Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Robert F. Glockner by including in the Record the Memorial Tribute prepared by his loving family. Bob Glockner died peacefully on March 26, 2017, surrounded by his family. A vibrant man, Bob will be remembered for his warmth and generosity, commitment to his family and community, and his boundless energy. Born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1938, he was the third child of Paul and Stephanie Glockner. He moved with his family to Oakland, California, in 1947. In 1956 Bob graduated from St. Elizabeth High School, where he enjoyed drama and sports. He served in the U.S. Army and later in the Army reserves. He attended San Francisco State, graduating in 1961 with a bachelor's degree in Legal Studies. San Francisco is also where he met his wife of 54 years, Ginger Alfs. Together, they had four daughters. Bob began his career as a salesman for Modernfold of Northern California. In 1970 he became a partner in Partition Specialties, Inc., serving as president before striking out on his own to found WestFour Construction and Whitney Investment Company in 1983. He did not retire but more transitioned to the role of ``Volunteer Project Manager,'' helping his family as well as organizations that were close to his heart. Bob always had a project, and many knew him as the person you would turn to when you needed to get something done. A dedicated and active member of his community, he was a member of the Board of Trustees for Sacred Heart Schools in Atherton, as well as a member of Sharon Heights Country Club, the Vineyard Club, and the Peninsula Investors Club. He was quick to offer his time or his counsel to assist a worthy cause. Bob loved travel, art and music. He was an avid sports fan, skier, golfer, and lover of the outdoors. Later in life, he tried his hand at growing grapes and winemaking, and enjoyed producing wine under his own ``Four Sisters Vineyard'' label. Above all, Bob loved and was loved by his family. He will be remembered by his wife, Ginger; his daughters and sons-in-law Jennifer and John Whitcomb, Ellen and Fred Eder, Julie Morris, and Whitney and Peter Glockner Black; his 10 grandchildren, Stan, Mackenzie and Brooke Whitcomb, Elizabeth and Fred Eder, Kyle and Hannah Morris, and Axel, Jasper, and Hugo Black; as well as his sisters, Audrey Glockner and Mary Akey; his sister-in-law, Diane Orsellini, and their families. I had the privilege of knowing Bob Glockner for decades. He was a gentleman and a man of great faith. He loved his family and was devoted to his church, his community and his country. It was an honor to have known him and call him my friend. Because of all he did in living a worthy life, our country has been bettered immeasurably. Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in expressing our collective sympathy to the great love of his life, Ginger, their children, grandchildren, and entire family on the loss of a great and good man.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. In 2012, he criticized Mitt Romney for not releasing his returns until late in the campaign. In 2014, Mr. Trump told an Irish television network: ``If I decide to run for office, I'll produce my tax returns, absolutely.'' In 2016, he said repeatedly that he would release his returns ``over the next few months'' and ``before the election.'' It hasn't happened yet. So all of these issues should concern all Members of Congress because, as I said a moment ago, transparency is essential in a democracy. Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time this year that I have offered the Presidential Tax Transparency Act as the previous question motion, and today I filed a discharge petition on the bill, which I encourage all of my colleagues to sign at the desk. If we defeat the previous question today or if we reach 218 Members of the House on the discharge petition, we can vote on this bipartisan legislation and ensure-- underscore ``ensure''--that the President of the United States provides transparency for the American people now and in the future.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding the time to me. While I support the underlying bill, I want to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this bipartisan legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in order for consideration and a vote. The legislation is very simple. It is not pages and pages and pages. It simply states that there will be a requirement that the President of the United States, all future Presidents, and Presidential nominees of the major parties publicly disclose their tax returns. For decades, Republican and Democratic Presidents and Republican and Democratic candidates of both parties have voluntarily disclosed this information, but not this President. Now, this tradition began in 1973, with President Richard Nixon who, while under audit by the IRS, publicly released his tax returns and submitted them for review by Congress because there was a mini scandal at that time regarding his claims of charitable giving. He released his tax returns and, shortly after, gave what became a famous speech: ``People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook.'' The Joint Committee on Taxation, at that time, ultimately found numerous errors in the President's return, and that he owed about a half a million dollars in back taxes, and he paid them. Now, since then, every President has voluntarily released their tax returns. But this tradition is now being tested by a President who continues to hide his finances and faces an unprecedented number of potential conflicts of interest relating to his business empire. Now, through his financial disclosure forms, we know that he has some 564 businesses around the world and inside the United States. This is a legitimate question being posed by the American people, and that is: If we don't know, whose interest is he operating under? Who is he there for? Is he making decisions relative to trade that will benefit his business? We don't know. Why? Because a tax return is highly instructive. Tax returns disclose to whom you owe debt, what the debt is, where your businesses are, whether they are in the United States or in a foreign country, whether you have made charitable donations, whether you have paid taxes, whether you have avoided taxes, whether you have used loopholes, whether you have dollars in offshore areas. So this is an essential. I want my Republican friends to think of something. This is not a partisan issue. This should concern you just as much as it concerns your constituents. The American people across the country, 74 percent, say that his tax returns should be disclosed. We are now moving into an area of questions about national security. Who is the President doing business with? Whose interests come first? Is it the national security of the United States of America by the Commander in Chief, or is it for some Trump business? These are very serious questions that you should want answered. In a democracy--in a democracy--transparency is essential. They go hand in hand. We are not a banana republic. We don't have people in charge of the government that stand above the law or just disregard it. In this case, it is not the law. It is a beautiful tradition that patriots on the Republican side and the Democratic side honored. Why did they honor it? I think they honored it because they wanted to honor the American people. That is what this effort is about. Now, it is important to note that the President wasn't always opposed to this important transparency. As far back as 2011, he said that he would release his tax returns if he ran for President.