Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the harsh indifference of these Republicans to the well-being of so many Americans is startling. Trump may temporarily bury the lies central to this plan with a tweet storm--with fake news. But these Republicans who follow him will not be able to find an excuse as one family after another suffers. Today's surprise attack on American health care has been widely condemned by healthcare professionals across the country and those who represent the disabled and sick, like the American Cancer Society and the March of Dimes. Jimmy Kimmel, know that your baby was fortunate, but others born with a disability will face the barrier of preexisting conditions. They didn't listen to the AARP, which knows that those Americans too young for Medicare by a few years will get socked with unaffordable premiums. They don't know what this monstrosity of a bill costs to the taxpayer. They don't know how many families will lose coverage or how many jobs will be lost. They don't really know what is in this bill. They know only that the Pied Piper of Trump Tower is playing a tune today and they must dance. There is much talk about high-risk pools. The real high-risk pool is the one that everyone who votes for this outrageous proposal is about to plunge into.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I commend the leaders of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their leadership on this important matter. We need stronger international action like this to send a message to the North Korean regime. Our sanctions approach should be at least as strong against North Korea as it has been against Iran; and to be effective, sanctions must include all countries. Chinese trade during the last year with North Korea has actually increased. It is clear that it is shirking its responsibility. If it were to limit energy and access to hard currency reserves to North Korea, the regime would likely collapse. Intensified sanctions of the type contemplated by this measure are particularly important because, despite all of the recent saber rattling from Donald Trump, we have no acceptable military solution. Any military attack on North Korea would result in the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the 25 million Koreans in the greater Seoul area and the over 100,000 Americans that are in that region. Only this week, General McMaster, President Trump's national security adviser, conceded that a preventive military strike would result in a human catastrophe. We cannot eliminate the risk of North Korea, but we can better manage it, and this measure is a step in the right direction. The arsenal of our democracy is more than just our military might. Let's apply every bit of international pressure possible and hope that the great self-described dealmaker Donald J. Trump can begin direct negotiations to secure an agreement with North Korea that achieves at least as much as President Obama did with Iran.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is undoubtedly the greatest 100 days of any President in human history. Give President Trump a grade of A- plus for the greatest broken campaign promises in history; the greatest meaningless executive orders, offering showy ceremonies when a mere phone call would have done the job; certainly, the very greatest number of insulting tweets--no President in history has ever come close; the greatest conflicts of interest; the greatest embrace of authoritarian leaders; the greatest gap between reality and fantasy, unquestionably. He talks as a populist and he governs as a plutocrat. The greatest thing about Trump's 100 days is that America still exists without a major war or an economic free fall. Every day we survive without a Trump-inspired catastrophe is a great day for our country. Sustain the resistance and remain hopeful for a Trump-free America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Joe Wilson be removed as the cosponsor of H.R. 2015. He was incorrectly listed when it should have been Representative Frederica Wilson.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, TrumpCare is big on Trump, but it is weak on care. After falsely promising that there would be coverage for everyone for less and better, TrumpCare only cares about huge tax breaks for the superrich and special interests, like the totally unjustified $28 billion windfall for the pharmaceutical industry that they grab right out of the Medicare trust fund so that premiums will go up. Those earning $1 million within a single year get 79 percent of a $230 billion tax break, but there is no genuine relief for middle class taxpayers. Removing the essential health benefits provisions will only enable insurers to exclude the very healthcare protections that folks thought they were getting when they paid their premiums. Insurance plans will not just be skinny, they will be a sham; a provision that at the very time you need the care, it won't be there. Many certificates of insurance will become as worthless almost as a diploma from Trump University. This Republican bill targets our veterans by denying them tax credits. For millions of people who are just a few years too young to qualify for Medicare, their premiums will go through the roof. It will cost thousands of dollars more in order to get insurance. Yes, the Republicans have been divided and factionalized. They are divided between those who want nothing care and those who want little care. But, mostly, they don't seem to care how many millions of