Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise to highlight the struggle that rail commuters in New Jersey's Seventh District face each day.

Public transportation is vital to my State, where twice as many of us depend on it than the national average.

Right now, though, the 23,000 people who rely on the main rail line that cuts through the heart of my district, the Raritan Valley Line, are the only commuters in northern New Jersey without one-seat ride access to Manhattan during peak hours. To get to New York, they must transfer to Newark, adding at least 25 minutes to their commutes.

Now, you might ask, why am I bringing this local issue to the House? Why can't New Jersey solve it by itself?

Well, I will tell you why. Because every rail passenger trying to get to work along this economic corridor that is so vital, not just to my State, but to the economy of the United States, must squeeze through a crumbling, 110-year old bottleneck of a tunnel under the Hudson River that is owned and operated by the Federal Government, and the Federal Government won't fix it.

The Raritan Valley Line Mayor's Alliance, representing over 30 mayors, has been working to get one-seat ride. We need to do our part by passing an infrastructure bill this year that will fund the Gateway tunnel.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, there are many problems in our healthcare system. We have heard about a number of them today, but we are here for one simple, specific reason, because of the guidance that the administration issued last year that allows States to expand the availability and duration of junk, short-term insurance plans.

Now, the administration and its defenders will not say this because it has become politically impossible to do so, but these plans are cheaper precisely because they deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions and for, what any reasonable person would agree are essential benefits, like maternity care and prescription drugs.

That is what they mean when they use the euphemism ``flexibility.'' Will these plans take hold? Here is what happens, in plain language, if you have a preexisting condition. You have a choice. Either stay in your ACA plan and see your premiums rise as healthy people move to cheaper, junk insurance, or you sign up for a junk plan yourself and risk getting gouged when the services you need aren't covered.

You end up with a two-tiered healthcare system in America: one for healthy people, and one for sick people. Now, the underlying bill rescinds that guidance. The amendment I have submitted would prohibit the administration from taking any other action that would reduce the affordability of comprehensive coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions.

Now, this would not in any way prevent States from using section 1332 waivers to make healthcare better and more affordable. Many States, as we have heard, have done so in ways that have lowered health insurance premiums without, in any way, undermining protections for people with preexisting conditions.

Yes, section 1332 has a clear directive that States must maintain the benefits, affordability, and coverage provided by the ACA, but it is clear that the administration has disregarded these standards and could do so again to remove protections for vulnerable groups, to promote expansion of health plans that are not compliant with the ACA, and to take other steps that would increase costs, especially for women and older adults.

This amendment, along with the overall bill, makes sure that we keep our promise to the American people. It makes clear that, when we say we are going to protect everyone with a preexisting condition, that is not an empty slogan that means whatever we want it to mean. Those words mean something, that every American deserves quality health insurance, and no American should be forced to pay more for good coverage because of a preexisting health problem.

Madam Chair, that is what H.R. 986 and my amendment guarantee. I urge my colleagues to support both, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I will close by saying there is no question whatsoever what the administration intends to do. They have been trying from day one, from January 2017, to repeal the Affordable Care Act and its essential protections for the American people.

The only thing that has changed is that it has become politically impossible for anyone in America to say that

you are opposed to protecting people with preexisting conditions, and so a war against healthcare protections is being covered up by a war against the English language.

Everyone says, ``We are for preexisting conditions,'' yet every single step the administration and its supporters take is designed to weaken those protections. This amendment and the underlying bill say that you can't do that anymore. They guarantee, going forward, that the ACA's protections are respected and that any experimentation by the States will have to be consistent with those protections.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues' support for the amendment and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Madam Speaker, our Republican colleagues are right about one thing: China is taking advantage of us. But it is not taking advantage of America being in the Paris accord. It is taking advantage of our retreat.

China is our strategic competitor. It should pain all of us that everywhere around the world, China is being treated like the leader in fighting climate change. It should pain us that China is investing more money in renewable energy than any other country. It should pain us that they are surging ahead of us in electric vehicles. It should pain us that they are racing to dominate the global market in lithium batteries, that they have two-thirds of the world's high-speed rail and have spent over $100 billion on it in 2018.

Why is China spending hundreds of billions of dollars to make the transition to clean energy? Let me tell you, it is not because the Chinese Communist Party loves trees. It is because they want to win the future.

I want America to win the future. I want us to reap the economic benefits and the jobs that will go to whoever wins the race to a clean energy future.

How do our Republican colleagues propose to win that race? I have looked at their record in the years when they controlled this House. I searched in vain for one free-market-based plan.

