Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mr. John Aloysius Shanley. John was a loving husband and father. He passed away peacefully on June 5, 2017, in the comfort of his home, surrounded by his family, after a hard fought battle against ALS. John was known for his sense of humor, his youthful heart, and his successful business, P.G. Tire Inc. Known to his family as ``PopPop,'' John is survived by his wife Marlene Shanley and four loving children Genevieve and Charles Hawk, Nicholle and Kenneth Simpson, Joseph and Natalie Shanley, and Marilyn Shanley, as well as his sister, Sharon Shanley of Las Vegas, NV. He has 7 grandchildren, Andrew Simpson, Ryleigh Simpson, Elizabeth Hawk, Colin Hawk, Maggie Shanley, Jack Shanley and Blaise Ingoglia. Mr. Speaker, Mr. John Aloysius Shanley will be remembered as a humorous and humble man, beloved by his family and friends. I am very pleased to honor his life and legacy here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this most difficult time.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan resolution supporting the concurrent-track approach to the Israeli- Palestinian peace process. I want to acknowledge and thank Representative Eliot Engel, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and my friend and colleague across the aisle, Representative David Schweikert, for introducing this resolution with me. There is no reason to parse words: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict presents an immensely difficult challenge. There are no easy answers. Successive United States Presidential administrations have pursued peace agreements between the parties for over 30 years, from the 1982 Reagan Plan for Middle East Peace to the 1993 Oslo Accords, Camp David Summit, Clinton Parameters, Annapolis Conference, and efforts to restart the peace process under the Obama Administration. Today, it seems as if progress has ground to a halt. The relationship between America and Israel is paramount. We stand with our ally and continue to support efforts to move the peace process forward, whenever and in any way possible. Despite lack of progress, Israel and some of her Arab neighbors have worked quietly and behind the scenes to improve bilateral relations in recent years. Common threats posed by Iran and the Islamic State have allowed for new limited dialogues to emerge. However limited they may be, these interactions present a new approach for improving the outlook of the Middle East. The concurrent-track approach, sometimes referred to as the ``outside-in'' approach, encourages Arab and Muslim-majority states to improve bilateral relations with Israel, as Israel and the Palestinian Authority concurrently work to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although there are rarely, if ever, easy solutions to challenges as complex as bringing lasting peace to the Middle East, Congress should encourage and support those states willing to engage in that endeavor. The resolution expresses support for the concurrent track approach, and commends Arab and Muslim-majority states that have already taken steps to improve their bilateral relations with Israel. I, like nearly all of my colleagues in Congress, continue to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, negotiated between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and resulting in two states for two peoples, living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition. I believe this is the only way to ensure that both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people can have a sovereign homeland. The inability to achieve a two-state solution threatens the State of Israel's security and identity as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people, just as it impedes the well-being and self- determination of the Palestinian people. Earlier this month, we marked the 50th Anniversary of Israel's Six- Day War and the anniversary of the re-unification of Jerusalem. For the 19 years Jerusalem was divided, Jews were forced from the Jewish Quarter and the Old City, barred from Holy sites, and Jewish cemeteries and synagogues were vandalized. In the days leading up to the six-day war, the armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria massed on Israel's borders, threatening the Jewish people with annihilation for the second time in just two decades. The Israeli people fought for their survival and achieved a miraculous victory. In reuniting the city, Jerusalem once again became a place where people of all faiths can worship. Despite this victory, the final status of Jerusalem and the safety of the State of Israel and its people, regardless of ethnicity or religion, will not be secured until peace is achieved. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce this bipartisan resolution today, and urge its speedy consideration and passage by this body.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Willie Span of Tamarac, Florida. Willie was a constituent of mine, who tragically passed away on October 2, 2014, after being struck by a vehicle while on his way to the William ``Bill'' Kling VA Clinic in Sunrise, Florida. Since this heartbreaking accident, Willie became a symbol for pedestrian safety and for veterans in our community. Veterans had advocated long and hard for a crosswalk and traffic light to the Bill Kling Clinic, yet they were told that there were not enough pedestrians crossing the street to warrant the changes. In the time since the accident, Willie's wife, Doris Span, has continued to push for a safer way for veterans to cross the street from the bus stop to get to the clinic. The bus stop has been temporarily removed and replaced with paratransit service for veterans, and we are all anticipating a lasting solution to avoid future tragedies. We must do everything we can to create safe places for pedestrians through the placements of crosswalks and lights. Too often, this does not happen until a terrible accident occurs. Mr. Speaker, Willie Span was a veteran of the war in Vietnam, having served as a private in the United States Army, 8th Infantry Division. He and his wife had been married for eight years before purchasing their first home together, something that had always been his dream. On Monday, June 19, 2017, Willie's family, friends, and representatives of the U.S. Army, the Miami VA Healthcare System, the William ``Bill'' Kling Veterans Clinic, the Broward County Veterans Coalition, and Broward County Transit will gather at the location of the accident to honor his memory and place a memorial plaque. He is remembered as a soft-spoken and honorable man, beloved by his family and friends. I am very pleased to honor his life and legacy.