people lose their health insurance. Mr. President, this is not the art of the deal. It is the art of the steal, of taking away insurance coverage from families that really need it to provide tax breaks for those at the very top. Those who understand health care, the professionals, say reject this bill, and it should be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we are considering a bill so bad it was kept under lock and key, hidden from Democrats and those Republicans who would not pledge allegiance to it; a bill that was so destructive that no witness would come to defend or explain it in all-night committee sessions; a bill jammed through this House, logically, you would expect this special rule to jam it through today. What is at stake here is not only the crumbling and destruction of health care, but it is the crumbling of our democracy. Our Republican colleagues need to remember that this is Washington, not Moscow. This is Congress, not the Duma. We deserve a fair consideration of this bill open to discussion because of its impact on millions of Americans who will lose their access to a family physician. These heavyhanded tactics reflect the fear of the American public getting an opportunity to look thoroughly at this bill and understand what it does to each family affected. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Thursday these Republicans are awarding a new grand prize, a big-dollar award. Unfortunately, the contest has been rigged so that your name is not in the winner's circle. Instead, the world leaders in prescription price gouging, highest drug prices to Americans than just about anywhere, are declared the winners of the grand prize in the Trump Republican sweepstakes that they call repealing ObamaCare. With Big Pharma's exceptional, distinguished service in charging astronomical prices and blocking competition to their government- approved monopolies, these Republicans have included a no-strings- attached $25 billion tax windfall for Big Pharma in their so-called ObamaCare repeal. Now, with their latest late-night amendment, the prize is already growing bigger and bigger by the moment. And all of those American families that are out there struggling, trying to access lifesaving drugs, they don't win a dime in this contest. Mr. Speaker, let's reject this phony Republican giveaway where only Big Pharma is the big winner.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, but these folks, instead of reaching out to do something about gun violence in America, propose to make them more accessible to individuals that are so impaired they cannot take care of themselves in many ways and cannot even accept a check and are saying: Give them a gun. There are already safeguards in this Rule. Someone can appeal being listed and say: You know, I can't accept a check, but I do have the ability to own a gun. And they can do that through the Social Security Administration, as soon as they see their name on the list. Or if they are denied a purchase at a later time and they are someone who doesn't belong on this list, there is a way for them to get off the list. In short, there is due process to ensure they are not unfairly denied gun access. But the American people and the families that are being hurt day after day by gun violence, they deserve some due process, too. Let's uphold this Rule and reject this giant step backward that will only produce more gun violence and more families torn asunder.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, at a time here in America when mass shootings have become all too frequent, at a time when bullets literally rip apart human bodies and human families and cause so much pain, at a time when effective groups like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense and Texas Gun Sense and the P.E.A.C.E. Initiative are asking this Congress to act to reduce gun violence, this Congress has committed itself to doing absolutely nothing about that violence. If you are on the terrorist watch list and you cannot fly, not to worry about buying a gun. It's ``No fly,'' but you can still buy. Today we are told the problem isn't that there are too many guns out there causing too much harm to American families. There are not enough. A group is being left out, omitted from access to guns. There are a group of Americans, who either from birth or by contracting some mental disability later in life, have a mental impairment that is so significant that we ask taxpayers across America to provide them support through the Social Security disability system. They are declared to be disabled. And within that group that is taxpayer funded, there is a much smaller group whose disability is so severe that they can't handle their own affairs. They can't receive a check. But these folks say don't worry that you can't place a check in their hand and you have to give it to someone else, it is okay to put a gun in their hands. That is what this proposal does. Now, we have, as they have failed to point out, a system in place at the Veterans' Administration so that if someone is a veteran and they are disabled, there is a process by which they are included within this system.