What did I find? Nothing, apart from a tax bill filled with giveaways to oil companies to allow more oil drilling, and legislation to allow methane emissions, to gut the Clean Air Act, and to roll back the Clean Power Plan.

That is it. That is all our Republican colleagues did.

Do they know who has left them behind? Do they know who wants us to stay in the Paris accord because they know that our economic future depends on it? I will tell you who. The Dow Chemical Company wants us to stay in Paris. Bank of America wants us to stay. DuPont wants us to stay. Procter & Gamble wants us to stay. General Electric wants us to stay. Cargill wants us to stay. Citigroup wants us to stay. Johnson & Johnson wants us to stay. Coca-Cola wants us to stay. ExxonMobil wants us to stay. The Walt Disney Company wants us to stay.

Not a lot of socialists on their boards, though I do have my doubts about Goofy from time to time.

So that is our choice. We can cling to the past, we can let China win this race, or we can stand with our American companies, our American scientists, and our American innovators and let them lead us into the future.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a hero in my district who passed away this week.

Mr. Derrick Nelson was the principal of the high school in Westfield, New Jersey. He was known to students, to parents, and to teachers for his generosity and selflessness.

Mr. Nelson dedicated his life to serving his country and community. He spent 20 years in the U.S. Army Reserves, including a deployment in the Middle East.

He began his career in New Jersey education in 2002 and joined the Westfield school system in 2010, officially becoming principal in 2017. Students and teachers said he always had a smile on his face, and his energy was infectious.

It was this kindness of spirit that led Mr. Nelson to donate his bone marrow to a 14-year-old boy in France. He did not know the boy, he just wanted to give something of himself to save a child's life.

He suffered a complication from the procedure. He never woke up.

Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Derrick Nelson, we have lost a leader in our community and a great and good man. I extend my deepest condolences to his family, and I hope they find comfort in knowing that the extraordinary legacy he leaves behind will continue to inspire and guide the people who had the privilege to know him.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1477) to require a threat assessment and strategy to counter Russian influence in Venezuela, an assessment of foreign acquisition of CITGO assets in the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1477, the Russian-Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1477.

I thank Ms. Wasserman Schultz for authoring this bipartisan bill, and I am proud to bring it to the floor. I appreciate the Congresswoman's tireless leadership on Venezuela day in and day out, particularly at such a difficult moment for that country.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz has the largest Venezuelan American constituency in the country and works nonstop on behalf of her constituents in supporting the Venezuelan people.

Russia's unwavering commitment to Nicolas Maduro should not come as a surprise to any of us. This is part of Putin's larger aspirations for global reach and influence and Putin knows the importance of having a loyal Russian ally in South America.

In recent years, Russia has increased its support for the Venezuelan security forces. Just a few months ago, Russia sent two nuclear capable bombers to Venezuela for a training exercise.

Just yesterday, two Russian military aircraft landed near Caracas reportedly carrying 100 Russian troops.

This legislation responds to the increasing security relationship between the Maduro regime and the Kremlin. Specifically, it requires the State Department to provide a threat assessment of Russian influence in Venezuela and its impact on the United States and our allies in the region and a strategy for the United States to counter this threat. It also requires the President to monitor the risk of any foreign acquisition of CITGO assets in the United States.

Finally, it puts into place visa bans on individuals working on behalf of the Russian Government in direct support of the Venezuelan security forces. In short, this legislation takes a crucial step in restricting Maduro's access to financial, political, and military support from Vladimir Putin.

Congress must pass this legislation to continue to squeeze Nicolas Maduro and his repressive regime.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, March 14, 2019.

Hon. Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

1477, Russian-Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act.

I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this

legislation. I recognize that the bill contains provisions

that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the

Judiciary. I acknowledge that the Committee will not seek a

referral of or formally consider H.R. 1477 and agree that the

inaction of your Committee with respect to the bill does not

waive any future jurisdictional claim over the matters

contained in H.R. 1477 which fall within your Committee's

Rule X jurisdiction.

I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the

bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this

legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you

as this measure moves through the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Eliot L. Engel,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I would once again like to thank Ms. Wasserman Schultz for authoring this important legislation and for her leadership on behalf of the Venezuelan people.

As we all know, Vladimir Putin is seeking to expand Russia's nefarious influence in many parts of the world, always against democracy, always in opposition to the idea that ordinary people have the right to stand up for human rights and against corruption, including in Venezuela.

This is the struggle of our time. This legislation makes it clear that we stand united with our allies in Latin America and across the world in rejecting the Kremlin's support for the corrupt Maduro regime.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to tell the story of three very special young men from my district.

