Ruben Gallego

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am a Marine Corps infantryman. When I was fighting door-to-door in Iraq, some of the bravest marines in my unit, men of valor and patriotism, were Muslims. They stood with the Iraqis to risk their lives and endangered loved ones to help us. At this very moment, marines are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them are Muslim. They still rely on the steadfast support of our Muslim allies. That is why I find this amendment so troubling. Mr. Chairman, at a time when American forces are deployed across the Muslim world and depend on the support of Muslim governments, the Franks amendment will send exactly the wrong message to our friends and adversaries alike. By singling out a faith tradition for a strange and unprecedented study by our military, we are sending a dangerous message and signal that America is at war with Islam. America is not ever going to be at war with a single religion. It is our task as Members of Congress who care about our military and about the American values that our servicemembers risk their lives for to defend it and to reaffirm those values, and we can do that by defeating this misguided amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I think what we need to remember is there is some commonality here; and I am reminded of this almost every weekend, especially when I stay here in Washington, D.C. I go to section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery to visit my friends that died in the war in Iraq. In every headstone there, you will see a lot of different symbols of religions, whether it is the Jewish star, whether it is the Islamic symbol or the Christian symbol, or the nonbeliever, no symbols whatsoever. The one thing they all have in common is they are all sharing the same ground. They are all sharing the same sacred ground of Arlington National Cemetery because they all died for the same American values. That American value says that we will not ostracize somebody else for their religion, for who they believe or who they don't believe. Any steps towards that is dangerous. If we want to continue to reaffirm the values that those men and women have died for that are now sitting in section 60, we need to defeat this amendment and do it because we know it is the right thing to do, and it reaffirms those American values that those men and women have died for. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have available?

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, in 2012, President Obama was speaking to some of his supporters in Minneapolis. They were eager to know how he was planning to make progress on key issues in his second term, given the uncompromising rabid opposition of the majority in this House. Here is what President Obama said: ``I believe that if we're successful in this election, when we're successful in this election, that the fever may break, because there's a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that.'' Five years later, I can say--we can all say--that the fever has not broken. The fever is running as hot as ever. The fever drove this House majority to threaten default on our Nation's debt, to shut down the Federal Government, to indulge racist birther conspiracies, to elevate the very champion of those conspiracies to the Presidency of the United States. Ten years ago, I know Republican leaders could not imagine that kind of conspiracy would spread throughout the Republican Party rank and file, but it did and it has. Five years ago, GOP leaders could not have imagined that their party would nominate Donald Trump and elect him to the Presidency, but they did. One year ago, I know Republican leaders could not imagine that they would cover for the Trump campaign and Trump administration's collusion with the Russian Government, but they have, and they are. For far too long, Democrats have wanted to believe that the GOP would come to its senses. We wanted to believe that it was really just a fringe minority within the GOP that was the problem, that sober, sensible leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell wanted to do the right thing, but they couldn't because of the Tea Party. They couldn't unless we helped them. And that is why Democrats bailed out Boehner time after time, jam after jam. Democrats have to stop deluding themselves. There is only one Republican Party, and it is the party of Trump. It is the party whose Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, blocked efforts by the Obama administration to stop Russian interference in the 2016 election. It is the party that every day looks the other way in the face of Trump's appeasement of Russia and fails to hold Trump accountable. Last week, Congressman Ted Lieu and I introduced two amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act that the House is debating currently on the floor. The first would endorse the intelligence community's assessment regarding the Russian's meddling in our 2016 election. This is critical because Donald Trump has repeatedly cast doubt, as recently as yesterday, on the report that despite unanimous agreement from all of our intelligence agencies, that indeed there was collusion, that indeed there was interference by Russians. The second amendment would block an outrageous Trump administration initiative to create a new cybersecurity partnership with the Russian Government. Trump's plan would let the fox into the henhouse and pave the way for more election interference in our upcoming elections and others, all at the invitation of Donald Trump. These would have been two sensible steps that the House of Representatives could have taken this week to counter interference in our elections, but last night, the GOP leadership, under Chairman Sessions and the House Rules Committee, blocked these amendments. They refused to give these amendments a chance to be debated and voted on the floor. As more and more information comes out about Russia, Americans all over the country keep hoping that the GOP will do the right