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, for what may or may not be their good intentions, this resolution and its authors undermined the security of families here and in Israel. This ``go it alone'' approach with the current Israeli Government--defying a unanimous vote of 14 countries and ignoring the concerns of many of our allies--is not a path to peace. We will not protect ourselves or our allies in Israel if we pursue the path of isolation. For decades, we have enjoyed a bipartisan commitment to two states living in peace and security next door to one another. It has been a difficult goal to achieve, but now is not the time to give up on it. There are, sadly, some in Israel and some among the Palestinians who wholly reject this commitment. They believe it is all theirs. They believe in a divine entitlement to every piece of land west of the Jordan River. Their idea of a reasonable negotiation is that the other side gets next to nothing. Few people who have worked on this difficult issue and have tried to overcome such zealotry and achieve a just resolution have done as much as Secretary of State John Kerry. Despite the insults and the intransigence, he has made near Herculean efforts to achieve peace. To be honest, the roadblocks that have been thrown in his path have not come just from one side. In no way do we condone the many, many wrongs of the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority by saying that some of those roadblocks were initiated by the current Israeli Government. Then, to talk of one sided, what irony. Indeed, I think it is hypocrisy to talk about a one-sided resolution when this is a one-sided resolution. If there had been the slightest interest in bringing this body together--with all of us supporting Israel, with all of us supporting access to the Western Wall, with all of us supporting the security of our friend that was reflected in $38 billion, which is the most money in military assistance we have ever provided to a single ally by this administration--instead of attacking the goodwill and the good faith of this administration, we wouldn't be here today. There is no urgency for us to act today. There is an urgency--just as the new designee for the Ambassador to Israel has slandered some other people-- for them to besmirch the efforts of this administration. The truth is that ever-expanding Israeli settlements--many of them first constructed in total violation of Israeli law--are a significant obstacle, but they are certainly not the only one. The clearer goal of settlers is to have facts on the ground, to be irreversible in moving to split up any potential Palestinian Authority. Protect our families and those of Israel by rejecting this resolution.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this House contains many friends of Israel, Republican and Democratic. Indeed, as long as I've been here, I have never found an enemy of Israel in this House. Certainly that friendship was very apparent when only a few weeks ago President Obama approved giving Israel $38 billion of American tax money in military assistance. But like the Knesset in Jerusalem, we sometimes do disagree about what the best way is to ensure peace and security, and lively debate is important to that. Unfortunately, this rule is about stifling Knesset-style debate. It restricts and denies any amendment and any alternative. This strict limitation on debate and this surprise presentation of today's measure with no public hearing and little warning show how fearful our Republican colleagues are of a legitimate discussion of this troubling issue. This is a horrible way to make critical foreign policy. It is only a step above doing it by tweets, which seems to be the approach of the day. Today's resolution, which purports to support Israeli security, actually undermines that security. It favors going it alone with the current Israeli Government in defiance of our other allies and the 14 countries that unanimously voted for this Security Council measure. Isolation--more and more isolation--is not the way to protect Israel. Those who demonstrate their friendship with Israel by following Mr. Netanyahu on one right turn after another are boxing in America and Israel. He is moving us further and further to the extremes so that we eventually go off a cliff into chaos. As Tom Friedman noted in urging a negotiated two-state settlement: ``A West Bank on fire would become a recruitment tool for ISIS and Iran.'' Vote for peace. Reject this resolution.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, while certainly saluting the many Members who have worked so diligently on this measure, I cannot vote for it. In a wide and endless desert of support for research funding, even getting a few drops of rain is understandably welcomed by the thirsty. Under Republican rule, we have seen a dreadful drought in research funding. This is a bill that attempts to address that shortfall. I voted for the bill when it was on the floor of the House at a previous time. At that point, it promised the hope, after this long drought of almost $10 billion in assured, certain funding, for research so that we might find cures for some of these diseases before we get them ourselves--the concern of so many people. Now, under this new measure, we have only about a fourth of the funding previously approved in the House, and it is no longer certain money; it is maybe money for the future. So there may be bipartisan agreement, but there is not a bipartisan advancement. At the same time that research dollars are dramatically cut--the very research dollars that were the reason for having this bill in the first place--Big Pharma got some of its wish list approved. And how very appropriate that this measure and so many other moving parts have been packed into what it calls the Tsunami Warning bill. If there is one thing we can be sure of