Edward Roman and his twin brother, Edwin, were diagnosed with a heart condition that has put them through multiple surgeries. Both worked at the Village Trattoria restaurant in Summit, New Jersey, where they met Quinn Butler, a senior at Summit High.

When Quinn learned of what they were going through, he set up a GoFundMe site that raised $119,000 in 2 weeks.

It is a story of good people coming together to say they will not let a neighbor down, but it is also a story of how our healthcare system lets us all down.

A community should not have to raise $100,000 to keep someone from going into debt due to a medical condition. Two young men worried about staying alive should not have to worry about negotiating with hospitals and insurance companies to stay solvent.

Every American deserves the security of knowing that affordable healthcare is a right that will follow us wherever we go, wherever we live and work, whatever misfortune may befall us.

Madam Speaker, our friends and neighbors will always do what they can. Now it is up to the Congress to do what we must.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I thank my friends on the other side for leading on this important resolution.

When Boris Nemtsov was gunned down 4 years ago on a bridge just a few hundred feet from the Kremlin, we saw once again what a dangerous place Putin's Russia is for anybody with the courage to speak truth to power.

We saw again that while Russia has fierce and formidable security agencies that will track down anyone who dares criticize the Kremlin anywhere in the world, when one of those critics is killed, somehow they can never find the killer.

We know that whoever gave the order to kill Boris Nemtsov, one man, Vladimir Putin, is responsible for building a state where those who champion freedom are always punished and those who kill them never are.

This resolution says that we will always remember Boris Nemtsov and the truth about what happened to him and who is responsible.

It urges the Russian Government to hold accountable the authors of the crime and says that, until that happens, we will sanction them under the Magnitsky Act.

It singles out Ramzan Kadyrov, the brutal ruler of Chechnya, and urges the administration to ensure that he can no longer do business anywhere outside Russia.

By passing this resolution, we will make clear that you can kill a man but not the ideas that he fought for; that a good person who lived and died for a good cause will be honored for all time, while the people who killed him will go down in history, if they are remembered at all, as utterly worthless.

And we will be saying something else very important: that the United States is not in conflict with Russia or with the Russian people. On the contrary, we are in solidarity with the vast majority of Russians, who, like Boris Nemtsov, want a country that is free of corruption, a country where nobody is above the law.

Our argument is only with the leaders who deny them that, but those leaders won't be around forever. Boris Nemtsov's legacy will outlast them, and so will our desire to partner with the Russia that shares his values and vision.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1.

When I was running for Congress, I heard again and again that Americans are losing faith in their government, asking why the votes they cast don't lead to the outcomes they want.

At a time when we are so divided, I can think of nothing more unifying than a bill that addresses the source of their discontent.

To those who have raised concerns about H.R. 1 here, let me say that, in my district, I have not met a single person, Republican or Democrat, who thinks it is a good idea to let nondonors spend millions of untraceable dollars on political attack ads or to have a campaign finance system so opaque that Russian oligarchs can easily channel money into it.

I haven't met a single person, Republican or Democrat, who thinks it is

just fine for Members of Congress to serve on corporate boards or for Presidents to hide their tax returns, or anyone who is pleased with partisan gerrymandering or who is happy that we have done nothing to secure our elections from foreign hacking since 2016.

These are not partisan issues among the American people. On the contrary, when I vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1, I will be doing what the vast majority of my constituents are demanding: to make our democracy work better for everyone, regardless of our party or our point of view.

I can't wait to cast that vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise to urge that we come together today to defend the Constitution of the United States by repudiating President Trump's emergency declaration of February 15.

Few provisions of the Constitution are more plain than Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''

The President has immense powers, but he cannot spend money unless we, the people's Representatives in Congress, have agreed that he can.

Now, there might be extraordinary circumstances when a President could violate that principle, when all of us would agree that he must act but there is no time to ask Congress for funds: a military invasion or a massive natural disaster, for example. The National Emergencies Act provides for that.

But if the situation on the southern border were that kind of emergency, then the President hasn't been acting like it. For 2 years, when his party controlled the House and Senate, he never asked us for money to build a wall, and if we truly faced that kind of imminent threat, a wall would not even be an emergency measure given how long it would take to build.

The critical point is this: When the President finally got around to asking us for money, we deliberated on his request, and we said no. You may believe we were right or you may believe we were wrong, but that is what the elected Representatives of the American people decided.

So the question before us today is not how do we secure the border; it is whether this President or any President can use emergency powers to defy the Congress when he disagrees with a

decision that we have made. Are we going to stand by and watch this President seize funds from the military to forcibly take land from law- abiding American citizens to build something that Congress has said should not be built?

We know this would be wrong. The National Emergencies Act is for genuine emergencies. It is not a get-out-of-the-Constitution-free card for Presidents who want something that Congress won't give them.

