the floor, to protect the Special Counsel and not just talk about protecting the Special Counsel.

So why hasn't Speaker Ryan or the Republicans actually passed this bill?

We certainly have brought this up, and we will continue to be pushing this bill until it comes to the floor.

Let's move on to lesson 2.

It is important to remember the congressional committee chairman gets to decide what topics they hold hearings on.

So are you telling me the Judiciary Committee chairman is more interested in Hillary Clinton's emails from 2015 or maybe 2016 than currently dealing with attacks on our democracy from Russia, from Putin, or trying to figure out how we have basically abandoned and orphaned 2,600 families at the border?

So let's move on.

What is the third thing that we could be doing as Congress to actually put the executive in check, Ted?

Subpoenas. What is a subpoena?

You are a former Federal prosecutor. Please enlighten us, since somehow this Congress has forgotten that we could do subpoenas.

I don't know if you know this, Ted, but there is this neat little House rule called House rule XI, clause 2. Have you heard of this?

It is not. It is very simple. This clause allows House committees to issue subpoenas, which are legal documents that force somebody to do something, in this case either testify or give Congress documents.

Or we could do something really crazy and subpoena all the many administration officials and department heads who have gotten rich and richer by exploiting their public offices for private gain.

Lesson number 4, requesting investigations.

Every committee has jurisdiction over a set of agencies. Those agencies each have something called an inspector general. These officials are responsible for investigating waste, fraud, and abuse at each agency and reporting back to Congress.

Well, Ted, Congress can actually request an inspector general report.

Exactly.

So what have we learned today?

Unfortunately, we have learned that our Republican colleagues are unwilling or afraid, either-or, to use their power vested in them by the Constitution on behalf of the American people to keep the executive in check.

It is shameful that we are going on recess right now while we know that there are foreign adversaries targeting our elections, targeting our elected officials; we have a President that we cannot get straight answers out of, and this Republican-led Congress refuses to act.

So maybe it is time to turn control of this Chamber over to Members who are willing to hold this administration accountable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about a brave young woman, an Arizonan named Vanessa Ramirez.

When she was just 23 years old, Vanessa received a devastating diagnosis. Doctors told her that she had ovarian cancer, yet Vanessa refused to put her dreams on hold. She somehow managed to fit in chemotherapy sessions between her classes at Arizona State.

Eventually, Vanessa pulled through. She beat cancer, and, today, she has two happy, healthy kids.

Vanessa has overcome a lot in her young life, but thanks to the Affordable Care Act, there is one challenge she won't be forced to endure: going without health insurance.

Despite her preexisting condition, Vanessa was able to purchase an affordable plan through the ObamaCare marketplace. Her children are also covered under KidsCare, our State's Children's Health Insurance Program. However, if Donald Trump gets his way, Vanessa's story soon could take a sad turn.

Having abolished the individual mandate, Republican State attorneys general, backed by President Trump, are now arguing in court that rules prohibiting insurers from charging higher rates on the basis of a preexisting condition or even denying coverage completely should be ruled unconstitutional.

The mandate is so central to ObamaCare, Republicans claim that, without it, the courts should simply throw out the whole Affordable Care Act altogether. Their arguments are clearly baseless. But if Republicans succeed, millions of Americans like Vanessa could quickly lose their coverage.

Of course, that is not all the Trump administration is doing to undermine the Affordable Care Act. President Trump blocked cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, sending shock waves of uncertainty through insurance markets across the Nation and raising costs for consumers in premiums. Trump also cut open-enrollment periods and slashed funding to help Americans sign up for insurance.

Trump and the GOP don't care about the people they are hurting. His only objective is to erase the legacy of his predecessor.

Mr. Speaker, no issue crystalizes the differences between our two political parties like this one. Democrats don't think your insurance company should be allowed to drop you because you get sick. Democrats don't believe you should go bankrupt and lose your home simply because you get in an accident. Democrats are committed to the belief that healthcare is a right, not a privilege, for every single American.

On the other hand, Republicans want to turn back the clock to a time when a minor diagnosis could lead to the loss of coverage, when young people were kicked off their parents' plan as soon as they turned 18, when simply being a woman somehow qualified as a preexisting condition. That is not right.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans couldn't repeal the Affordable Care Act in Congress. Now they are just trying to sabotage it from the White House, and millions of Americans, like Vanessa Ramirez, could lose access to lifesaving care as a result. We can't allow that to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6124, the Tribal Social Security Fairness Act.