thing, that they will put country before party and hold Trump accountable, but they have not, and they will not. Just this past week, Donald Trump, Jr., himself released emails that show unequivocally the Trump campaign's eagerness to collude with the Russian Government, but that hasn't changed a thing. It hasn't stopped Speaker Ryan from blocking a Russian sanctions bill at the Trump administration's request. It hasn't stopped Chairman Sessions and the Rules Committee from blocking my amendment to set the record straight on Russian interference and help prevent it in the future. The truth is, they are all complicit. It is time to recognize the GOP majority is not the victim here. They aren't suffering from a fever that Democrats have to help fight. It is the United States Congress, as a whole, that has a fever, and it is the GOP's grip on the majority that is the cause. It is time for us to face reality. The problem isn't the Tea Party, it is the Republican Party.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a travesty. If we vote to approve it, an amendment unanimously supported by the Armed Services Committee--unanimously, all Democrats and all Republicans would compromise language--to prevent President Trump from using our military's money to build his border wall will suddenly vanish. It is a legislative magic trick, a sneaky gimmick designed to disguise their actions. Once again, Speaker Ryan and the House Republicans are doing President Trump's dirty work. They want to make sure that Trump can build his wall, but they are also desperate to avoid a clean up-or-down vote on this issue. They are hiding from the American voters. They didn't have the courage to oppose my amendment in committee or even on the House floor. They passed this rule late at night with hardly anyone watching, in typical Republican fashion. Republicans are resorting to deceptive legislative tactics to do Trump's bidding just for his small, fragile ego. Mr. Speaker, this self-executing rule, if it comes to fruition, is going to attempt to slip one past Congress and the American people. Just 6 months into this administration, it is already abundantly clear that Mexico won't pay for Trump's stupid, dumb border wall. We must not allow precious resources to be robbed from our troops simply to score political points for Trump's ego. Mr. Speaker, with Mexico refusing to entertain this absurd policy and without a direct appropriation from Congress, President Trump is going to get desperate. His administration will inevitably seek to pull money from other sources to make good on his promise to build this wall, including from the Defense budget. That is why my amendment was so crucial. It would simply ensure that DOD resources aren't siphoned off for a pointless wall that we don't need and cannot afford. It was supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, the ranking member and the chairman. As a Member of Congress, we have a sacred responsibility to ensure that money meant to address real national security challenges isn't diverted to combat imaginary ones that the President has created. As a Marine Corps veteran, I believe it would be an insult to our members of the military if their resources were reallocated to build a wall that we don't need, that won't bring us more security, when we have tens of thousands of military members that are currently still on food stamps while serving this country. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: a vote for this rule is a vote to build the wall and take precious resources from the Department of Defense budget. Please vote ``no.''

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, as a candidate, Donald Trump made some very big promises on healthcare to the American people. GOP leadership in both the House and Senate have echoed those promises. But the Trump- Ryan healthcare bill and the Senate version of the GOP bill fail to deliver on those promises. Donald Trump promised healthcare for all of the American people. Even though the ACA expanded health coverage to more than 20 million Americans, Donald Trump said he didn't think it provided enough people with coverage. He said: ``We're going to have insurance for everybody,'' and, ``I'm not going to leave the lower 20 percent that can't afford insurance.'' The Congressional Budget Office says that 14 million people will immediately lose coverage under the Trump-Ryan plan, and 24 million people will lose coverage by 2027. The Senate version of the bill isn't much different. Trump also promised that Americans would enjoy cheaper health insurance, with ``much lower deductibles.'' His Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Price, said that ``nobody will be worse off financially.'' But the GOP healthcare plan would cause an increase in health premiums by 15 to 20 percent in the first 2 years alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office. During the Republican Presidential primary, Donald Trump bragged that he was ``the first and only potential GOP candidate to state that there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.'' But the GOP health plan guts Medicaid more than ever before. It freezes enrollment and unravels the Medicaid expansion. Donald Trump and the GOP leadership are breaking their promises to the American people. Their healthcare bills take away coverage from millions. Deductibles will go up. Copays will go up. TrumpCare would gut essential health benefits, which would mean soaring costs for people with preexisting conditions. It will provide worse coverage to those lucky enough to still be able to afford it. And to what end? They are stripping healthcare from millions of people in order to give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans who need it the least. They are lining the pockets of the rich while leaving our families out to dry. The GOP wants to take away healthcare coverage from millions of hardworking Americans who just want to feel secure and know that they and their families will be able to see a doctor and get treated if they get