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Broward County Mental Health Court on celebrating its 20th Anniversary on June 23, 2017. This year's Anniversary will honor the Broward County Public Defender, Mr. Howard Finkelstein; the Honorable Dale Ross; the Broward Sheriff's Office; the Broward Behavioral Health Coalition; the United Way of Broward County; Henderson Behavioral Health; the Broward County Crime Commission; the Mental Health Association of Southeast Florida; and the National Alliance on Mental Illness Broward County. All of these outstanding individuals and organizations deserve this honor as they have devoted countless hours and years to helping those with mental illness navigate an often unforgiving criminal justice system. As we celebrate this august occasion, I would be remiss if I did not single out the efforts of Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren. Judge Lerner-Wren was tasked with presiding over and administering our country's first Mental Health Court in 1997, shortly after taking the bench. Since that time, she has been a leader in the field of Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the justice that emanates therefrom. Judge Lerner-Wren, and all those who work for the Mental Health Court, as well as those dedicated to the cause of Therapeutic Jurisprudence really have one simple goal in mind--ensuring dignity for those suffering from mental illness, who find themselves navigating our criminal justice system. Mr. Speaker, I applaud all those associated with Broward County's Mental Health Court over the past 20 years. Their work has made an important difference in the lives of those dealing with mental health issues, to their families, and our community. I wish the Court many more years of continued success, and look forward to championing their important work in Congress.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for yielding me the necessary and customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to debate the rule for consideration of two separate pieces of legislation: S. 1094, the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act; and H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act. I begin with S. 1094, legislation aimed at bringing enhanced accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs and improving the care we provide to our Nation's veterans. Among other things, this bill codifies in law the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection at the VA and streamlines the process to demote, remove, or suspend VA employees if evidence proves they engaged in misconduct or poor performance. Mr. Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee, we had the opportunity to hear from the chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee about this legislation, Dr. Roe and Mr. Walz. They discussed the bipartisan nature in which they have worked on this issue, along with the bipartisan work done in the Senate, to craft legislation that they hope can achieve strong bipartisan support in this body. It is because of this display of bipartisanship and cooperation and a semblance of regular order that I am dismayed that I must now address the process and substance by which we are considering the second bill encompassed in this rule, H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act. Let me connect the dots for you on how we got to this point, and bear with me. The Republican majority's path to take healthcare from 23 million Americans has been as convoluted as it has been chaotic. Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you and my colleagues should remember, first, the Republican mantra was repeal. Then it was repeal and replace. Then it was repeal and delay, followed by access to coverage, and then, patient centered. Finally, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle settled on a three-bucket strategy. The first bucket of this strategy was the Republicans' American Health Care Act. The majority brought their first iteration of this bill to the floor after working on it for 17 days, and, with no hearings, only to have it go down in flames in the most public and spectacular fashion. So they went back to the drawing board--not to improve the bill, or improve healthcare for the American people, mind you, but to garner enough Republican votes for a bill that ultimately had 17 percent approval ratings. And they added a manager's amendment to get support, then they added another manager's amendment, then another, and another. Then with a bill patched together with the wants and wishes of powerful healthcare lobbyists and tax breaks for the superwealthy, with no CBO score, and with no way for the American people, let alone their own Members, to actually know what was in the bill, the majority pushed the bill through the House of Representatives. What did my Republican friends do after passing this inexplicably bad bill? They got on a couple of buses from here at the Capitol and went to a rose garden ceremony hosted by President Donald John Trump to celebrate upending one-sixth of the American economy and taking away healthcare from 23 million people. That was certainly the Republicans' most recent mission-accomplished moment, and it must have been some celebration because it will be another 2 weeks before the majority would actually get around to sending their healthcare bill to the Senate, due to the fact that they were not sure if it complied with the Senate rules or, more specifically, the Byrd rule in the U.S. Senate. Then there is the second bucket of this plan, which involves the Trump administration rolling back regulations. Should the work associated with the second bucket proceed as it has with the other two, then I am sure it, too, will be a disaster, benefitting the wealthy at the expense of hardworking Americans. Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the Republicans' third bucket. According to Senator Ted Cruz, this bucket is ``a sucker's bucket.'' Indeed, some like Senator Tom Cotton have referred to all of this bucket talk as simply a bunch of political spin. Whatever it is, it is an empty bucket. The most recent bill the Republican majority has decided to dump in this sucker's bucket is H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act. Under current law, premium assistance tax credits are available for eligible individuals and families to subsidize the cost of health insurance. Individuals are not eligible for these credits unless they are U.S. citizens or are living in the country legally. Currently, applicants have 90 days to provide documentation or otherwise address any issues with citizenship and immigration status, and are presumed eligible to enroll in marketplace coverage. If an individual is unable to provide the necessary documentation, coverage and financial assistance are terminated. This provision ensures that individuals are not left in a position of having to wait potentially months to be verified before they can afford coverage, and it provides the proper guardrails to terminate assistance if an individual is deemed ineligible. There is no evidence to support the majority's claim that this process is not working. H.R. 2581 would repeal this 90-day verification period, setting up an unnecessary barrier for eligible individuals to receive the credits they need to afford lifesaving healthcare. Republicans themselves acknowledge that the verification process could take months, but, nevertheless, they are bringing forth today's bill knowing full well that it will make it harder for vulnerable people to access healthcare when they need it most. It would disproportionately hurt low-income Americans, especially naturalized Americans from immigrant families since they can have a harder time producing documentation needed to verify their citizenship. But don't just take my word for it. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by dozens and dozens of national, State, and local civil rights and advocacy groups strongly opposing this legislation, such groups as the NAACP, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the American Friends Service Committee, the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy, and I could go on, and on, and on, but in the interest of time, I thank the Speaker for allowing it to be made a part of the Record. June 12, 2017. Dear Member of Congress: As national, state, and local organizations concerned about immigrant rights or access to affordable health care, we are writing to strongly urge you to VOTE NO on H.R. 2581, the ``Verify First'' Act. This bill is an attack on people's ability to see a doctor and on immigrants and people of color. It is not the ``common sense'' taxpayer protection bill that its supporters would have you believe. H.R. 2581 is a dangerous bill that puts up roadblocks for both citizens and immigrants to obtain timely, affordable health insurance. It would strip away provisions that provide for a person to obtain subsidies for enrollment in an Affordable Care Act (or the contemplated American Health Care Act) plan while they work with Department of Health and Human Services to verify their U.S. citizenship or immigration status. The people most impacted are U.S. citizens who were born abroad or naturalized. The bill also affects many immigrants, especially those newly arrived or certain victims of domestic violence and trafficking survivors. The fact is that when individuals are not able to immediately verify their citizenship or immigration status on an Affordable Care Act Marketplace, it begins an often months long, strenuous process of sending in documents that must be physically inspected. Health care assisters routinely say these clients are the hardest cases they work on because the process for verifying citizenship and immigration status is a time-consuming exercise in dealing with inefficient government processes. Rather than protect American taxpayers, H.R. 2581 would strip from American taxpayers important protections that are needed to overcome deficiencies in federal government databases. Immigrants who are not lawfully present are categorically barred from enrollment in health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and for the subsidies that make that insurance affordable. Moreover, safeguards protecting taxpayers are already built into the ACA; individuals whose citizenship or immigration status cannot be verified already are required to pay back all of their subsidies when they file their taxes and ``reconcile'' their premium tax credits. Supporters of this bill cite a sloppy Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report that arrived at a made-up number of supposed ``fraud.'' It's just not true. The committee assumed that every person who lost coverage for failure to verify their citizenship and immigration status was undocumented. In the experience of our organizations and organizations we work with, this is false. These reports describe the first year of the marketplaces, and it is well documented that system outages and understaffing, among other technical problems, contributed to the federal Marketplace's failure to verify consumers' status promptly. The Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General reported in 2014 that a cause of the delay in verification was the agency's lack of prioritization of this issue. Despite huge gains since then, problems still persist. The Social Security database holding many citizens' information may not reflect common changes, such as when a person marries and changes their last name, or when someone naturalizes and gains U.S. citizenship. People lose their coverage because they receive notices in languages they cannot read. Immigrants are required to submit documents multiple times, or wait while the Department of Homeland Security finds paper files, a result of deficiencies in their databases affecting groups like asylum applicants and some survivors of domestic violence. These are among the many issues consumers