I am pleased to support this common sense, bipartisan bill that will extend a basic right to tribal leaders across the country: the ability to retire with dignity and security.

Astonishing as it may seem, elected tribal leaders, including those who have already paid into Social Security, can no longer contribute to--or access the benefits of--this critical safety net program.

After a lifetime of service to their communities, tribal leaders shouldn't have to struggle to make ends meet.

They deserve the same access to Social Security as every other American.

This speaks to a broader problem, Mr. Speaker.

As the first inhabitants of our homeland, the interests of Native Americans should be a primary consideration when federal policy makers go to work--not an afterthought.

But, too often, the unique considerations of Indian Country are just that . . . an afterthought.

Nevertheless, every decision we make in this body--from the Farm Bill to healthcare to tax policy--every decision we make impacts our Native American brothers and sisters.

Earlier today, in the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, we heard from the tribe whose members helped the Pilgrims survive that first winter in Plymouth. Their good will is part of the reason you and I are here today.

Moving forward, it's incumbent upon us to demonstrate the same generosity of spirit that was shown to our nation's founders.

And we can start here and now.

I urge my colleagues to support this common sense legislation today, and to fully consider the implications of new policies on Indian Country in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, grazing on public lands is a privilege-- not a right--and ranchers who use these

lands should abide by the law and pay their fair share.

On average, Federal rates for grazing are more than 90 percent lower than what the private sector charges. In fact, these rates are so low that the government actually loses money administering the grazing program. My amendment would simply reaffirm that grazing permits or leases should not be issued to anyone who refuses to comply with BLM regulations, including the payment of fees.

Mr. Chairman, this is a narrow amendment, but it speaks to a broader principle. We can't claim to support the rule of law and then look the other way when ranchers like Cliven Bundy ignore their obligations.

Bundy thumbed his nose at the executive and judicial branches of our government, running up over $1 million in unpaid fees. He then put the lives of local and Federal officials in danger during a standoff at his Nevada ranch.

Later, when two Oregon ranchers named Dwight and Steven Hammond, who also have a history of disregarding grazing regulations, were sent to Federal prison for fires they potentially set near Federal lands, members of the Bundy family led an armed occupation of the national wildlife refuge.

Mr. Chairman, President Trump recently pardoned the Hammonds, validating these violent tactics and insulting the courageous law enforcement officers who risked their lives during the confrontation in Oregon. With these pardons, Trump has effectively given his blessing to groups who intimidated, threatened, and occupied local communities. He has legitimized Bundy's extreme right-wing movements.

Make no mistake, Donald Trump is sending a clear message to militant and antigovernment organizations: You can break the law, threaten Federal employees, and endanger public safety with complete impunity. That is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, freeloading on Federal land is unlawful and unfair. Let's pass my amendment and reaffirm that the ranchers need to play by the rules just like the rest of us.

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

Mr. Chair, let's face it: Ranchers who refuse to pay what they owe the Federal Government are freeloaders, pure and simple. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. If you don't pay your mortgage, you get your house taken away. Ranchers are not more special than any other Americans. They are freeloaders, and they should pay for their freeloading. Congress should not stand for it. Let's pass my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of a young mother. Her name is Rosa. Just like my mom, she came to America in search of a better life.

Rosa's home was in Trujillo, Honduras, where she lived with her aging parents and her son, Juan. Violent gangs controlled the town, and Rosa feared her young son would be targeted like so many others in her neighborhood.

Under these desperate circumstances, Rosa did what any loving mother would do. She took her modest life savings and her son and fled north in search of safety. When they finally made it to the U.S. border near Yuma, Arizona, Rosa and Juan were met by American authorities who asked her an ominous question: Don't you know we're separating children from their families here? She told them no, but it was too late. Rosa and Juan are still separated.

Mr. Speaker, the administration is now reuniting a small number of these families due, in part, to Donald Trump's orders. But let's be clear. This isn't happening out of concern for their welfare. As usual, Donald Trump is only doing the right thing because a court is making him do it.

Trump still wants to set up tent camps in our military bases. He still wants to eviscerate legal protections for migrant children, and he still wants to lock up families. Donald Trump's goal is to present mothers and children fleeing unspeakable violence with an impossible choice: immediate deportation or indefinite detention. That is appalling.