Now, I have heard some people say that President Obama did the same thing. I am sorry, he did not. Both President Obama and President Bush were sometimes accused of exceeding their constitutional authority; the courts sometimes overruled them. But neither Obama nor Bush nor Nixon nor Reagan nor Roosevelt nor Lincoln nor any President since the founding of our Republic has ever decreed an emergency to spend money that the Congress explicitly denied them.

If you want to find a precedent for what President Trump has done, I can give you one. When I was a diplomat representing our country and standing up for our values around the world, I had this exact same debate with authoritarian governments in Ethiopia, in Bahrain, and in Egypt, telling them: Do not use emergency powers to get around your constitutions. I never thought I would have that kind of argument with a President of the United States.

Many of my Republican colleagues have been saying that America must not go the way of Venezuela, and they are right. When President Trump said in his State of the Union that we must never become a socialist country, I joined them in getting to my feet and applauding.

But how do you think Venezuela got to be a socialist country? I will tell you. President Maduro declared a state of economic emergency to give himself the power to defy his elected national assembly and spend money however he pleased.

That is not America. We must never become that. We believe in rule of law, not rule by decree.

We disagree passionately within the boundaries the Constitution draws, but we agree zealously to defend those boundaries when any one of our party or any party tries to cross those boundaries. That is how we have survived as a constitutional democracy. It is the only way we can survive.

We are divided enough right now, so, please, let's not allow another tear in the constitutional fabric that holds us together. Let's unite as patriots on this one question so that we can safely disagree as partisans on everything else.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to welcome the Mayors Council on Rahway River Watershed Flood Control to Washington. They represent towns in and around New Jersey's Seventh District and are here to ask our help to stop the flooding that hurts thousands of people in our communities.

For years, homeowners near the Rahway River have lived under the constant threat of flooding that devastates businesses and homes whenever there are heavy rains. The last major flood was in 2011, when Hurricane Irene ravaged the East Coast. The town of Cranford was the worst hit, with 1,600 homes sustaining damage worth $40 million.

Our mayors have presented a proposed solution to the Army Corps of Engineers and are now asking for a feasibility study to be completed. This will get us one step closer to authorizing construction on the Rahway River Basin.

Mr. Speaker, this is a solvable problem. We need to start now. I will do everything I can to support our mayors' call to action and expedite this process so that we do not have to be pulling people out of second- floor windows in suburban New Jersey, so people up and down the Rahway River can feel safe in their homes.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of John Lee, a resident of New Jersey's Seventh Congressional District who passed away on January 25 after waging a courageous battle with cancer.

Mr. Lee immigrated to America in 1987 and worked day and night to build a better life for himself and his family. In 2000, he became a citizen, and like many immigrants, he understood the meaning of civic duty and the importance of a single person's vote better than many of us whose families have been here for generations.

So when he was faced with a cancer diagnosis, his first thought was not to sink into despair. He simply asked: ``What's next?''

As his diagnosis progressed, Mr. Lee began to understand the pressing need for legislation to protect people with preexisting conditions, and the question of, ``What's next?'' was answered.

He spent his remaining time fighting to help make our healthcare system more just and to make America, as he put it, a Nation of us, not of me.

Today, I am truly honored to be joined at the State of the Union by his siblings. Mr. Speaker, John Lee has already helped to shape our understanding of what must be done to make healthcare a human right for all Americans. May his legacy be that we have finally done it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Transportation Funding Fairness Act and to express my hope that, after we have come to our senses and reopened the government, this year Congress will come together to fund the bridges, tunnels, railroads, airports, and roads that we all understand America needs to prosper and grow.

In the first decade of the 20th century, commuters in New Jersey towns like Summit, Union, and Westfield could hop on a steam-powered train, ride right up to a terminal on the dock in Jersey City, change seamlessly to a ferry, and be in Manhattan within 50 minutes to an hour, if there wasn't too much fog or ice on the Hudson River.

A hundred years of magical, technological progress later, and we have managed to shave that trip by maybe a few minutes, if the trains are running on time that day.

Decades of underinvestment in public infrastructure have taken its toll on American greatness. Anyone who has traveled the world and has seen the modern airports and seaports and fast rail networks that our competitors are building would understand that.

Just in the last 2 months, as we have not even been able to open our government, the Chinese Government has been busy approving over $125 billion in new rail projects--$125 billion.

No State suffers more from our lack of attention to infrastructure than New Jersey, where twice as many people use public transportation than the national average. To get to and from New York, 200,000 of us a day still depend on just two rail tracks across the Portal Bridge and through a Hudson River tunnel that our great-grandparents built in 1910 because they thought those 50-minute, turn-of-the-century commute times were unacceptably long.