face. Congress has already deprived undocumented immigrants from the ability to buy coverage, even at full price, so they can see a doctor when they are sick, but this bill would go a step further to delay or put out of reach affordable health insurance for many citizens and lawfully present immigrants. Our organizations firmly believe that this would be detrimental to the people we represent and to all of our communities as a whole. We have seen that when health insurance is unaffordable, people are effectively prevented from obtaining access to the care they need to be healthy. This bill is not just an attack on our health care system, it is also an attack on immigrants and people of color, which our organizations stand firmly against. In his statements when introducing this bill, Rep. Lou Barletta focused the bill as part of his effort to ``stop illegal immigration.'' Rep. Barletta has a long history of anti-immigrant rhetoric, from trying to prevent immigrants from leasing a residence to stating that they should be denied life-saving services in hospital emergency rooms. This bill is simply a vehicle for scapegoating immigrants and people of color and will keep eligible people from accessing health care. We the undersigned organizations urge you to vote NO on H.R. 2581 and the continued assault on immigrants and the health of our communities. Sincerely, National Advocates for Youth; African American Ministers in Action; American Federation of Teachers (AFT); American Friends Service Committee; American Intercession; American Society on Aging; Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC; Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence; Asian Pacific Partners for Empowerment, Advocacy & Leadership (APPEAL); Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations (AAPCHO); Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Black Alliance for Just Immigration; Breast Cancer Action; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Advocacy Institute; Children's Defense Fund; Church World Service (CWS). Coalition on Human Needs; Columbian Center for Advocacy and Outreach; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, US Provinces; Conscious Talk Radio; Detention Watch Network; Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; Dominican Sisters; Dominicans of Sinsinawa; Family Equality Council; Farmworker Justice; First Focus Campaign for Children; Food Research & Action Center; Franciscan Sisters of the Poor IJPC; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Generations Inc.; GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Indivisible; Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Interfaith Worker Justice. Irish Apostolate USA; Jobs With Justice; Justice in Aging; Justice, Peace and Reconciliation Commission, Priests of the Sacred Heart, US Province; Lambda Legal; Leadership Team of the Felician Sisters of North America; League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC); Medical Mission Sisters; Mi Familia Vota; MomsRising; NAACP; NAPAFASA; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; National Association of County and City Health Officials; National Association of Social Workers; National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Churches. National Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Education Association; National Employment Law Project; National Health Law Program; National Hispanic Medical Association; National Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center; National Justice for Our Neighbors; National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; National Network of Abortion Funds; National Organization for Women; National Women's Health Network; Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; NMAC; OCA--Asian Pacific American Advocates; Our Revolution; Peace and Justice Office of the Congregation of Notre Dame; Physicians for Reproductive Health; PICO National. Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign; Prevention Institute; Project Inform; Racine Dominicans; Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need; Refuge Ministries; Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Service Employees International Union; Sisters of Charity; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas--Institute Justice Team; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; United Sikhs; United We Dream; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk, U.S. Province; We Belong Together; API Wellness. State and Local Academy of Medical & Public Health Services; Advocates for Children and Youth; AgeOptions; Almost Home, Inc.; Anti- Hunger & Nutrition Coalition; Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families; Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Los Angeles; Asian Community Alliance--Cincinnati OH; Asian Law Alliance; Asian Services In Action, Inc.; Baltimore Jewish Council; California Health Professional Student Alliance; California Immigrant Policy Center; California Latinas for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ); California OneCare; California Pan-Ethnic Health Network; California Partnership; California Physicians Alliance; CASA. Center for Southeast Asians; Chicago Hispanic Health Coalition; Child Care Resources of Rockland; Children Now; Children's Defense Fund--CA; Chinatown Service Center; Chinese-American Planning Council; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Collaborative Center for Justice; Colorado Center on Law and Policy; Colorado Center on Law and Policy; Columbia Legal Services; Community Health Councils; D.C. Hunger Solutions; DuPage Federation on Human Services Reform; Empower Missouri; Ensuring Opportunity Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa; Erie Benedictines for Peace; Esperanza Health Centers; EverThrive Illinois; Farmworker Association of Florida. Florida Immigrant Coalition (FLIC); Give for a Smile; Greater Kansas City Coalition to End Homelessness; Having Our Say Coalition; Health Access California; Health Care for All--WA; Health Law Advocates; Healthy House Within A MATCH Coalition; Hmong Ohio of Tomorrow; Hunger Action Los Angeles; IHM Sisters, Immaculata, PA; IL Hunger