On the other hand, the Members of this body have an easy choice: make excuses for Trump, or take a stand against the state-sponsored mistreatment of children. It is not a tough decision. We know what we need to do.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to follow Mr. Rush, who was my Congressman growing up all through high school and actually in elementary school.

Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, House Republicans are racing out of Washington. Families are being torn apart; children are being ripped from the arms of their mothers; and women who have fled horrific violence are being deported back to their abusers. Yet my Republican colleagues are nowhere to be found.

Where are they, Mr. Speaker?

House Republicans are fleeing the scene of an accident. They are running from the shame and embarrassment of yesterday's vote on the GOP immigration bill. They are headed for the exits while thousands of kids cry in cages at our borders tonight.

That is right, with the world watching and with a humanitarian crisis unfolding right here in America, Speaker Ryan and the House Republicans simply just gave up and went home.

The other party fought for weeks behind closed doors. They traded accusations and insults, many of which were quickly leaked to the press. Yesterday, they finally put an immigration bill on the House floor, and it failed by the largest margin in recent memory.

But instead of allowing a vote on a true compromise, like the Aguilar-Hurd legislation, Speaker Ryan and his leadership team decided to call it quits. They chose to put their fingers in their ears while thousands of kids are crying out for their mothers.

Mr. Speaker, 121-301. That was the vote yesterday, and 121-301 tells the story of a Republican Conference in crisis. When he officially retires, 121-301 should be in the first line of any story written about Paul Ryan's speakership.

If Republicans aren't interested in governing, they should at least step aside and let Democrats take over. If Speaker Ryan isn't interested in actually solving problems, he should get an early start on his retirement, because right now, it sure looks like House Republicans are more interested in fighting each other than fighting for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot about civility as of late. Republicans are upset that Members of this body have said mean things about the President. Republicans whine on FOX News about the White House press secretary being turned away from a restaurant. Republicans writing in the opinion pages are wringing their hands about the deterioration of our public discourse. Give me a break already.

Isn't it time that we worried less about the lack of civility in our politics and more about the lack of humanity in our government?

Here is all I ask: When my Republic colleagues are enjoying their fireworks and barbecues with their loved ones next week, I hope they will spare a thought for the mothers separated from their loved ones because of Donald Trump's outrageous cruelty. And I hope, just for a minute, that my Republican friends will pause and think about their own responsibility for this tragedy.

I hope, just for a moment, that they will stop to wonder what future generations of Americans will say about the leaders of today who opted for silence or civility in the face of so much human suffering.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, ZTE and Huawei Technologies are owned by the Chinese Government. Time and time again, we have seen that these companies, along with many others, abuse and manipulate their placement in the market to attack sensitive American communications, the technology sector as a whole, and our national critical infrastructure.

There is no partisan disagreement on this point. Congress has been briefed many times on Chinese cyber attacks, espionage, and trade secret theft. We all know this is a problem. It is therefore astonishing, Mr. Chairman, that it is still possible that U.S. taxpayer dollars could be used to buy goods and services from these two bad apples.

My amendment would change that. Put simply--and it is very simple, Mr. Chairman--my amendment would prevent funds under this act to procure any goods or services from these two companies. This should be the start of a larger, coordinated effort to harden our defense supply chain, sensitive communications networks, and critical industries and infrastructure from modern threats, whether they come from China or anywhere else.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with my friends and colleagues in both parties in making that a reality, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support just as strongly as my friend from Virginia in support of the amendment from my good friend from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, we have a serious strategic issue with respect to submarines. This amendment would give the Navy the option--just an option, Mr. Chairman, not a requirement--to procure submarines at a faster rate than it is currently planning right now.

As we face bigger threats from China, from Russia, and in force projection in general, we need to look at all options, all especially when we are routinely briefed, as we all are on the Armed Services Committee, on the strategic deficiencies that we find right now.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out and make sure everyone knows I have zero shipyards in Arizona. We do not build any ships in Arizona. We are landlocked.

I support this amendment not just because I am a marine and because I am a patron; I think it is in the best interests of our country and national defense.

Mr. Speaker, in Trump's ``Cabinet of corruption,'' one individual stands head and shoulders above the rest. He is a man that Senator Udall crowned ``the Emperor of the Swamp.''