sick, without putting themselves or their families in financial ruin. They are robbing Peter to give Paul Ryan and his cronies a tax cut. In Arizona, we have seen firsthand the damage that Medicaid cuts can wreak. In 2011, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer cut Arizona's Medicaid funding and froze enrollment. Families who were on Medicaid at the time could only continue to receive benefits if their income remained below the Federal poverty level. A family who worked hard to raise their income even the tiniest amount above the poverty line would lose Medicaid coverage permanently, even if their income went down later. About 150,000 adults in Arizona lost their Medicaid as a result of those changes. People would get sick and be unable to see a doctor just because they couldn't afford it. In some cases, people were forced to decide between paying for lifesaving care or paying their rent. If Medicaid expansion goes away under the GOP healthcare plan, around 400,000 Arizonans could lose coverage, according to AHCCCS in Arizona. That includes 26,700 cancer patients and about 47,000 who are working to overcome different levels of substance abuse, including opioid treatment. People in other States across the country would experience similar devastating outcomes. Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake witnessed the disastrous effect of taking away healthcare coverage for people in Arizona. They know more than anyone else how many lives can be ruined. Some Republicans have already voiced strong concerns about this bill's impact on their constituents. If they are serious about these concerns, it will only take three Republican Senators to take a stand and grind this process to a halt. Unfortunately, so far, Senators McCain and Flake are not among them. Senators McCain and Flake face a very stark choice: they can do the bidding of Donald Trump and deprive millions of healthcare coverage, or they can take steps to defend the health and financial security of the Arizonans they were elected to represent. The people of Arizona haven't been shy about letting our Senators know how they feel and why they feel it, but it is time to dial up the pressure. Senators McCain and Flake must understand that they owe it to Arizona families to vote ``no'' on TrumpCare. If they don't, Arizona will hold them accountable. It is time for my colleagues in the House to put pressure on the Senators in their own States to do the right thing and vote ``no'' on this bill. We owe it to our constituents to stand up for them and make sure that this catastrophic plan never sees the light of day.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I cast a vote in error. On the rollcall Vote No. 184, I had intended to vote in the follow manner: rollcall Vote No. 184--Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017--``yes.''

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I am going to cut directly to the chase. The Trump-Ryan healthcare bill betrays every single promise Donald Trump made about health care, and does it all for the sake of an enormous tax cut for those who need it least. The first promise that Donald Trump made to the American people was that everyone would have health insurance. Although the ACA expanded health coverage to more than 20 million Americans, Donald Trump said repeatedly that he didn't think the ACA provided enough people with coverage. He said: ``We're going to have insurance for everybody,'' and ``I'm not going to leave the lower 20 percent that can't afford health insurance.'' What does the Trump-Ryan bill do? According to the Congressional Budget Office, 14 million people would immediately lose coverage next year, and 24 million people would lose coverage by 2027. That is outrageous. But it gets worse. According to the White House's own estimate, 26 million people, not 24 million people, will lose coverage under the Trump-Ryan bill. The second promise that Donald Trump made to the American people was that their health insurance would be cheaper. Donald Trump said that his plans would have ``much lower deductibles.'' Secretary Tom Price said last week that under the Trump-Ryan proposal ``nobody will be worse off financially.'' What does the Trump-Ryan bill actually do? In my home State, Arizonans will get hit hard, very hard. In 2020, under the Trump-Ryan plan, Arizonans will receive on average $3,500 less in subsidies than ObamaCare, meaning they are going to be forced to spend more money out of pocket to continue getting care. The Trump-Ryan bill will stick it to older Americans. It peels back an ObamaCare rule that protects older people from higher costs. The Trump-Ryan bill green-lights insurance companies to charge older Americans 66 percent more. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a typical, low-income, 64-year-old's out-of-pocket costs would increase from less than $2,000 a year to almost $15,000 a year by 2026. So if you are an older American and you don't like ObamaCare, let me tell you this right now: You are going to hate TrumpCare. The third promise that Donald Trump made to the American people was that Americans would enjoy better health care. As a candidate, Donald Trump said that ObamaCare was ``horrible health care.'' He promised that ``everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.'' So what does the Trump-Ryan bill do? Well, if you are lucky enough to still have health insurance under the Trump-Ryan plan, it will provide you even worse coverage. The bill does nothing to increase the quality of your care. It will cut some of the healthcare services you receive now. In his speech before Congress less than 3 weeks ago, Donald Trump said that ``we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.'' At a time when opiate overdoses kill more Americans than car accidents, we absolutely should be expanding treatment. But what does the Trump-Ryan bill do? It does the opposite by cutting addiction services and mental health treatment under Medicaid. Donald Trump's fourth promise to the American was that he would not cut Medicaid. During the Republican presidential primary, he bragged that he was the first and only potential GOP candidate to state that there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What does the Trump-Ryan bill do? It cuts Medicaid more than it has ever been cut before. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it cuts Medicaid funding by $370 billion over 10 years. The Trump-Ryan bill will permanently and radically weaken this critical safety net for the working poor. It freezes enrollment in Medicaid and unravels the Medicaid expansion. If you are worried about what this means for you, your family, and your friends, you should be. Donald Trump is breaking his promise on Medicaid. Will he break his promise on Medicare, too? Will he break his promise on Social Security? Why is Donald Trump breaking promise after promise he made on health care? The Trump-Ryan bill takes healthcare coverage away from millions of people, it raises deductibles and copays, and provides worse coverage for those who are lucky enough to still be able to afford it. So what are Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and House Republicans up to? This bill does a lot of things poorly, but there is one thing, and really only one thing, that this bill does incredibly well. It cuts a whole lot of taxes for the rich. This Trump-Ryan ``healthcare bill'' includes a whopping $600 billion in tax cuts, almost all for the wealthy. The single biggest tax cut in the bill repeals a 3.8 percent tax on investors who make more than $250,000. This tax cut will not put a single dollar back in the pocket of any family who makes less than $250,000. But if you are the top one-tenth of 1 percent, which means that you make at least $3.75 million per year, then you will get on average a $165,000 tax cut. This is outrageous. The Trump-Ryan bill also repeals a nearly 1 percent tax on families making over $250,000. Again, if you are in the top one-tenth of 1 percent, you are going to do great under the Trump-Ryan bill. You will get an average tax cut of over $30,000. But, if you are in the bottom 90 percent, if you are an average, hardworking American, you will get nothing from this tax cut. Who are Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and House Republicans looking out for? If you are an out-of-work steelworker in Youngstown, it is not you. If you are a struggling farmer in rural Alabama, it is not you. If you are working at Target, Walmart, or McDonald's, you are out of luck, too. Heck, even if you are making a decent living as an auto worker or a truck driver, it is not you. Two nights ago, Donald Trump even admitted this. In an interview on FOX News, Tucker Carlson pointed out to Donald Trump that the rich do a lot better under the Trump-Ryan healthcare bill than working and middle class people, many of whom supported him in this election. What did Donald Trump say in response? ``Oh, I know.'' Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and House Republicans are looking out for the richest of the rich. They are putting the pinch to you, hardworking Americans, to give their rich friends and supporters a giant tax break, and they are willing to wreck our healthcare system and take healthcare insurance away from 24 million Americans to do it. Two years ago, Marco Rubio called out Donald Trump as a con artist. The Trump-Ryan healthcare bill is one big con on the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1181. As a combat veteran in the Iraq war, the issues we are debating this afternoon are deeply personal to me. Veteran suicide has reached crisis levels in this country, and our failure to do more to help veterans in desperate need of mental health care is truly shameful. Unfortunately, Republicans have brought forward a bill today that will make this crisis even worse. Here is the plain truth. If we allow people with serious mental illnesses to purchase dangerous weapons, we are putting their lives and the lives of their loved ones at risk. Mr. Speaker, at a time when more veterans are taking their own lives, we should be debating how to get them greater resources and support, not easier access to firearms. At least 10--10--esteemed military leaders, including David Petraeus, Michael Hayden, and Stanley McChrystal all agree. Here is what they wrote in a heartfelt letter to Congress: ``Our Nation is facing a devastating epidemic of veteran suicide. The bill you are debating comes at a time when an average of 20 veterans commit suicide each day, two-thirds of whom do so by buying a firearm. ``We know that nondeployed veterans are at a 61 percent higher risk of suicide compared to the American civilian population, and deployed veterans are at a 41 percent higher risk'' than the American civilian population. ``When vulnerable veterans have access to firearms, they can do harm not only to themselves but also to their family members and loved ones. The impact of these tragedies is felt in communities across our Nation. ``The VA has submitted over 174,000 names of servicemen and -women who require a fiduciary to manage their benefits and have been determined through clear and convincing evidence to meet the Federal standard for gun prohibition. ``Of these 174,000, 19,000 are individuals that suffer from schizophrenia, and another 15,000 have severe PTSD. ``For these individuals, possession of a firearm could be fatal.'' They conclude by calling the bill before us today ``irresponsible, dangerous, and life threatening to those who need access to care, not weapons,'' and I couldn't agree more with that. The question for my Republican friends is a simple one: Do you know more about what is best for our veterans than General Hayden? Do you have a better understanding of what would improve their welfare than General McChrystal? Do you appreciate their needs more acutely than General Petraeus? If the answer is no, then you should vote ``no'' on this bill later today. Mr. Speaker, if this legislation is signed into law, more veterans will take their own lives. That is the tragic reality we face. Please side with General Petraeus and General McChrystal. Side with your conscience and your values. Side with our veterans. Please vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence regarding a summary of the effect of H.R. 1181. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, March 10, 2017. Memorandum To Interested Parties. From Americans for Responsible Solutions. Re Effect of H.R. 1181 (2017): Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. Summary H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, would mandate that veterans determined to be mentally incompetent or incapacitated by the Veterans Administration (VA) shall not be considered to have been ``adjudicated as a mental defective'' for the purposes of federal firearms law without a finding by a judge or judicial authority that the veteran is a danger to self or others. The VA has reported records to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) regarding more than 170,000 beneficiaries who were adjudicated as mentally incompetent under a very different standard. The vast majority of those incompetency adjudications have been made (1) without a finding of dangerousness and (2) without the involvement of a judge or judicial officer. In short, this bill would drastically change the standard under which veteran beneficiaries may be considered ``adjudicated'' for the purposes of federal firearms law, and it provides no express time limitation to ensure that this new standard would not be applied to VA adjudications that occurred before enactment of this bill. As a result, there is significant concern about how this legislation would affect veterans who have previously been adjudicated as mentally incompetent by the VA, and who are, as a result, currently considered subject to federal law's firearm prohibition. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) states that once a federal department or agency is aware that, when the basis under which a record was made available to NICS does not apply, or no longer applies, a federal agency must ``update, correct, modify, or remove the record from any database that the agency maintains and makes available to the Attorney General, in accordance with the rules pertaining to that database; and (ii) notify the Attorney General that such basis no longer applies so that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is kept up to date.'' A strong argument could be made that, if H.R. 1181 were to become law, most beneficiaries who have been found to be mentally incompetent by the VA could no longer be considered subject to federal law's firearm prohibition. Relevant Language The relevant language of the bill states: ``Notwithstanding any determination made by the Secretary under section 5501A of this title, in any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.'' The key phrase is ``in any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title.'' This phrase determines the scope of the individuals that would be affected by this bill. It is not limited to cases that the Secretary administers subsequent to the enactment of the bill, but rather is unbounded in time. This language could therefore be interpreted to apply to any case arising out of the administration of these laws and benefits by the Secretary, regardless of when the case occurred. If the NICS Section of the FBI follows this interpretation, it may remove records of these individuals from NICS. This would have far-reaching impact. Currently, few if any mental incompetency determinations by the VA are made by a judge, magistrate, or judicial authority. These determinations are made my VA examiners who determine, in the course of processing veterans' benefits claims, that as a result of as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, a beneficiary ``lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs'' and requires a fiduciary to handle the disbursement of benefits. Because these beneficiaries require a fiduciary to handle disbursement of their payments due to mental incompetence, they are considered to ``lack[] the mental capacity to . . . manage [their] own affairs . . . as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease,'' and are therefore prohibited from possessing a firearm under existing federal law. These incompetency determinations may be appealed to the VA's administrative Board of Veterans Appeals, and then eventually to federal court, but the federal judges reviewing the case would be reviewing the VA's finding that the veteran is mentally incompetent, and would have no basis for determining whether or not the veteran was ``a danger to himself or herself or others.'' Determining whether a person is a danger to self or others is generally outside the purview of the Veterans Benefits Administration or cases arising out of the administration of laws regarding veterans' claims for benefits. If an incompetent beneficiary seeks relief specifically from the NICS firearm prohibition, the VA must determine whether the beneficiary has proven by clear and convincing evidence that ``he or she is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to self or others, and the granting of relief is not contrary to public safety and/or the public interest.'' Essentially, the VA is tasked in these cases with assessing whether the beneficiary met a substantial burden of proving non-dangerousness. This does not involve a finding by a judge, magistrate, or judicial authority. Though veterans may then appeal an action by the VA denying NICS relief to a federal district court judge, that judge would be tasked with reviewing whether the evidence reasonably justified the VA's determination that the veteran failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that he or she was not dangerous. It is not clear even in these rare cases that a judge upholding the VA's determination would have occasion to make an affirmative finding that the person was a danger to self or others. In short, this bill would drastically change the standard under which veteran beneficiaries may be considered ``adjudicated'' for the purposes of federal firearms law, and provides no express time limitation to ensure that this new standard shall not be applied to previous adjudications by the VA. It could therefore threaten to implicitly require that NICS lose nearly every prohibiting mental health record it has ever received from the VA. Limiting Amendment In order to avoid the loss of these records in NICS, we suggest amending the phrase ``in any case arising out of the administration . . .'' to refer only to cases arising subsequent to the enactment of this law.