this past year, it is that those people who rely on lifesaving drugs and who want to be able to have a prescription that the doctor prescribes have been hit by a real tsunami. They have been buried in one wave after another wave after another giant wave of pharmaceutical price gouging. Whether it is the EpiPen for a child who is might have an allergic reaction, whether it is insulin for someone who is diabetic and relies on that insulin, whether it is an oncology drug that costs over $100,000, it is wave after wave of a tsunami of price gouging. And what has this Congress done about that? Absolutely nothing. I must say, the administration has done very little more. They have looked at it. There have been a few speeches about it, but there has not been effective action. So what we get in this bill are a few things that Big Pharma wants that have been on its wish list for a long time, and consumers, they get nothing to look forward to other than more of those big waves of huge price increases. I am also concerned that the policy arm that publishes Consumer Reports magazine has expressed deep concerns about additional patient risk as a result of some of the provisions that the pharmaceutical companies and the medical device manufacturers have insisted as the price for getting a little additional research funding. So I am voting ``no,'' not because this provides some research dollars. It ought to be providing the level of certain research funding we approved already, but because it fails to address this critical health need.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will this Congress ground Boeing or support this key manufacturer and the jobs that it creates, that have already helped make America great? Will we march to the tune of the pied pipers against peace who see war with Iran as the only way to restrain it from developing nuclear weapons? Part of what makes trade so important to us is that countries that trade together are less likely to go to war with one another. The House today is being asked to vote to block the sale of about 80 Boeing aircraft to update an aging and unsafe commercial airline in Iran. If this bill passes, that is bad news for a major American business, and it is also bad news to thousands of skilled workers across this country who won't see any part of what could be a $25 billion deal. It is great news for Boeing's major European competitor to get the work that these supporters would deny to Boeing. This is, of course, just the latest of one effort after another to undermine the only way forward, short of war, to limit Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. This realization is why this very week so many national security experts have urged Mr. Trump to reconsider, to reverse his threat to break the promises that our country made in an international agreement. This week also, the European Union affirmed its support for that international agreement. The six other countries that joined us in that international agreement are honoring their promises, and we should do the same thing. What will keep Boeing from flying high? It is the war hawks that fly high, so insistent on undermining this important pact that has made our family safer. If the hawks win, it is about more than losing a multibillion-dollar deal to one American manufacturer. It really means that nothing--nothing--but the threat of another American war, an American attack, will hold Iran back from developing nuclear weapons. This is about more than destabilizing the American workforce. Undermining this agreement will destabilize the Middle East. It will jeopardize our families and the families of our allies. Once again, this measure should be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, look around the world. In Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East, and in Africa, wherever you see evidence of radical Islam, that extremism can usually be traced to preachers of hate from Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom has blood on its hands. Is it the blood of the victims of 9/11? Possibly. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis. Some Saudis were permitted to flee this country without thorough interviews. ``Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of funding for al Qaeda.'' [The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 171] Intelligence Committee Chair Senator Bob Graham saw ``a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks and the Government of Saudi Arabia.'' [Saudi Arabia May Be Tied to 9/11, 2 Ex-Senators Say; New York Times; Feb. 29. 2012] But evaluating all of this evidence, the evidence of both sides, is why we have a judicial system in the first place. And for our government to obstruct the 9/11 victims--their families--from seeking the truth about Saudi Arabia and its involvement is just flat wrong. Some in our government have tried to hide as much as they could for as long as they could about the Saudis. Ignoring Saudi treachery, we had a President who literally held hands with the Crown Prince while attacking another country in the biggest foreign policy disaster in our Nation's history that continues to plague us. The Muslims that I know, who are my neighbors in Texas, and those with whom I meet here in Washington, do not deserve blanket blame for themselves or for Islam, but neither should there be blanket immunity for those who may have committed wrong. I salute the bipartisan sponsors of this legislation. Give these 9/11 families their day in court and accord the Saudis all of the rights in a judicial proceeding that they so regularly deny their own citizens.