If we created a Mount Rushmore of American corruption, his face would be carved into it. His scandals are so outrageous that even Sarah Sanders has stopped defending him and just started telling jokes at his expense.

I am speaking, of course, about EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

I will give you an example. Pruitt tried to use his office to get his wife a Chick-fil-A franchise. When he was questioned about it, the EPA chief said:

It is one of the best restaurants in the country. We need

more of them in Tulsa and we need more of them across the

country. Anyway, it is an exciting time.

Mr. Speaker, don't get me wrong, I enjoy a chicken sandwich just as much as any other person, but Scott Pruitt talks about Chick-fil-A like they are some kind of social service or some group that hands out food to the homeless. He thinks it is an organization setting up soup kitchens and homeless shelters.

Frankly, this is probably one of the weakest excuses I have ever heard from any administration, but this administration seems to specialize in weak excuses.

Scott also rented a Washington, D.C., apartment from a lobbyist with matters before the EPA. And it won't surprise you at all that he got a really good sweetheart deal. Pruitt was paying $50 a night and was only charged the days he actually slept there.

Now, for everybody back in Arizona who may not understand this, the D.C. rental market is really high here. Let just assure you, what he did was not normal and probably illegal. I am not a lawyer or a law enforcement officer, but this arrangement definitely looks like a bribe to me.

And that is not all. This week, we learned that Pruitt ordered his government bodyguards to seek out a luxury moisturizer that is exclusively offered to patrons of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, before we go into the top 10, I think one of the pretty scandalous other abuses of taxpayers is the fact that he had his personal detail asking and searching for used Trump mattresses.

Now, this is not a joke, this is not from an episode of ``Veep.'' Your EPA Administrator, a supposed adult in the room, is using taxpayer dollars to try to find used Trump mattresses.

Right now, all I can think of are two things. Number one, this person is just egregiously using our taxpayer dollars in the worst possible manner. And, number two, he is trying to set up one of the weirdest bed and breakfasts in the history of Washington, D.C.

But this is actually real. This is not TV. This is actually happening in your government.

Mr. Speaker, let me go into the top 10 things that EPA Administrator Pruitt has done to embarrass this country, and possible corruption. And 10 is what we have. There are a lot more than that, but we have to at least keep this somewhat bitable for everybody else.

Let me start with number 10, as recently reported: the mess hall. Pruitt has overused his privileges at the swanky, but affordable, White House mess hall, despite being warned against doing so.

Now, the mess hall is basically a cafeteria for the top officers of the White House. I have been in it. I was there under the Obama administration. It is an honor to be invited to go, and it is great food at a very low price.

Pruitt has misused this privilege so much so that he has been asked to not come back. You are that egregious that, as a sitting member of the Cabinet, you have been told by White House staff to not come back to the cafeteria. That tells you a lot.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu) to tell us about number nine.

Mr. Speaker, I also recommend just taking the Metro. It is much quicker, but that is just me.

Number eight, $130 fountain pens: Scott Pruitt has spent over $1,500 taxpayer dollars on personalized $130 fountain pens. Now, I recommend the BIC pen. It does the job well.

But, more importantly, it seems like, on one hand, he doesn't seem to mind spending taxpayer dollars on really expensive things, such as these really fancy pens, and then personally, in his own personal life, he is really cheap by looking for cheap used Trump mattresses. So he is, essentially, using the taxpayer dollar as his personal piggy bank so he can live the lifestyle he wants.

On to the mattress. Pruitt used his EPA staff to help him look for a discount Trump Home Luxury Plush Euro Pillow Top mattress. It is apparently his favorite.

He also inappropriately used aids to look for apartments and help arrange family vacations to the Rose Bowl.

Ted and I are lucky to have some very smart, young staff, and they work hard, but they are not here to be our personal valets. They are here to make sure we do our job well, we get to our meetings, and we have the resources that we need to make the right decisions.

They certainly aren't there to help you find the right type of Trump Home Luxury Plush Euro Pillow Top mattress. I definitely don't recommend that. Or, as Ted Lieu has said, there is the internet. You can find it there also.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Number five, first class travel: Pruitt has spent over $100,000 on first class commercial travel since entering office, citing security concerns, apparently not satisfied with his $3.5 million currently spent on security escort.

Let me tell you, number one, unfortunately for, I think, many Americans, nobody knows who Scott Pruitt is. You do not need to be flying first class for, quote/unquote, security reasons, and you certainly should not be making the American public be paying for your first class tickets.