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a proud marine on behalf of countless veterans across America whose healthcare options will vanish if House Republicans succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act. The ACA has provided an invaluable safety net for our Nation's veterans, fulfilling critical gaps in coverage within the VA system. Mr. Speaker, in the first 2 years after the ACA's implementation, the rate of uninsured veterans dropped by an astonishing 43 percent. This was largely due to the fact that, through the ACA's Medicaid expansion, 7 out of 10 previously uninsured veterans became eligible for coverage. The Republicans' so-called repeal-and-replace plan would slash veterans' options by abandoning our commitment to a more inclusive Medicaid program. Democrats refuse to compromise on care for our Nation's heroes, and we absolutely refuse to compromise in the fight to preserve the lifesaving Affordable Care Act.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for two roll call votes on Monday, January 30, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted in this manner: Roll Call Vote No. 66--Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: To remove the sunset provision of section 203 of Public Law 105-384 and for other purposes--YES Roll Call Vote No. 67--Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act of 2017--YES

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Michael J. Keenan, who is retiring having served the interests of Arizona's working men and women with distinction since the mid-1970s. Upon graduating from the University of Arizona, Mike attended Georgetown Law School. Not forgetting his working class roots or union family heritage, Mike returned to Arizona to join the union-side law firm then known as Ward and Contreras. Through the years, Mike provided wise counsel to Arizona unions, enabling them to defend the rights of the Arizona workers to fair wages and safe working conditions. He also has represented well various trust funds which provide health insurance and retirement benefits for Arizona union members. By advancing the interests and protecting the dignity of Arizona union members--often during challenging times--Mike earned a reputation as not only a zealous and highly effective advocate, but also as a highly ethical lawyer. Through his hard work and dedication, Mike immeasurably improved the lives of Arizona working men and women. It is now time for Mike to enjoy a long retirement with his wife, Becky, his sons Jimmy and Joey, his daughter Katie and his granddaughter Avery. On behalf of our great state's workers, I thank him and wish him all the best.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I was not present in the House owing to the birth of my son and missed roll call votes on Wednesday, January 4th and Thursday, January 5th. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Roll Call Vote No. 7--Motion to Recommit: Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017--YES Roll Call Vote No. 8--Final Passage: Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017--NO Roll Call Vote No. 9--Ordering the Previous Question--NO Roll Call Vote No. No. 10--H. Res. 22, rule providing for consideration of HR 26 and H. Res. 11--NO Roll Call Vote No. 11--Final Passage: Objecting to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334--YES Roll Call Vote No. 12--Messer of Indiana Amendment No. 2--NO Roll Call Vote No. 13--Grijalva of Arizona Amendment No. 3--YES Roll Call Vote No. 14--Castor of Florida Amendment No. 4--YES Roll Call Vote No. 15--Cicilline of Rhode Island Amendment No. 5--YES Roll Call Vote No. 16--Conyers of Michigan Amendment No. 6--YES Roll Call Vote No. 17--Johnson of Georgia Amendment No. 7--YES Roll Call Vote No. 18--Nadler of New York Amendment No. 9--YES Roll Call Vote No. 19--McNerney of California Amendment No. 10--YES Roll Call Vote No. 20--Scott of Virginia Amendment No. 11--YES Roll Call Vote No. 21--King of Iowa Amendment No. 12--NO Roll Call Vote No. 22--Motion to Recommit: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017--YES Roll Call Vote No. 23--Final Passage: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017--NO

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I am a marine, just like James Mattis. While I was a grunt and he was a general, we both fought in Iraq. He is a man of social integrity and patriotism. War shows the character of military leaders. Marines who served under Mattis in Iraq speak in glowing terms about his strength, intelligence, and ability. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise this evening to oppose legislation that would allow General Mattis to serve as our 26th Secretary of Defense. This might seem contradictory. It might appear partisan or unpatriotic. In fact, the opposite is true. My position is entirely straightforward, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to something as basic as civilian control of the military, I believe exceptions should be granted for extraordinary circumstances, not extraordinary people. For more than half a century, recently retired military leaders have been barred from assuming the top post at the Pentagon. The Members of Congress who enshrined this prohibition in law had fresh memories of the Second World War. They are wary of a decorated general slipping off his uniform and immediately stepping into a civilian role. They were apprehensive about installing a Secretary of Defense who could be perceived as partial to