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I will close that one off and go to the other reason that I am on the floor today. I thank the gentleman again for yielding me the time. I rise in opposition to the rule and, obviously, the underlying resolution; and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that my bipartisan bill, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in order for immediate floor debate and a vote. Mr. Speaker, my legislation would require the President and all future Presidents and Presidential nominees to publicly disclose their tax returns. It is a very simple bill. This is the third time this year that I have offered this bill as the previous question motion, and for the last several weeks, Members-- including Mr. Polis, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Lofgren, and myself--have offered privileged resolutions directing the House to request the President's tax returns. Nearly every day we give the majority the opportunity to demonstrate leadership on this issue, and nearly every day they continue to help the President hide his tax returns from the public. Now, every President of both parties, since Gerald Ford, has voluntarily made their tax returns public. The President has 564 financial positions in companies located in the United States and around the world, according to the Federal Election Commission, making him more susceptible to conflicts of interest than any President in our history. Without disclosure of his tax returns, the American people are prevented from knowing where his income comes from, whether he is dealing with foreign powers, what he owes and to whom, and how he may directly benefit from the policies he proposes. There are daily revelations about previously undisclosed meetings between the President's staff and Russian officials, as well as a steady flow of troubling information about The Trump Organization's ties to state-connected businesses and individuals in Turkey, Azerbaijan, China, and other countries. Last week, The New York Times reported that The Trump Organization is finalizing an agreement to build a hotel in partnership with a firm that has ``deep Turkish roots'' and business ties in Russia, Kazakhstan, and two dozen other countries. Without the disclosure of the President's tax returns, there is no way for the American people to know the full extent of his foreign entanglements and possible conflicts of interest on this or other deals that his family business is engaged in. I think the House is failing, Mr. Speaker, to exercise our constitutional obligation to conduct effective oversight and operate as a check on the executive branch. We can change that today by taking up and passing this bipartisan bill, which will ensure that the President, and all future Presidents, will be held to a baseline level of disclosure. That is why I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, so we can hold an immediate vote on the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Colorado for his leadership and for yielding time to me. First of all, I would like to respond to the gentleman's presentation about the underlying bill. Make no mistake about it, what the underlying bill does today is it wipes out--it totally wipes out--privacy protections for consumers on the internet. That is what it does. There are not duplicative regulations. I know that it was stated on the floor that there are duplicative regulations. There are two agencies--the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission--however, it is only the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, that can actually protect consumers by enforcing the protections. The FTC does not have that authority. What happens today if these privacy protections are ripped away from the American people? Well, all the information that you give to your internet service provider, whether it is Comcast, whether it is cable providers, Charter, AT&T, the one that you pay a pretty big bill to, they can take all of the information that they have--my account, your account, your account, your account--and use that information to sell it to the highest bidder to make money off of it. Now, there is an additional charge in this thing, alleged charge, and that is, well, what about Google and Netflix and Facebook? What about them? Why aren't they subject to what the FCC did? Well, they are edge providers. They are edge providers. You don't have to go to Google. You don't have to go to Facebook. You don't have to go to Netflix in order to get your internet service. That is why the FCC did not apply these rules to them. Maybe there should be a debate about them. But to equalize and say that Google and Facebook are equal to your internet service provider suggests to me that some people just don't know what they are talking about. This is a subject that the American people feel very, very deeply about. In fact, I think it is in the DNA of every American: ``I want my privacy, and it should be protected.'' We all feel that way. What is being done today is a ripping away. It is like taking a bandage, just stripping it away. Who do you go to? Who do you go to complain to? No one. No one. Because there isn't anything left to enforce. I think it is a sad day if the underlying bill passes. I think it is shocking that my Republican colleagues, either out of a lack of understanding of how the internet works, how their constituents--all of our constituents benefit from these protections of our privacy, and our information is private. I don't want anyone to take my information and sell it to someone and make a ton of money off of it just because they can get their mitts on it. That is why the privacy protections were adopted. May I ask how much time is remaining?