Number three, unsanctioned raises: In a time in America where every American is hoping to just get a pay raise next month, Scott Pruitt was told: You are not allowed to give your employees--the certain employees that he wanted to give--a pay raise.

He was specifically told: They do not deserve that pay raise. You will not give them a pay raise.

So instead, he used an obscure provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act to actually find a way to give them a pay raise in spite of the White House saying: You will not give them a pay raise.

Now, this would be actually somewhat okay, in my opinion, if he was actually trying to protect safe drinking water, but, in fact, he is not doing that. He is actually only using the fund to pay for these increases for his well-connected friends and get them higher pay.

Look, you have an EPA Administrator who is literally using his staff to go track down and try to speak to the CEO of Chick- fil-A to try to get a very hard-to-get franchise, essentially using his public office to put pressure on them to get a very, very hard-to-get and lucrative franchise.

In any world, if we had just told you that this was being done by 1 or 2 or even 10 people, this all would not just be really, really, really weird, but really, really, really corrupt.

But the fact that there is one person that is doing this, and consistently doing this, and has not been fired by the man who said he enjoys firing people, by the man who had a show for so many years about firing people, and yet for some reason, he cannot find a reason to fire this weird, corrupt EPA Administrator, that is the problem here.

You have a corrupt Cabinet official and you have a Presidency that will not keep him in check.

I yield to my good friend, Ted Lieu, to close.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Lieu for his comments during this Special Order.

To finish, we had a President who said he was going to come and drain the swamp. Scott Pruitt is the swamp. He is the biggest swamp monster there is right now when it comes to the culture of corruption here in Washington, D.C.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and not present for one roll call vote on Wednesday, June 6, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

Roll Call Vote No. 237--Motion to Recommit with Instructions--Water Resources Development Act of 2018--YES.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Members of this House disagree on a whole range of topics, but one rare point of bipartisan agreement concerns the ZTE Corporation.

We have all heard complaints about the theft of trade secrets by ZTE and other major Chinese companies. We all know that when American companies are forced into licensing and disclosure agreements with Chinese State-owned enterprises, American technology is as good as stolen. We have all sat through hearings and briefings on the significant threat that ZTE and its brother, Huawei, pose to our national security. That is why it is concerning that President Trump decided to let ZTE off the hook for secretly doing business with Iran and North Korea.

Of course, this decision wasn't the only one affecting international trade that the Trump administration has made in recent weeks. He is imposing tariffs on our allies in Europe, Canada, and Mexico. His Ambassador to Germany has disgraced himself in the capital of our biggest European partner. He continues to insult our best trading partners by labeling them as security threats.

That is right, Mr. Speaker. Donald Trump is giving aid and comfort to ZTE, a known corporate enemy of America, while at the same time going out of his way to alienate our closest friends and allies around the world. But why?

I am sure it is just a fluke that Trump is allowing ZTE to resume its purchases of U.S. technology immediately following China's decision to award Ivanka Trump seven new Chinese trademarks.

I am positive it is just a coincidence that Trump cut a deal with ZTE right away after various Chinese entities offered $1 billion in financing to a resort with ties to the Trump organization. Just a coincidence.

There is nothing to see here, says the Trump administration. Don't ask any questions. Don't demand any information. Just look the other way.

How did we get here, Mr. Speaker? Where is the Grand Old Party as Donald Trump erodes our alliances, makes nice with our enemies, and ignites a global trade war?

We need to get to the bottom of whether there was a quid pro quo with China over ZTE, and we need to get to work on tough legislation to prevent China from illicitly acquiring American technology, especially technology with important defense applications and capabilities.

Bipartisan bills for this purpose with broad support from both parties have already been introduced. The Republican leadership should immediately bring those bipartisan bills to the floor for debate and consideration. That is what the American people expect. They want this body to stand up to America's adversaries and to stand up for America's laws and values.

They want us to reassert our power as a coequal branch of government.

Trump is tearing down America's alliances. We must preserve them.

Trump is sucking up to dictators and repressive regimes all around the world. We must condemn them.

More importantly, Trump and his cronies are using the Presidency to enrich themselves, and we must stop them.