one service over others. They are also worried about whether the reputation of our military as a nonpartisan institution would suffer if its most respected leaders could transition directly into political positions. The last time a recently retired military man, the great George Marshall, was permitted to lead the Pentagon, America was facing the prospect of a humiliating defeat in the Korean war. Even then, congressional leaders specified that his waiver was a one-time exception to the rule. While our country must confront an array of threats today, none of our national security challenges remotely compares to a massive ground war in the Far East. Mr. Speaker, I understand that many of my colleagues are eager to grant this waiver because they greeted the announcement of Mattis' appointment with a sigh of relief, a sigh of relief because it meant Donald Trump had picked someone who is known to be competent and patriotic, and someone who doesn't have a cozy relationship with the Russian Government. That is an understandable reaction, and we are all extremely confident that General Mattis will do a much better job than General Flynn or some of the other alternatives. We shouldn't let Trump's bad behavior and poor judgment compel Congress to lower the bar. If anything, we should raise the bar for Trump, not make exceptions just because we are glad he didn't go with someone like Flynn. Mr. Speaker, a simple set of rules and norms form the fabric of American democracy. Since the founding of the Republic, leaders of every party and political persuasion have upheld this basic framework. For generations, American leaders have placed principle before party. With remarkably few exceptions, Presidents from George Washington to Barack Obama have valued our institutions and our democracy more than private gain or personal advancement. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a President-elect who doesn't think the rules should apply to him. We have a President-elect who is brazenly breaking norms left and right. We have a President-elect who promises to make America great again, but is dividing the country as never before. Here in the United States, we believe every American is entitled to equal justice under the law. But Donald Trump believes that a different set of rules should apply to him than apply to President Obama or President Bush or any of the other men who have held our highest office. Unlike his predecessors, Donald Trump has stubbornly refused to release his tax returns. Unlike his predecessors, Donald Trump has irresponsibly meddled in our foreign relations throughout the transition. Unlike his predecessors, Trump has done nothing to diminish massive conflicts of interest stemming from his complex business dealings overseas. Yet, instead of applying a check on this pattern of reckless behavior, House Republicans have rolled over time and time again. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans won't stand up to a President entering office with just a 37 percent approval rating because it is precisely that 37 percent of the public that scares them. In fact, that 37 percent has terrified them for 8 long years. It scared them into turning a blind eye to the racist birther conspiracy theories. It scared them into shutting down the Federal Government. That 37 percent even scared them into risking a debt limit default which would have immediately triggered an unprecedented economic meltdown. Mr. Speaker, we need a President like Barack Obama who looks out for 100 percent of the American people. We need a President like Barack Obama who abides by 100 percent of the rules. We need a House majority that is willing to uphold its constitutional obligations 100 percent of the time. Moving forward in this Congress, the power to check Donald Trump is in Republican hands and depends on Republican votes, but they have been too scared, too cowed, and too unwilling to do what these tough times demand. If we, the Members of this great body, won't stand up for the norms that have sustained this Republic for 238 years, then who will? General Mattis is a patriot, but now is the time for all of us in this Chamber to reiterate a basic truth in a democracy--rules matter. They shouldn't be discarded at the first sign of difficulty. They shouldn't be undercut by waivers. Important precedents must be upheld in good times and bad. This is America, Mr. Speaker, not some banana republic where the incoming strongman gets to rewrite the rule book. Our principles are enduring. Our values are timeless. For more than two centuries, our commitment to the rule of law has been unshakable. That is why we should reject this waiver. That is why we must hold Donald Trump to the same high standards as all of the 43 Presidents who came before him. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Speaker, duly noted. He is not reaching out. He is reaching his hand into America's pockets, and we must not let him do it. When President Obama took office, even Americans who didn't support him celebrated his election and what he said about our country, and we united in wishing him well. Here in Congress, however, Republicans announced that they would not lift a finger to help him lead our country. As Donald Trump takes office, even Americans who did reluctantly cast their votes for him worry about what his election says about our country. And if we are united, it is our fervent hope that he does not govern the way he has campaigned. Here in Congress, however, we cannot afford to give him the benefit of the doubt. We must not lift a finger to help him scam our country. We must, instead, put every effort into stopping him. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGO. Duly noted. Next month, Donald Trump is going on trial for fraud related to the fake university that bore his name. A series of exposes in The Washington Post have revealed the systematic misuse of funds at the fake charity he established. In Atlantic City, he enriched himself at the expense of creditors, investors, workers, and suppliers while running multiple casinos into bankruptcy. Every one of us in Congress--every single one of us in Congress-- knows who Donald Trump is. It does not matter what he says today or what he does tomorrow. His whole life and his whole campaign speak to who he is and to what kind of President he will be for our country. We should be horrified because it is horrifying. The man who boasted, I alone will fix this, will fix nothing. He has broken us apart. Millions of Americans are living in fear because he has threatened them--Muslims, Latinos, African Americans, women, the disabled, the LGBT community, and more. Donald Trump will be our next President. We here in Congress must oppose his agenda. We must oppose his efforts to increase his power. Anything that makes Donald Trump more powerful makes him more dangerous. Look at who Donald Trump is. Look at the life he has led. Look at the campaign he ran. No one should be under any illusions. Never more in my lifetime have we needed strong, aggressive, innovative, strategic leadership from the Democratic Party and the progressive movement that fuels it. Donald Trump will not be an ordinary President. Rather than helping him protect the country, we must protect the country from the new President. Madam Speaker, this is unchartered territory. In the days since his election, Trump has attacked the right to protest. He has attacked The New York Times for its critical coverage. He announced that Steve Bannon, a White nationalist racist, will serve as his senior adviser in his White House. He has committed to deporting 2 to 3 million immigrants immediately. His team has threatened legal action against a Senator who criticized him; and on the campaign trail, he threatened to use the regulatory powers of the Federal Government to retaliate against his critics. Despite his promise to drain the swamp of corruption in Washington, he is stacking his transition team with corporate lobbyists. Trump is preparing to install foxes to watch the people's henhouse. Last but by no means least, he has refused to engage in any meaningful financial disclosures or to take any steps to effectively mitigate the conflicts of interest inherent in the President of the United States and also being the head of an opaque network of privately held companies. We don't know who he owes money to, and we don't know who is paying him. He has installed his children and heirs to manage his company even while they serve as top advisers to his transition. Given everything we know about Donald Trump and everything we don't know, I was alarmed by the words of senior leaders from both the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic Party regarding their openness to working with Donald Trump on infrastructure. Under ordinary circumstances, we would welcome a plan to invest in America's infrastructure even if that plan came from the other side of the aisle--especially if it came from the other side of the aisle. But Donald Trump is not an ordinary politician. He is a con artist. He has refused to give the American people reason to believe that he is not in this to enrich himself. In fact, he has bucked tradition by maintaining his family's interest in a private corporation. Unfortunately, his infrastructure plan is really a privatization scheme.

Mr. GALLEGO. Duly noted. Donald Trump is a bigot. Even Paul Ryan called Donald Trump's words, when attacking a Federal judge of Mexican descent, the ``textbook definition of racism.'' Donald Trump is a liar. Senator Ted Cruz called him a pathological liar who is completely amoral to boot. Most of all, Donald Trump is a con artist.

Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Speaker, our country is facing a perilous moment. In my district, parents are reassuring frightened children that everything will be all right. That is what parents do. Our job as Members of Congress is to do the best we can to make sure that those reassurances come true. Madam Speaker, I was born and raised in Chicago. In 2000, I voted for the first time in my life. I voted for Barack Obama to serve in this Chamber. While he did not win that election, I was inspired by his message of reform, change, and hope. Throughout his life and career, Barack Obama has always tried to bring people together. Even in a highly polarized and tumultuous time, he has always tried to rise above and bridge those divisions and to be a unifying force for good. This is who Barack Obama is. This is who he was at Harvard Law School. This is who he was as a community organizer in Chicago. This is who he was as a State senator, and as our President. Right now, President Obama is discharging his constitutional obligation to orchestrate an orderly transition of power to a new President. I understand and I respect why, under those circumstances, he has chosen to emphasize a message of national unity. I understand and respect why Hillary Clinton, who, despite the painful knowledge that she received more votes than her opponent, is doing the same. But I feel that I have an obligation at this moment, as do many of my colleagues in this House--I have a duty--to tell the truth about Donald Trump. We cannot treat him like any other politician or like any other Republican because he is not. Trump represents something much more dangerous; and while none of us want this to be the case, we have a duty to treat him like the threat that he is--a threat to our values, a threat to our people, and a threat to our national identity. Donald Trump is 70 years old, and it is unrealistic to expect him to change at this moment in time. Donald Trump is a sexual predator who brags about grabbing women without their consent. To date, he has been accused of sexual assault by nearly a dozen women. Donald Trump is a demagogue. His political mentor was Roy Cohn, Senator Joseph McCarthy's right-hand man. No surprise that Donald Trump burst onto the national conservative scene by peddling a racist birther conspiracy, questioning whether President Obama was even an American.

Mr. GALLEGO

Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.