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, one year ago, America chose to preclude an Iranian nuclear weapons program through diplomacy rather than war. What has happened in the 12 months since that momentous decision was made? The Iranians have given up 98 percent of their nuclear material. They have dismantled thousands of centrifuges, and they filled the core of a major plutonium reactor with concrete. Even the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF, said: ``The deal has actually removed the most serious danger to Israel's existence for the foreseeable future and greatly reduced the threat over the longer term.'' The promoters of these three bills are in a state of denial. They took every opportunity along the torturous path of negotiations to try to block, obstruct, and interfere with those negotiations and leave us with only the choice of war and military action to stop the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon. So today, having denied diplomacy for so long, they are still compelled to deny that diplomacy has worked in the last year. What we should be doing today is building on our success, not seeking to subvert it. Success so far doesn't mean that the Iranians may not backtrack. We know this is an authoritarian government that commits many wrongs today. It is certainly not our friend. That is why careful scrutiny and intensive inspections must continue. I believe that patient, deliberate diplomacy remains the only course--the best path-- to protect our families. Now, one of the Republican Members this morning attacked the agreement and said that it has got us ``walking on eggshells.'' I have to tell you that even if that is true--and I deny that it is--walking on eggshells is much, much better for American families than the death and destruction of unleashing actual military shells. That is the alternative. I believe that continuous, intrusive monitoring is the key to keeping our families safe and avoiding war. We have a lot of people agreeing with that. Nobel laureates, generals, diplomats, and former legislators are advising that, through this agreement, all pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon have been blocked--so they said in their letter this week. I remain hopeful. I am hopeful and optimistic that eventually we will overcome the extremists in Iran, hopeful that peace will prevail, and hopeful about this Congress, if nothing else, will not undo this agreement. Because they have shown such an inability to do any other work as they today shut down the Congress for the next 53 days, leaving so many challenges unanswered. Let's conclude today by rejecting this attempt to deny the most effective way to protect the security of our families and that of our allies by letting diplomacy continue to advance.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today Republicans are shutting down this Congress for the next 53 days. That is true. Most Americans probably won't notice the difference since the Congress has accomplished so little this year. Last week, Republicans told us this House needed to act on their Homeland Safety and Security Act; but this week, they have abandoned that act because they were so fearful that it would lead to a discussion of gun violence. It is much like what happened last year when they had a much- ballyhooed border security bill that would do as much for the border, I guess, as Donald Trump. But at the thought that it might lead to a debate about real immigration reform, they shelved it, abandoned it, and have long forgotten it. When they leave prematurely today, they will have done nothing to accomplish a bipartisan response to the spreading Zika virus, which yesterday led to the birth of the first child with Zika-related birth defects in Texas. Experts say many more are to come. They will have done nothing about the lead contamination of families in Flint, nothing about justice reform, nothing about the budget. There is an unwillingness to cope with the problems American families face. They have so many needs. There are so many challenges our country faces that we need to work on, but this Congress is totally incapable of doing that work.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, one year ago, our country made the correct decision. We all agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapons program, but we decided the better way to achieve that was through diplomacy rather than war. Today, we deal with yet another challenge to that agreement. The material involved is heavy water. For those who thought that war and military action was the only way to prevent nuclear weapons development in Iran, heavy water is the issue today, but it is just another way to sink a successful agreement. When you look at the facts, how can it possibly be in our national interest to take away our own authority to take away from Iran a material that could be used in the development of nuclear weapons? I don't think this is just about heavy water. When you consider the facts and all that is represented here, it is a heavy lift, or a heavy stretch, to believe that limiting ourselves somehow will protect our families. There are a number of nonmilitary uses for heavy water. The water we are getting from Iran can be used by U.S. industry and research labs. Heavy water is a critical material for biomedical and diagnostic research, such as MRIs and pharmaceutical development, as