When the Portal Bridge opens to let boats pass today, a worker with a hammer must sometimes lock it back into place while stranded commuters wait, and that Hudson River tunnel has just a few years of life left. If we fail to replace it in time, we will be dealing a crippling blow to the economy of our region and our country.

That is why it is so urgent and important that we get the Gateway Tunnel project built.

Madam Speaker, in New Jersey, when we say we want to build bridges, not walls, that is not just a metaphor. We mean it literally. The $5.7 billion that would be wasted to wall off America from Mexico happens to be almost exactly the Federal share of building a new Hudson River tunnel that would keep Americans connected to each other and, ultimately, to the world.

These are the real choices that we face. Is there any doubt what the voters who sent us here would have us choose: building something that millions of people living in my State and neighboring States say they desperately need, or something people living on the border say they do not need? A symbol of national progress, or a symbol of national fear? Is there any question at all?

That is one reason why I am introducing this bipartisan bill today, which is meant to clear one of the artificial obstacles the Department of Transportation has placed in the path of the Gateway Tunnel.

The Department has argued that when States take advantage of Federal transportation loans to pay some of their share of projects jointly funded by the Federal Government, like Gateway, those loans don't count as part of the State contribution to the project.

It makes no sense. State taxpayers, after all, are 100 percent obligated to pay back those loans. It is like saying that I am not actually paying for my house because I have taken out a mortgage.

Our bill makes crystal clear that States can use Federal loans to cover all or part of their share of these projects.

Speaking of taxpayers, Madam Speaker, I represent a State where we get only 74 cents back from Washington for every dollar we pay in taxes. That is the worst ratio in the country. The average American gets $1.12 back for every dollar he or she pays, courtesy of the Federal deficit.

What we ask, with strong justification, is that Washington give a bit more back in the form of investment in the infrastructure that powers States like New Jersey and, in turn, enables us to power the American economy.

I hope we will make progress on that this year and that this bill will make the task a little bit easier

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a freshman who came here to get things done on the 26th day of the longest government shutdown in American history.

For 26 days, we have had to explain to 800,000 dedicated, patriotic Americans why we will not pay them for their service to our country, even as they must keep paying for their rent, their medicine and their kids' educations.

For 26 days, we have had to explain why small business owners can't get loans; why food safety inspections are suspended; why lines are growing and terminals are being shut down at our airports; why we are willing to jeopardize the safety of air travelers; why we can't protect our National Parks from desecration; and why, if securing our country is so important, we aren't paying the Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Protection officers whose job it is to secure it.

In the last few days, I have been hearing from college students in my district who have until February 1 to apply for financial aid, but they can't access their tax transcripts from the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why are we doing this to ourselves? The President says it is because of border security. But if we are honest, we know that that is not what this is about. If getting $5.7 billion for a border wall is important enough to inflict this much suffering on Americans, why didn't the President pick this fight in the 2 years when his party controlled both Houses of the Congress?

Why is he doing this now? I think we know the answer. I fear that for the President the chaos is sometimes not a means to an end, but an end in itself. He doesn't want a wall, he wants a fight over the wall; not a compromise to open the government, but a conflict that dismantles the government. And that raises the stakes for all of us.

For this is not about how we secure the border, as important as that is to all of us. It is about how we govern our country. We have a chance now to say, once and for all, Presidents are entitled to try to persuade us to support their priorities, but if they fail to persuade us, they are not entitled to shut the government down to get their way.

None of us, not Democrats or Republicans, are entitled to hold hostage the basic functions of our government to force our will on others. And if we give into this tactic now, it will be used again, and again, and again. We will have chaos in our government for as far as the eye can see.

So how do we solve this problem? We will not solve it by abdicating our responsibility in the Congress and waiting for the President to agree on something. If we wait for that, we will be waiting forever.

We will not solve it by encouraging him to use emergency powers or to use our military to defy the Congress. That would tear another hole in our constitutional fabric.

We will solve it when the House and the Senate Democrats and Republicans come together to say: This is not how we do business in a democracy.

Mr. Speaker, instead of enabling this abdication of responsibility by the White House, let us rise to our responsibility in the Congress. Let us work together to reopen the government by passing the same bills we were all willing to vote for across party lines last year, and then let's sit down together as adults to talk about immigration and the border as part of the debate about funding the Department of Homeland Security when both sides can put their ideas on the table and find common ground.

If we do that, we will not only address border security, we will break this pernicious practice of taking the American people hostage when we don't get our way.

We can make this the shutdown to end all shutdowns.