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Doyle, for both his leadership and for yielding time to me. America, listen up today. There may not be that many people on the floor of the House, but this is a big one. This is really a big one. Congress is poised today to betray the American people on one of the issues they care the most about: their privacy--their privacy. Every single one of us cares about it, and so do the American people. I often say that every American has it in their DNA: Keep your mitts off my privacy, what I consider to be private. Now, the consequences of passing this resolution are clear. Broadband providers like AT&T, Comcast, and others will be able to sell your personal information to the highest bidder without your permission, and no one will be able to protect you, not even the Federal Trade Commission that our friends on the other side of the aisle keep talking about. It is like open the door and there is no one there. That is what this thing creates. The Republicans are blowing a gaping hole in Federal privacy protections by barring the FCC from ever adopting similar protections in the future. So, if it is gone today, it is gone, period. The FCC rules are simple. They require broadband providers to get the permission of their customers--including all of us--before they can sell their web browsing history, their location information, and other sensitive data to third parties. The majority claims that we need to repeal these protections because they treat broadband providers differently than other online service providers, edge providers. Broadband providers are in the unique position of seeing everything we do on the internet. This is the reason, and it is reason enough, to put privacy protections in place; but it is also important to keep in mind that consumers, all of us, pay a high monthly fee to broadband providers, and they face serious barriers if they want to switch. If I want to switch, if you want to switch, you have to, many times, pay early termination fees. This is completely different from other online services that collect consumer data. Consumers don't pay to use search engines or social media applications like Google and Facebook. If they don't like Google's privacy policy, they can switch over to Bing without paying any fees. But consumers can't do this with broadband providers, and therein lies the difference. Last week, we heard the Republicans bemoan the lack of choice in the healthcare market. They should take a closer look at the state of the broadband market, particularly in rural America, where only 13 percent of consumers have access to more than one high-speed broadband provider. So the majority is telling Americans today, particularly those in rural areas, that they need to choose between their privacy and their access to the internet. If this resolution passes, people across the country will certainly not have both. This resolution is--excuse the phrase--repeal without replace. The Republicans have not put forward any privacy proposal at all to replace the FCC's rules, despite knowing that repealing these rules will leave a gap in the Federal protections. So the message to the American people is clear: Your privacy doesn't matter, and your web browsing history should be available to anyone who will pay the highest price for it. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to stand up for privacy rights and oppose this joint resolution.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the American people are very smart. They listen up. They kind of knit their eyebrows together. They listen to the debate. They want the facts, and then they make up their mind. What our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have brought forward today is a disaster for the American people, and the American people know it. You have 17 percent of the American people that are for your plan, and the reason why? They know there are going to be higher costs. Families are going to have to pay more and get less--pay more for their premiums, more for their deductibles, and more in their out-of-pocket costs. You are taking health care away from 24 million Americans. That is more than the entire population of Australia. Who comes to Congress to hurt people? The promise of the Affordable Care Act was no one--no one ever again--will be able to take away your insurance the way the insurance companies did 7-plus years ago. Now it is only the Republican Party that can take away Americans' insurance. There isn't one developed country in the world that has your plan. It is a combination of all kinds of things to get votes. What free markets? What are you talking about? There is hypocrisy here because you all have the Affordable Care Act insurance. Every single Member of Congress does. So I guess it is good enough for you but it is not good enough for your constituents. This is a matter of life and death. You are playing with people's lives. It is a profound issue. This doesn't deserve one vote in the House of Representatives. Vote it down.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I never thought in coming to Congress that I would be voting on legislation that would take away health insurance from 24 million Americans, including my own constituents. The Speaker said that this legislation is an act of mercy. I think it is merciless. Every human being has a spark of divinity in them, and we dishonor that with this legislation. It is not worthy of the American people. There is less coverage, higher costs, elimination of essential services--not only for what people need day to day but for the unexpected. That is what insurance is all about. There is a crushing age tax for people between the ages of 50 and 64. What has happened to the GOP? Is it now ``get older people''? This does not deserve one vote in the House of Representatives. It is shameful, and it is immoral.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I understand, and I am working to establish that case.