Coalition; Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Indivisible Mountain Home, Idaho; Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity; IRIS--Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services; Islamic Civic Engagement Project; Jewish Family & Children's Service; Kansas Appleseed; Kentucky Equal Justice Center; Korean Community Services of Metropolitan NY; La Fe Policy Research and Education Center. La Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program; Legal Council for Health Justice; Legal Services of Southern Piedmont; Maine Consumers for Affordable Health Care; Make the Road New York; Maryland CASH Campaign; Maryland Hunger Solutions; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA); Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Maternal and Child Health Access; Maternity Care Coalition; National Association of Social Workers, CT Chapter; National Tongan American Society; Nationalities Service Center; NC Child; New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty; New York Immigration Coalition; New York Legal Assistance Group; NICOS Chinese Health Coalition; NJ State Industrial Union Council; NOELA Community Health Center; Northern NJ Chapter, National Organization for Women. Northwest Health Law Advocates; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project; Office of the Health Care Advocate at Vermont Legal Aid; OneAmerica; Pacific Islander Health Partnership; Pitkin County Human Services; Public Justice Center; Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action (PSARA); Rainbow Center; Reformed Church of Highland Park; RESULTS--Santa Fe (NM); Salaam Cleveland; Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN); Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Houston; Sisters of St. Dominic of Blauvelt, NY; Sisters of the Most Precious Blood; Social Justice Committee St. Patrick Church; South Asian Network; Southwest Women's Law Center; St. Francis St Vincent de Paul Society; Tennessee Justice Center; Thai Health And Information Service. The Children's Partnership; The Latino Health Insurance Program, Inc.; Turning Points; United Way Bay Area; URI Feinstein Center for a Hunger Free America; Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition; Virginia Poverty Law Center; Voices for Vermont's Children; Voz Hispana Cambia Comunitario; Washington Community Action Network; Washington Healthcare Access Alliance; Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO; West Chester Food Cupboard; West Side Campaign Against Hunger; Westlake Chinese Culture Association; Wisconsin Council of Churches; Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice; Women's Action Movement Washtenaw County, MI; Worksite Wellness LA; Xaverian Brothers; Young Women United.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, ``This bill,'' that letter says, ``is an attack on people's ability to see a doctor and on immigrants and people of color.'' ``H.R. 2581 is a dangerous bill that puts up roadblocks for both citizens and immigrants to obtain timely, affordable health insurance.'' If this is what we are in store for with the Republican's third bucket, then it is even worse than a sucker's bucket. It is callous, and it is cruel, and someone described the Vice Presidency once many years ago as a warm bucket of spit. As my colleague, Congressman Richard Neal, said last night at the Rules Committee, bad process leads to bad product. I agree with Mr. Neal, and this bill is a perfect example of his salient insight. The provisions in this legislation are contingent upon enactment of the American Health Care Act. If the American Health Care Act is enacted, this bill would not go into effect. That means we are now considering legislation amending a bill that we have already sent to the Senate, and that the Senate has made clear it has no intention of taking up. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Donald John Trump issued an executive order placing a hiring freeze on Federal civilian employees across the executive branch. This executive order, like many of the executive orders this President has issued, failed to take into account the effects it could have on our most vulnerable communities. Veterans make up one-third of all Federal workers. I am very pleased that one is in my office. She is probably smiling because sometimes Charity probably doesn't think I even know that she is in the office. But she is there and does incredible work. The Department of Veterans Affairs--a severely understaffed agency serving those veterans--cannot afford a hiring freeze. This week, Republicans are bringing to the floor bills they claim would improve veterans' lives. If the President and my Republican colleagues are truly committed to our veterans, then they should ensure that reckless hiring freezes do not harm them in the future. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Schrader's bill, H.R. 696, which would prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting the Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record the text of my amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, what we have here today is a rule with one bill that really was worked on in a bipartisan manner--sort of like regular order like we were promised by the Speaker at the outset of this session of Congress--and another bill, which is just more of the same from this majority: creating problems where none existed before. The fact remains that the Republicans' healthcare bill and overall bucket strategy is a disaster for the American people, and no amount of Rose Garden backslapping is going to change that fact. Under the Republican plan, 23 million Americans will be kicked off of their health insurance and $800 billion will be cut from Medicaid. Footnote right there, we hear that the Senate is taking up something. We don't know where and who is doing the taking up, but what I read today is that they are considering a glide path of some kind to cut Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, cutting Medicaid hurts poor people. Whether you glide it or run it over them, either way you look at it, it hurts them, and we need to pay attention to that, particularly if we are doing it to provide for those of us that are better off in