Let's put an end to the Trump of business model: quid pro quo, pay to play, this for that.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when my Republican friends are courageous enough to say out loud what many of them whisper here in these hallways: that coddling Chinese companies like ZTE is reckless, that attacking our allies is dangerous, that using high office for personal gain is flat-out wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I came down to the floor today to give a gentle reminder and a wake-up call to Chairman Gowdy and to Speaker Ryan. I know they have a lot going on. The Speaker is flying out to do a fundraiser today. But I want to make sure he actually understood that what we know, also from multiple media outlets, is that this President is using a phone that is potentially compromising national security.

Rather than use the best, most secure communication technology in the world, President Trump just reaches into his pocket and pulls out his regular off-the-shelf phone when he wants to discuss matters of state. Now, he can switch to another phone, a government-provided phone, one that is secure, and he can still even tweet from that phone, but, for some reason, he is still stuck on this phone that is a national security risk.

Why would the leader of the free world, and our Commander in Chief, expose sensitive communication to foreign intelligence agencies?

Why would he act in such a reckless, negligent manner?

Well, according to news reports, the simple answer is that Donald Trump uses his personal cell phone because he just feels like it; it is more convenient for him. Forget the rules and forget the warnings from the military. He just does what he wants and ignores the consequences.

I want to highlight this story for Chairman Gowdy and Speaker Ryan because I know they care deeply about data security at the highest level of our government. After all, when Secretary Clinton was found to have used her personal email server, they launched multiple, month-long investigations. They spent millions of tax dollars conducting five emergency hearings, including four, coincidentally, right before the election, and ended up issuing more than 70 subpoenas.

Their efforts helped generate huge amounts of media coverage. In one 6-day period, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton's emails as they did about all of the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.

But now that President Trump's widely irresponsible use of his personal cell phone has been exposed, now that we know he could be exposing America's secrets to our gravest enemies, surely my Republican friends are going to be just as worried about data security as they were in the past and conduct some oversight. Surely, they will. They surely will demand and request all the documents, hold hearings, and question witnesses. Surely. They will want to get to the bottom of this scandal as soon as possible.

Prior to the election, Chairman Gowdy explained to the reporters:

This investigation is not about politics. This is not even

about one individual.

If it wasn't about politics, and if it wasn't just about stopping Hillary Clinton, the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee should certainly feel interested in investigating the President's cell phone use. And yet, coincidentally, they have been completely silent. Not one press statement, not one letter, not one word of warning to the White House.

It is almost as if they have no interest in conducting real oversight of this President. It is almost as if they are more interested in helping this President than holding him accountable. It is almost as if this Republican Party has completely lost its moral compass under this President.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my good friend, Congressman Ted Lieu, could shed some light on more of these troubling issues for me.

Mr. Speaker, I was a free lunch kid growing up. I was the young man that brought his ID card to the lunch lady and she looked on the back for the yellow sticker and I received free breakfasts and free lunches.

I know what it is like to come from a home with a lot of love but not a lot of money. I can tell you for a fact that kids with backgrounds like me cannot succeed in the classroom if they are worried about the next meal.

That is why this GOP farm bill is so reprehensible. Republicans are proposing SNAP cuts that will kick a quarter-of-a-million students off of the free lunch program.

That is right, Mr. Speaker. They have just given massive tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, but now, to save money, they are trying to pass a bill that could cause poor kids across this country to go hungry.

This legislation is a direct attack on my constituents. It is a direct attack on the poor. One in four families in my district alone counts on SNAP to put food on the table.

They deserve better. Our country deserves better. I urge my colleagues to oppose this shameful legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, millions of Americans will stop procrastinating and sit down and do their taxes.

Nobody likes paying taxes, but what people really hate is when their tax dollars are wasted or, worse, when the money they have worked so hard to earn, money that could have gone to paying for their mortgage or the rent, or money that could have gone to pay our troops or rebuild our roads instead ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians.

When that happens, when a public official takes your hard-earned money and uses it to pay, for example, for a first-class flight or a fancy hotel, the American taxpayer has a right to know. That is why, today, we have written a letter to every worker in this country who pays taxes. You can find it posted on our websites or on medium.com.

Our letter simply lists, for the benefit of everyone who will be sending in a return before April 17, some of the ways that the Trump administration has been spending your money. The American taxpayer has a right to know where those dollars are going.

With the help of the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), my good friend, I would like to share with you a quick accounting of the Trump Cabinet's spending habits. We think a pattern will quickly emerge.