Ms. ESHOO. Further reports about the President's potential conflicts of interest suggest that the House should exercise its oversight authority immediately, including massive foreign payments to the President's hotels and prior business deals with foreign oligarchs around the world. The only way to determine whether these dealings represent----

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, under clause 1 of rule IX, questions of the privilege of the House are ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.'' I believe the dignity and the integrity of the House are put at risk when this body refuses to exercise its statutory authority and constitutional obligation to operate as a check on the executive branch. Under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, three congressional committees have jurisdiction to request tax returns: House Ways and Means, Senate Finance, and the Joint Committee on Taxation. This authority was placed in the Tax Code by Congress in 1924 to allow for full investigations of several scandals in the Harding administration, including the Teapot Dome bribery scandal. Section 6103 was the subject of considerable debate in this Chamber, but, ultimately, Congress passed it in order to provide an important investigatory check on the executive branch. In 1974, section 6103 authority was used by the members of the Joint Committee on Taxation to publish a staff report on President Nixon's tax returns revealing that he owed nearly a half a million dollars in back taxes. Today, I worry that we are rapidly approaching a scandal of a similar magnitude to these previous events. Since we voted on a similar resolution last week, the Attorney General and other senior administration officials have admitted that they met with Russian officials during the campaign and the transition period. This comes after the campaign and unequivocally last year saying that there was ``no communications between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.''

Ms. ESHOO. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ESHOO. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to set forward the question of the privileges of the House on a privileged resolution, and this is a part of it. I believe the only way to determine whether these dealings represent violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution is by fully examining the President's tax records. Contrary to the Chair's ruling last Monday, there is no direct precedent in section 706 of the House Practice manual for the situation because the current situation is unprecedented. The President's business empire makes him more susceptible to conflicts of interest than any President in our history.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause (2)(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the form of the resolution appear in the Record at this point.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, classmate, and wonderful colleague, for yielding time to me. I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this bipartisan bill that I have written, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in order for immediate floor debate and a vote. The Presidential Tax Transparency Act would require the President and all future Presidents and Presidential nominees of the major parties, Democrats and Republicans, to publicly disclose their tax returns. It came as a surprise to many Americans, during the 2016 campaign, that this disclosure was not required by law. Instead, we have had a tradition of voluntary disclosure among every President of both parties since the post-Watergate era. Until now, our Presidents have recognized that those who seek or hold the most powerful office in the world should be held to the highest standard of transparency. Donald Trump is the first President to refuse to release his tax returns since Gerald Ford, a man of the House. I remember when his remains were brought to the Capitol where he rested in the rotunda but came by the doors of the House. He was a man of the House and a man of integrity. He along with a host of others, Democrats and Republicans, voluntarily released their tax returns. But Mr. Trump's 2016 candidate filing with the Federal Election Commission shows that he has 564 financial positions in companies located both in the United States and around the world, including relationships with state-affiliated businesses in several countries. Why is this important to note? The President had an opportunity to resolve these potential conflicts of interest by divesting and placing his business assets into a true blind trust, as other Presidents have done, Republicans and Democrats. Instead, he chose to turn over control of his business to his sons in an arrangement that the Director of the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics called ``wholly inadequate'' and ``meaningless from a conflict of interest perspective.'' Since he is taken office, these ethics concerns have been borne out in the form of his and his campaign's connections to Russia, deeply, deeply troubling to all of us and to the American people, legitimately so; his family's potential new business dealings in the Dominican Republic and Uruguay; and the hiring of a ``director of diplomatic sales'' at his Washington, D.C., hotel to attract high-priced business among foreign diplomats. This is deeply unsettling, to say the least. Simply put, the President's business empire makes him more susceptible to conflicts of interest than any other President in the history of our country. Three of the President's nominees have already withdrawn their names from consideration due to potential financial conflicts of interest. Only a full release of the President's tax returns will provide the public with clear information as to his potential conflicts of interest and his potential entanglements with foreign governments and foreign businesses. Last night, here on the floor, the House voted along party lines, unfortunately, to block an effort to obtain the President's tax returns under the House's existing authority. Today, we have another chance to honor the will of the American people and write this important disclosure tradition into law--into law. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 74 percent of Americans believe the President should release his tax returns--74 percent. The top petition on the White House website has over 1 million signatures to it, calling on the President to release his tax returns. I think the voice of the people, the American people, is clear. As their representatives, they deserve to have us take action on this because we all want a conflict of interest-free President. I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so we can hold an immediate vote on the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 43 which is another baseless and dangerous attack on women's health care providers. The title X Family Planning Rule, passed almost 50 years ago, already requires states to base title X funding on a provider's ability to provide title X services. This rule protects title X providers from facing unwarranted discrimination and allows them to continue doing the important work 4 million Americans rely on every year. Title X services include family planning services, cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing and basic care. To diminish these services will result in women, men and young people with the greatest need being denied the opportunity to have any health care. Whether or not a provider provides safe and legal abortions with private funds is irrelevant to their ability and capacity to provide title X services. In fact, it is preventive services and family planning offered through title X programs that help to lower the number of unintended pregnancies. But attacks on these providers and the services they offer in their communities persist. This resolution rolls back protections that should already be guaranteed, but repeated attacks on family planning providers have resulted in the need for rules like the one this resolution dismantles. That is why I strenuously oppose this resolution. It should be rejected as an unjustified and unnecessary attack on title X programs and the services they provide for millions of low income Americans.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, Raymond Lawrence Sullivan, Jr., was born in San Francisco on October 4, 1942. He was the second of six children and grew up in San Francisco and Hillsborough. He has three living siblings, Phillip Sullivan, Mary Sullivan Ward and Mother Agnes of the Cross, CJM. Larry was educated at St. Catherine's Grammar School in Burlingame, Bellarmine College Prep in San Jose, the University of San Francisco, and the UCSF Medical School. He did his residency in Anesthesiology at Stanford, and served our country in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps from 1968 to 1970. Larry married Victoria Growney on August 13, 1966. Together they have raised three magnificent children: Larry Sullivan III; Kasey Sullivan Bradstreet, JD; Loretta Sullivan Chang, MD; Brian Sullivan; and Jason Lally, their foster child who is part of their extended family. Their four grandchildren, Liam, Andrew and Thomas Chang, and Oscar Bradstreet bring them untold joy. Dr. Sullivan joined the medical staff of O'Connor Hospital as an anesthesiologist in 1975 and has served there until his retirement. From 1982 to 1988 he served as Clinical Assistant Professor of Anesthesia at Stanford University School of Medicine. At O'Connor Hospital he was Anesthesia Department Chair, a member of the Critical Care Committee, President of the Medical Staff, Member of the Hospital's Board of Directors, and Chair of the Medical Staff Advisory Committee. He was honored in 2011 with the Vincentian Spirit Award given by O'Connor Hospital. Dr. Sullivan has given generously of his time and talents to his professional community as a member of the Santa Clara County Medical Association, the American Medical Association, The California Society of Anesthesiologists, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (CSA) and the California Medical Association. From 1997 to 2006 he served on a Specialty Delegation to the CMA House of Delegates and received the Distinguished Service Award from the CSA in 2009. Larry served as a referee and coach of the American Youth Soccer Association in Palo Alto, and was Scoutmaster of Troop 57, Stanford Area Council, where he guided 35 Scouts to Eagle Scout rank. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring an extraordinary physician, a devoted son, husband, father, grandfather, vital member of our community, and a treasured personal friend. Larry Sullivan is a man of integrity and he lives a life instructed by his faith. I have never met a finer human being or a finer family. How proud I am to call them my friends and to have the privilege of representing them. I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in wishing my dear friend Larry, a great and good man, and his devoted wife Vicky, every blessing that retirement has to offer.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind the President's ban for the sake of our national security.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon really with a very, very sad and heavy heart. I don't know anyone in our country who watched what took place across the country who wasn't dismayed, who wasn't heartbroken, who wasn't confused. And as my constituents said: What is happening in our country? Now, there are some that say this must be done. This executive order must be done in the name of national security. I am a veteran of the House Intelligence Committee, but it doesn't take a veteran of the House Intelligence Committee to understand that this harms our national security. We need to have more voices in the House. We need Republicans and Democrats standing up together, because historians will replace your surname, and those that don't raise their voices will be called coward because this is ripping at the fabric and the soul of our Nation. It is appalling. It is unlawful. I believe it is unconstitutional. If you stood up for history and what was done to others, it is taking place right now in our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. This bill is an unprecedented attack on a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions and another attempt by Republicans to undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This legislation goes far beyond the long-standing Hyde Amendment which Congress passes every year during the Appropriations process preventing