well as a variety of chemical and environmental analysis. By purchasing this material, we make our families and allies safer and boost American research and development. Exposed to light, objections to our procuring this heavy water really do evaporate. In World War II, many lives were lost to keep heavy water developed by a Norwegian utility from being used by Nazi Germany for development of a nuclear weapon. Here, we are using dollars instead of the lives of young Americans and others to ensure there is no nuclear weapons development within Iran and that there is less of this dual-use material in Iran, and more of it in America. I realize the strong desire here on the eve of the Republican National Convention to undermine any success this Administration has. But I believe this is a bipartisan success. That is one of the reasons that a large number of experts on security policy--and former Members of this body in the United States Senate, both Republicans and Democrats--have joined together in bipartisan support of an agreement that is working and that is making our families safer. Don't vote to undermine the efforts of this international agreement. Don't drown diplomacy by adopting this heavy water bill.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Those Texas-size mosquitos that are beginning to spread around my part of the country, they can't tell a Republican from a Democrat. Young women desirous of having a family, people of all ages and genders, are threatened by Zika. It is just a matter of time before the Continental United States faces some of the problems that Puerto Rico already faces, and what we need is to come together and have a bipartisan solution, not something offered in the middle of the night on which all debate is denied, a totally partisan approach. So just as I am pleased that we have strong bipartisan support for the Iran Nuclear Agreement, coming together with this major letter that was sent to us yesterday, that is the kind of bipartisan approach I hope we can work to eventually, perhaps when we come back after this long Republican recess, one of the longest in the history of the Congress, to address Zika, and address these other problems that they refuse to deal with today. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DOGGETT. One country, more than any other, benefited from their wrong-headed decision, and was empowered. That country was Iran. Today, diplomacy, the opposite of war, is hard to start and easy to end. Let us continue on that path. The path ahead remains difficult. Iran will be challenging. We must watch it like a hawk and monitor it, but we need not yield to the hawks who reject peace.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I think the previous question is extremely important because Republicans, just as they fled in the middle of the night from discussing gun violence before the July 4 break, have now decided not to consider a gun bill at all, even an NRA-backed proposal they have rejected. But I want to ask the gentleman specifically about the comments that were just made about the Zika virus and the possibility of an epidemic, because it is so important. Am I correct that that proposal that he says they passed is the first one in the history of my time here, and perhaps in the history of this body, where they prohibited even one minute of debate of the way that they were funding Zika by taking the funds away from Ebola and threatening our public health system? It is not a question of Democrats having blocked something. It has been their refusal to deal with and recognize the public health challenge, denying $4 of $5 asked for by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to deal with Zika, even threatening the possibility of developing a vaccine. Is that correct, this has been the history of their failure to come to terms with a major public health crisis and listen to the scientists and the physicians and the public health experts and, instead, pursuing this ideological crusade to take away money from public health?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, one year ago, America made a momentous decision concerning the best way to deal with Iran, a dangerous, authoritarian regime with a history of promoting terrorism. We made a choice between war and peace. We learned something from the colossal failure of the Bush-Cheney go-it-alone, war-of-choice in Iraq. We wisely chose the path of diplomacy. Now, one year after these very difficult negotiations with Iran, we should recognize that success has been achieved. And even though we have not limited every danger from Iran, we have limited the most significant danger, the development of a nuclear weapon. Whereas before, Iran could have developed a nuclear weapon within a few months, it now would take a year or more, if Iran made that horrible decision to produce a nuclear weapon. Before the agreement, Iran's nuclear program was cloaked in secrecy. Now we have inspectors and the opportunity for rigorous examination of their sites on a regular basis. Tomorrow, if Iran were to decide to produce a nuclear weapon, not only would it take four to six times longer than before, we would quickly be aware of it and would be able to take appropriate action. Iran has shipped over 8.5 tons of enriched uranium to Russia. It has disabled more than 12,000 centrifuges and poured concrete into the core of a reactor at Arak designed to produce plutonium. Now, it is the United States that is acquiring some of Iran's heavy water that might