While Lincoln had his ``Team of Rivals'' and Kennedy assembled the ``Best and the Brightest,'' Donald Trump is running a ``Cabinet of Corruption.'' So let's get started.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, another example, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, nearly $1 million on seven military flights, instead of flying commercial like his predecessors, including a day trip to Ottawa with his fiancee, a $26,900 military flight to Kentucky in August-- coincidentally, while at the same time there is a solar eclipse, a trip that is still under investigation by the investigator general.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about HUD Secretary Ben Carson: for a mahogany dining set for his office, $31,000.

That is, actually, they were personal planes that he took that cost a total of $500,000, Congressman Lieu.

That is all right. All is forgiven.

Mr. Speaker, we have our favorite cause, or celebrity nowadays, the EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, who, so far, has spent $800,000 for around-the-clock security, nearly twice the cost of security for Pruitt's two immediate predecessors; $105,000 in first- class commercial airline tickets during his first year in office, including a $40,000 trip to Morocco to promote the use of natural gas, which doesn't even fall under the EPA mission. He spent $1,600 on a first-class plane ticket from Washington to New York in order to make two brief television appearances defending the decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

You could take a train that will take you just as long and will end up being, privately, one-tenth of that price if you wanted to go with everyday Americans instead of trying to live it up.

He also did an $84,000 trip to Italy to meet with G7 Environment Ministers and took a private Vatican tour; more than $58,000 on chartered flights, including a $36,068 flight from Cincinnati, where Pruitt appeared alongside Trump at an event to New York, where he caught a flight for his Italy trip; a $5,719 intra-State flight from Denver to Durango, Colorado--I have done this trip before. It does not cost you $5,719--despite Governor Hickenlooper's offer of a State plane ride, which would have been free; $120,000 for a right-leaning PR firm, known for its campaign-style opposition research that may have been used to target career EPA employees; and another $43,000 on a soundproof phone booth for Pruitt's office and $6,000 on biometric fingerprinting locks for that booth.

Pruitt also bypassed the White House in order to grant raises to two of his aides worth tens of thousands of dollars. Pruitt's former deputy chief of staff reports that Pruitt far outspent the $5,000 decorating allowance for his office, frequently stayed in luxury hotels that exceeded even the 300 percent per diem government rate cap for exceptional circumstances, and directed staff to find official reasons for Pruitt to fly home to Oklahoma or to various cities he wished to visit at taxpayer expense.

I would like to point out that we haven't even fully done 2 years in the Trump administration and we are talking about so many of his own Cabinet members who are creating waste, fraud, and abuse. Had any of this occurred during the time when President Obama occupied the White House, we would have a Congress--specifically, the Republican-led Congress--talking about this every day. They would have oversight hearings. They would actually be trying to keep the Presidency in check. Instead, with very few exceptions, what we have is a Republican Congress that is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, when the President ran for office, he ran on a saying: drain the swamp.

Does this look like you are draining the swamp?

Does the list of people and the list of corruption we have seen, does that look like you are draining the swamp?

No, it seems like you are just adding it. All you are doing is adding more and more to the culture of corruption and creating that swamp.

If the President was serious about it, if my colleagues were also serious about draining the swamp, then they need to keep their own party and their own Cabinet members in check because, right now, that is not happening.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, if you wonder why these Cabinet members feel that they can get away with this, if you wonder why some of these lifelong career politicians and executives think that this is a good idea, it is because they look at the top. They look at the top and they say: Well, my leader, President Trump, is allowed to do this, why can't I also take part?

It is the leadership at the top that is creating this culture. It is the leadership at the top that is not draining the swamp, but only making it swampier.

That is why you see Secretary Mnuchin, that is why you see Pruitt, that is why you see all of these people basically acting like the President: wasteful with our tax dollars, abusing our tax dollars, and not even trying to explain why, or feeling bad about why they did it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, while you are filling out your taxes--I already did mine. I did not procrastinate this time, thank God. I am sure Congressman Lieu is a lot more organized and probably got it done 3 months ago--but when you are doing your taxes, and when you pay your taxes, just remember, some of that money has gone into the pockets of some politicians who did not need it. It could have gone somewhere else. It could have gone to your favorite issue. It could have gone to our troops. It could have gone to some of our more important causes. Instead, it was because one Cabinet member decided that he needed to take a first-class trip instead of sitting in coach like the rest of us.

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