our society. Seventy-five billion dollars will be cut from Medicare, insurance premiums would increase for people ages 60 to 64 by more than $3,000 a year, and protections for those with preexisting conditions will be eliminated. I read about a 63-year-old lady who said that all of her conditions are preexisting and she can't afford insurance. H.R. 2581 only adds to this pain by setting up an unnecessary barrier for eligible individuals to get access to healthcare. But not to worry, under the Republican plan, the 400 highest income families would ultimately get tax cuts averaging around $7 million a year, and that information comes from the Ways and Means Committee's fact sheet. Mr. Speaker, I and others here very frequently have pointed out that what the Republicans want to do is to cut benefits for poor people--the most vulnerable in our society--and to provide for the better-off tax cuts--those people in our society who least need them. It occurs to me that if we were to have an opportunity to ask the 400 wealthiest families in this country whether or not they really need a tax cut, my belief, based on the four billionaires that I have known personally--two are deceased now--but in my conversations with all of them, their position was that they didn't need a cut. To the man, each one of them said that, if they were to receive tax cuts, they would prefer that they go to education, particularly education for kindergartners and prekindergartners. If my Republican colleagues can move past throwing red meat to their base--a group of people, mind you, who are most certainly disadvantaged--one day they are going to wake up and recognize that much of what we are doing here, even though they support it, many of the persons who are doing it, they, too, are caught up in this downward spiral that is involving healthcare in this country, the game that we are playing. If we are willing to work in a serious manner to address the issues in our healthcare system, then I know that Democrats are ready to work with Republicans. But whatever is going on in the other body, I assure you, no Democrats in the other body are involved in. Last night I asked the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee whether or not he knew what this bill looked like, and his answer was that he did not. I also said what I repeat here, that people are hurting in this country. Whether it is ObamaCare that the Republicans, I believe, are going to find that it is going to be hard to fix, or whether it is the Affordable Care Act that is in some phantom hole over in the other body, somehow or another, my friends on the other side are going to be held accountable for all of what is necessary to be done. The only way that is sensible--and I believe that every American is imploring us to undertake--is to sit down together. I cannot believe that the 435 people plus 6 here in the House of Representatives and the 100 United States Senators do not have the ability to do all of the things that are necessary in order for Americans to receive adequate healthcare and to lead with protecting the most vulnerable in our society. It is ridiculous to talk about cutting Medicaid when more than 60 percent of the people on Medicaid are seniors that are in nursing homes. What are we going to say to those families? How are we going to address them when it comes to the reality that they are confronted with while we are up here jaw jacking back and forth about whether or not it is ObamaCare or whether or not it is the Affordable Care Act that we can't seem to find. Somewhere along the lines, we need to sit down and work together. Failure to do so is to our own peril and to the peril of the citizens of this great country of ours. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), my friend, for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes for debate. H.R. 2213 would broaden the criteria for waiving the polygraph requirements for certain applicants at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Under the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act, the Commissioner of the CBP would be permitted to waive polygraph requirements for certain State and law enforcement personnel who have passed a polygraph examination, Federal law enforcement agents who have passed a stringent background investigation, and veterans with three consecutive years in the military who have held a security clearance and passed a background check. Mr. Speaker, we understand the importance of ensuring that our Federal law enforcement agencies are operating at full capacity, but there are other big-ticket items that we are ignoring in this institution. So I ask: Where is the Republican agenda? With control of both Chambers of Congress and the White House, my colleagues across the aisle have made it through nearly half of their first year in power without a single major legislative achievement. It appears that President Donald John Trump is more interested in slashing old policies than proposing new ones. Mr. Speaker, President Trump and congressional Republicans have yet to put forward the promised $1 trillion infrastructure package. Voters are still waiting for the massive tax cuts promised to them during the campaign. The American people have yet to see a single jobs bill, let alone the supersecret plan to defeat ISIS. And looming over this long to-do list is the investigation into Russia's blatant attempts to interfere in our election, an issue that many of my Republican colleagues seem more than happy to ignore. Instead, President Donald John Trump and my friends across the aisle have spent their time rolling back protections for workers, consumers, teachers, students, and the environment. Instead of tackling a bipartisan spending deal, addressing budget cuts under sequestration, and avoiding debt default, the Republican- controlled Congress insists on dismantling the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with a plan that will raise deductibles, lessen coverage, and leave 23 million more people uninsured. Mr. Speaker, there are still plenty of people without jobs in this country. We have plenty of families worried that they will be tossed off of their health insurance plan, and we have plenty of folks who are pleading with Congress to pass compassionate immigration reform. Yet President Donald John Trump is tweeting about his travel ban and attacking London Mayor Sadiq Khan hours after a terrorist attack hit London which, sadly, killed seven people and injured dozens more. Mr. Speaker, after being the antigovernment party--and I find it hypocritical that people in the administration are declaring that we are obstructionists. They gave, during that period of the previous President, obstruction absolutely new meaning. After being the antigovernment party for so many years, it appears that the congressional Republicans have forgotten how to govern. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we continue to be deeply concerned by revelations that Russia hacked last year's elections. In fact, just this week we learned that Russian military intelligence engaged in a monthlong cyber attack against our voting infrastructure, specifically targeting a voting software supplier and 122 local election officials. This most recent revelation comes on the back of earlier determinations by the intelligence community that Russia hacked the DNC and distributed fake news in order to sway the election in Donald Trump's favor. This has been made even more troublesome by the fact that Donald John Trump recently admitted that he fired FBI Director Comey over the Bureau's investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mr. Speaker, the integrity of our electoral system is at stake. It is time the Republican-controlled Congress does its job and acts to defend our democracy. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the bipartisan bill, H.R. 356, which would create a nonpartisan commission to investigate Russian interference into our 2016 election. This marks the eighth time we have tried to bring this bill to the House floor. On the previous seven occasions, the Republican majority, regrettably, refused to allow the House to even debate this important legislation. But today, they will have yet another opportunity to redeem themselves. I hope they will finally put country ahead of party. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, we stand here today with a to-do list a mile long, and we don't have much time to cross items off that list. There are only 30 working days before our 5-week August recess. That is not much time, but those of us on this side of the aisle stand ready to work in a bipartisan manner with our Republican colleagues in order to make sensible reforms to our Tax Code, our infrastructure and healthcare system, in short, to work hard for the American people, because that is what we were sent here to do. It is far past time for my friends across the aisle to come to the table ready to work on behalf of the American people in a bipartisan manner. We on this side of the aisle continue to stand ready to do so, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted ``no,'' when I meant to vote ``yes'' on rollcall No. 285. personal explanation

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayers Require Urgent Mandatory Protection from Egregious Debt Act of 2017, also known as the TRUMPED Act. Those of us representing south Florida have received numerous calls and letters since the election of Mr. Trump noting the burden on the budgets of local governments and small business owners as he has used his Mar-a-lago property as an almost weekly retreat--I am sure my friends from New York have fielded similar complaints. Mr. Speaker, our primary law enforcement agencies are proud to provide protection for any number of dignitaries who visit our great state. However, their budgets have not, and cannot, sustain the weight of Mr. Trump's weekly in season trips to Mar-a-lago--nor should they have to as Mr. Trump is provided very nice accommodations here in Washington, D.C. and Camp David in Maryland, at the taxpayer's considerable expense. Over just one holiday alone, the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office was forced to absorb $250,000 in unforeseen expenses--this is an untenable budgetary posture for our local Sheriff's Office as that number represents a $60,000 per day bill. They must cover overtime for their officers and deploy multiple units including their Motor Unit, Strategic Intelligence Unit, Marine Unit, Aviation Unit, as well as numerous other teams that provide the fabric for a secure trip to South Florida for Mr. Trump. Mr. Speaker, the TRUMPED Act is based on a simple premise--if Mr. Trump wants to make continual use of his properties then he may do so, but he may not do so at the taxpayer's expense. And let us be clear about something else: Mr. Trump, while burning through taxpayer dollars during these trips, actually makes financial gains when he visits his properties as the U.S. Government must rent space from him during such visits. Mr. Speaker, it is offensive that Mr. Trump insists on a budget that unequivocally, and without mercy, attacks hardworking Americans, and then has the audacity to turn around and insist that our local police officers, first responders and small businesses suffer under his insistence that he be allowed to enjoy a lavish lifestyle at taxpayer expense. I look forward to the support of my colleagues on this important bill.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted no when I meant to vote yes on roll call vote no. 266.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act. Mr. Speaker, law enforcement and first responders play an important role in the safety and security of our communities. I know about that because of the reason that, when I was a lawyer, I had the privilege of representing a firefighters association and a police officers association. I have represented police officers in court, and I have been in situations where I have interfaced with them as a lawyer in other circumstances. They are an invaluable resource represented by the hard work of dedicated men and women across our Nation. Most importantly, our admiration for police officers is not a partisan issue. We universally agree that those officers who diligently work to protect our communities warrant our praise as we honor them on this National Police Week. They are our friends, our neighbors, our family, and they are even our colleagues. I am honored to serve in this institution with a number of persons who, in their other activities, were either police officers or police chiefs that served in that capacity in law enforcement. We have a new Member here from my State, my good friend, Representative Val Demings, a career law enforcement officer herself-- 27 years she served--serving as Orlando's first female chief of police. I have just a footnote to add to that. Val's husband is the sheriff of Orange County. It is because of this admiration and bipartisan support that, in some respects, I was dismayed to see that, as we celebrate National Police Week, my Republican colleagues decided now was the time to bring this, in my view, unnecessary messaging bill to the floor simply to score political points. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 would add the murder, attempted murder, or targeting of a law enforcement official, first responder, or firefighter as an aggravating factor when determining if a death sentence is warranted for a defendant convicted of murder in Federal court. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is this bill is unnecessary. It is, in short, really good messaging, but bad policy. Under current law, there is already an exhaustive list of 16 statutory aggravating factors for homicide for a jury or court to consider. Having been involved in the justice system for a protracted time in my career, I am trying to think of a time that a police officer was killed and a person was tried and convicted; and I ask my colleagues to answer that question, that anybody that was convicted for killing a police officer didn't get the death penalty. I know in my State, in every instance that that occurred--and they were too numerous, and I regret that they occurred at all--all of those people got the death penalty. We also remember that Federal prosecutors can and do seek the death penalty in the killing of law enforcement or first responders, as our friends from Massachusetts are well aware after a death sentence was handed down in the case involving the Boston Marathon bomber. And that was in Massachusetts, a nondeath penalty State. Mr. Speaker, on this front, the system is working. Federal prosecutors already have the tools to seek the death penalty in cases where a first responder or law enforcement official was murdered. What's more, they are using these tools. Given this duplicity, it is a shame that we are here today debating the need for a seventeenth new aggravating factor to keep members of the law enforcement community safe when we could be considering measures that would actually keep them and their communities they protect far safer. Let's be clear. This legislation does nothing to keep law enforcement officers and first responders safe. By its own purported purpose, this bill addresses the tragic scenario in which the officer has already been killed. We need to be working together to create legislation that has a real impact on keeping our communities and police safer, as opposed to slapping a catchy name on an unnecessary bill and pretend we are doing something. If my Republican colleagues were serious about advancing protections for law enforcement during National Police Week, we would be discussing providing them with the tools, the resources, and the training to engage in beneficial community policing initiatives. Our law enforcement officers and the communities they police deserve more than messaging. They deserve real action. I ask one more question. Ask police officers what their attitude is about assault weapons. I think you would find that, if we passed an assault weapons measure, we would be pleasing police officers a great deal more than messaging to them our concern for their safety. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will yield to a speaker to speak for the previous question. Mr. Speaker, it may sound like we are getting ready to change the subject; and, to a relative degree, we are. We are in very interesting and troubling times in this Nation, and we have some concerns that need to be addressed. One of the things that is allowed to the minority is an opportunity to present a previous question. In this particular instance, we are deeply concerned by last night's revelations that, earlier this year, President Trump may have attempted to obstruct justice when he asked then-FBI Director James Comey to end the Bureau's investigation of former National Security Advisor Flynn's ties to Russia. This news came only days after the President acknowledged that he later fired Director Comey over the Bureau's investigation into the links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and only a day after we learned the President shared highly classified intelligence with Russian officials last week. I served for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee in this Congress, and the kind of information that the President shared with the Russians--even as an Intelligence member, I saw secret, I saw top secret, I saw high secret, but I did not see code word information, the highest that is only shared with a few people in the congressional body--that is what was allowed to be transmitted. It is time that the Republican-controlled Congress does its job and acts to defend our democracy. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bipartisan bill, H.R. 356, which would create a nonpartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in our 2016 election. This marks the seventh time we tried to bring this bill to the House floor. On the previous six occasions, the Republican majority regrettably refused the House to even debate this important legislation. As more and more facts have come to light, I hope my colleagues will finally put country ahead of party and get serious about this investigation. My goodness, the allegation here is that people impacted our fundamental premise of our existence: our elections. We need to create this commission with legislation rather than just tweeting about the need for facts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, (Mr. Swalwell), a member of the Intelligence Committee of the House, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.