have gone to nuclear production. Each of these steps carries us further on a long and important road toward eliminating Iran's short-term uranium and plutonium pathways to a nuclear weapon. That is progress, by every measure. America and our key allies are safer today than we were a year ago, and before that-- safer than if we had followed their path of confrontation and war. Continuous, intrusive monitoring is the key to keeping our families safe and avoiding war. An impressive bipartisan group of some 75 high-profile signatories-- Nobel laureates, generals, diplomats, and legislators--have approved this accord, advising the President and Congress yesterday that this agreement is ``providing greater security to our friends and partners in the region and to the world,'' noting that ``all pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon have been blocked.'' After doing everything they possibly could think of to subvert and undermine the negotiations while they were underway with Iran--even an outrageous letter from a Republican group of Senators telling the Iranians to believe them and not the President of the United States-- the Republicans today continue to interfere with and refuse to accept peace as the better course to safeguard our families. Through today's debate, they launched yet one more partisan attack on this agreement. In all, they have authored more than 20 pieces of legislation attempting to undermine this agreement. While the administration properly focuses our energy on enhanced verification, Republicans focus theirs instead on how to destroy the agreement. It is much like the debate we had over the Affordable Care Act. All they are concerned with is one vote of repeal after another, and they offer no viable alternatives. That is the case here. Instead of focusing on how to make us safer, their goal is to undermine the President of the United States and destroy this agreement. As usual, my colleagues are choosing inaction over a Plan of Action. They know the President has issued a veto threat. In the unlikely event that this regressive legislation were to be approved in Congress, it would never become law. Today they are adopting a procedural rule so that this House will waste a full day discussing how to destroy the Iran nuclear agreement. It will not address gun violence. It will not address the failure to fund research for a vaccine to prepare and prevent the Zika virus from spreading. It will not do anything about voting rights or a host of other issues this Congress should be considering. Instead, it is raising three bills going the wrong direction. Some of those that reject diplomacy today are the same people that were backing the go-it-alone invasion of Iraq, a debacle second to none in the history of America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, when this House last convened, a number of us were willing to sit in, in order to stand up--to stand up to the gun lobby, to stand up against gun violence. During our protest, House Republicans fled Washington, rather than face accountability on gun safety, leaving behind significant unfinished business. During the past week, many of us across the country have joined neighbors in a national day of action against gun violence. I joined over 100 people in San Antonio, gathering with Patricia Castillo with the P.E.A.C.E. Initiative, Jamie Ford with Moms Demand Action, and State Senator Jose Menendez. On a hot afternoon in Austin, Texas, more than 100 of us also gathered with Mayor Steve Adler, Andrea Brauer from Texas Gun Sense, members of the Austin City Council, State Representative Donna Howard, and other elected officials, all asking this Congress to respond to the horrific wave of gun carnage that threatens the security of our families. Each of these gatherings included powerful testimony from family tragedies and losses as a result of guns. After the mass murders in Orlando and San Bernardino, carried out by individuals professing a twisted version of Islam, the most obvious next step is to question why, if someone is too dangerous to get on an airplane with you, they ought to be able to buy as many assault weapons as they would like? And ask why, in Orlando, the law enforcement officials did not hear about assault weapon purchases of one person who had been on the terrorist watch list? One of the three modest bills about which we were sitting-in would institute a no-fly, no-buy restriction. The day after our protest, to their credit, four of our Republican colleagues here in the House, for the first time, introduced a version of a proposal to prohibit such gun purchases, but also to provide a means by which someone could get off the no-fly list if they were on it improperly. This proposal copies verbatim one proposal that has been offered by Republican Senator Susan Collins. Hers is the only proposal pending in the United States Senate today that has not already been rejected. I think it is time for us to come together to unite behind this proposal. It is a modest step forward, but it is a step forward to address gun violence. Instead, we are told today that Speaker Ryan is, apparently, committed to blocking this bipartisan initiative and anything else that doesn't have a seal of approval from the National Rifle Association. Apparently, the only provision on which we will be allowed to vote here in this House is a proposal that the Senate has already rejected. This isn't action. It is theatrics. It is the appearance of the response to the concern of so many Americans for