taxpayer dollars from being used for abortions. The Hyde Amendment is included in each Appropriations bill every year. This bill stretches increase taxes on millions of individuals and small businesses that purchase private healthcare plans that include abortion coverage. It takes away protections for rape survivors and pregnant women whose lives are in danger, and bans women in the military from abortion care in a military hospital overseas, even if they use their own money to pay for that care. This will deny millions of American women access to truly comprehensive health care. A woman's right to choose whether to end a pregnancy is protected constitutionally. The decision is private. It is a matter of faith and it is a matter of conscience. I believe women already have the right to make decisions about reproductive health care, that it is protected constitutionally. This legislation should be rejected for its overly broad reach, its false advertising and its attack on the constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I thank our wonderful colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this bill that I have authored, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in order for immediate floor debate and a vote. Now, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act would require the President and future Presidential nominees of both parties to disclose their tax returns. Many Americans took for granted that this was covered by law, but what we have had is a decades-long tradition of voluntary disclosure by both Republican and Democratic nominees for the Presidency. For the first time since the immediate post-Watergate era, candidate Trump and now President Trump has refused to release his tax returns to the public. Those who seek or hold the most powerful office in the world should be held to the highest standard of transparency to ensure the best interests of the American people are met. Tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because they contain highly instructive information, including whether the candidate paid any taxes, what they own, what they have borrowed and from whom, whether they have made charitable donations, and whether they have taken advantage of tax loopholes or offshore tax shelters. The President and his spokesperson have both recently said that he will not release his tax returns because the American people ``don't care.'' I beg to differ. The top petition on the Web site of the White House calls for the release of the President's tax returns with over 300,000 signatures already on it. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week found that 74 percent of the American people, including 53 percent of whom are Republicans, believe the President should release his tax returns. We want a President free of conflicts of interest. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question and to vote for the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 582, Kari's Law Act of 2017. H.R. 582 addresses a very serious problem. The bill requires Multi- Line Telephone Systems to provide direct dialing to 9-1-1. The bill is named after Kari Hunt who was tragically murdered by her estranged husband in a hotel room while her daughter tried to dial 9-1-1 but could not get help because the Multi-Line Telephone System required a prefix to be dialed first. When we dial 9-1-1 from a hotel or office--when seconds matter--we shouldn't have to dial ``9'' or some other prefix to get help. I strongly support the overall goals of this bill which is identical to legislation passed by the full House in the 114th Congress by voice vote. I also think location accuracy for Multi-Line Telephone Systems is just as important. First responders have to know exactly where an individual is calling from, especially if the caller is unable to communicate to the dispatcher, or the caller simply doesn't know where they are. If first responders have to spend time searching buildings or going door to door, the time it takes to do this can be the difference between life and death. During the subcommittee and full committee markups of this legislation in the last Congress, I offered an amendment to require a location accuracy proceeding at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within 180 days of enactment of the bill. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues did not agree to accept my amendment and instead proposed language requiring the FCC to conduct a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to solicit public comment on requiring location accuracy for Multi-Line Telephone Systems. I did not accept this proposal because I thought and still do, that an NOI does not move the ball forward. That view is shared by the FCC and the public safety community. The FCC has studied location accuracy technology for Multi-Line Telephone Systems since 1994, and as recently as 2012, Congress directed the FCC to issue a Public Notice Seeking Comment on the feasibility of Multi-Line Telephone Systems to provide the precise location of a 9-1-1 caller. This was included in Section 6504(b) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and was modeled on legislation I introduced with my colleague and fellow bipartisan Co- Chair of the NextGen 9-1-1 Caucus, Representative Shimkus, known as the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012. Despite the extensive history surrounding location accuracy, the FCC has failed to take action to require this essential technology in Multi-Line Telephone Systems. Not doing so places lives at stake in my view. Last Congress, I introduced H.R. 5236, the Requesting Emergency Services and Providing Origination Notification Systems Everywhere (RESPONSE) Act, which would require the Federal Communications Commission to complete a proceeding requiring all Multi-Line Telephone Systems to provide first responders with the precise location of a 9-1- 1 caller. I intend to reintroduce the RESPONSE Act in this new Congress and I'm hopeful my colleagues will work with me to pass this important bill and build on the work of H.R. 582. Although H.R. 582 does not address the critical issue of location accuracy, it is nonetheless a step in the right direction that will save lives and make progress. For these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 582.