action on gun safety, without changing anything. Under this gun lobby proposal, in order to prevent a gun purchase, the Justice Department would be required to obtain a court order within 72 hours to prove probable cause that a person has ``committed, conspired to commit, attempted to commit, or will commit an act of terrorism.'' Well, if our law enforcement can do that, they should not only be preventing a person from acquiring a gun, they ought to be taking them to prison. So much attention has focused on the sit-in on this floor, not enough has focused on the ``sit-on.'' I am talking about the Speaker, who sits on any legislation concerning gun violence, including that advanced by fellow Republicans, if it does not have approval of the gun lobby. We just celebrated Independence Day. How about the Republicans declaring independence from the gun lobby? Just once, in a very small, modest way declaring independence on a proposal that Republicans themselves have advanced--a few of them--to address more security for our families. The Republican leadership has tried so very desperately to avoid accountability on gun safety. They cut off these microphones. They fled the House in the middle of the night. Now they are cloaking themselves in an NRA-approved bill already rejected by the United States Senate that won't keep weapons of war out of the hands of terrorists. Everyone who owns a gun knows that sometimes you need to keep the safety on that gun. I think it is time to put the safety back in gun safety legislation. It is time to engage in meaningful, real reform.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Each day in America, as many as eight children die at the hands of those who are supposed to be caring for them. Three out of four of these children are under the age of three. Half of them will never reach their first birthday, and countless others of all ages will forever be scarred by abuse and by neglect. The legislation that we consider tonight is all that remains of a comprehensive child safety bill offered by Senator Ron Wyden and offered by me here in the House last year. I salute his leadership then, and I accept his decision to settle for a small bit of what we sought to accomplish rather than no bit at all. This year, Senator Wyden put a fraction of our original bill into a proposal to which Senator Orrin Hatch agreed, a bipartisan Family First draft proposal. Today's bill is a fraction of a fraction of our original initiative. Despite the valiant efforts of many local groups and individuals across Texas, we have a child abuse crisis there. As The Dallas Morning News reported last month: ``Staggering number of Texas children in imminent danger neglected by CPS''--Child Protective Services-- ``investigation shows.'' And the same is true in one State after another. In short, the Republican answer in this bill is to do absolutely nothing with regard to child prevention services in additional resources now, to essentially do nothing about this crisis now, to continue neglecting the neglected this year, next year, and the year after that. Adoption has proven one way that we can keep children out of the foster care system and in a loving family. I know this is not Mr. Buchanan's personal view, but the only way that House Republicans would agree for us to fund additional preventive services for these children to avoid child abuse--even though that takes 3 long, painful years of delay--is by our cutting about $700 million from adoption. The other source of funding is congregate or group care. I believe we do need a change in group care, but while agreeing, I note that in Texas last month there were over 60 foster care youth. The only place they could find to sleep was in the State offices of Child Protective Services, and one has to ask about this bill the question of where these children will go if those group facilities are no longer available. This measure was approved on the same day that the Committee on Ways and Means approved barring over $50 billion for additional tax breaks, and yet not another dime of additional resources to prevent child abuse this year. They demanded that there could be no resources going into child abuse unless it was paid for from other human resources, essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul. One important aspect of the bill is the kinship provision, that assisting relatives who are willing to raise a child, keep them in a family home so they won't be bounced around from one place to another, that they get some support. I think it is a worthy approach, but it also shows how this House Republican proposal has slashed relief. This year's bipartisan recommendation by Senators Wyden and Hatch was estimated to cost $1.7 billion for kinship. Today we have a mere 8 percent--8 percent--of what they recommended, hardly worthy of a celebration. The major focus of this bill is to provide a Federal incentive for the States to invest in prevention and early intervention to ensure the safety of children. For too long we backloaded everything. We responded to abuse after it occurred instead of trying to prevent it at the beginning. We offer assistance now through this bill eventually, and we should be focused on it. I agree fully with that focus. That is why I plan to vote, reluctantly, for this proposal. But this bill would give the States an incentive through what is called Title IV-E, where the Federal Government would put up 50 percent, 50 cents on the dollar that is expended, and the States would put up 50 cents.