Daniel Kildee

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to highlight the lack of urgency by the Air Force to address an ongoing drinking water emergency across the country, including one in my home district. I am not talking about Flint; I am talking about Oscoda, Michigan, at the northern end of my district, the home of the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base. My constituents living there have had their drinking water contaminated by PFAS, perfluorinated chemicals, from the Air Force's use of firefighting foam. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to harmful health issues like cancer as well as thyroid, kidney, liver, heart, and reproductive problems. It is not just servicemembers but community members there. Unfortunately, the more we learn about this dangerous class of chemicals, the more we are finding it in drinking water across the country. In my district alone, thousands of people have cancer-causing chemicals in their drinking water due to the Air Force's use of this material. The Air Force does not seem to want to recognize this ongoing drinking water crisis. I have been pushing the Air Force to clean up the contamination in Oscoda and other communities. In fact, the entire Michigan delegation, Democrats and Republicans, wrote to appropriators asking for more funding for PFAS contamination. While Members are prevented from earmarking legislation to send resources directly to clean up contamination in Oscoda, it is an urgent problem that I wanted to call attention to. This community is near this former Air Force Base. It is facing very serious water contamination issues. You would think that the Air Force would request additional resources to clean up contamination, but, frustratingly, the Air Force has so far refused to request additional resources. The Appropriations Committee even asked the Air Force if they needed more money. Let me repeat that. The Appropriations Committee even asked the Air Force if they needed more money to address this problem, but the Air Force responded that they did not need any additional funds. I offer this amendment for the purpose of raising the issue. I know that it is not possible for us to designate these funds, so it is my intention to withdraw this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for her commitment to work on this. This is a serious issue. I know Congress takes it seriously. I just would ask that the Air Force take it equally as seriously and request the funds necessary to clean up this really difficult problem. With that, I know that this amendment could present some problems in terms of the way this legislation moved forward, but the commitment that I have that this will be getting the attention it deserves from Congress, I think, is important. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide just over $2 billion to the vocational rehabilitation and employment account. This account invests in programs to help veterans successfully transition to civilian life. Our country has been at war for nearly two decades. While these conflicts are still ongoing, the number of veterans in this country is going to continue to grow. We have to invest in programs that support this generation of veterans as they seek to reintegrate into the civilian workforce. I just want to highlight a couple of important programs in this account. The Special Employer Incentives program connects veterans with opportunities where the VA reimburses the employer for up to half of a veteran's salary. This is a program that matches veterans with apprenticeships, with the expectation of being hired upon completion. I know from experience that our veterans bring unique perspective and skills to the workplace. I have hired, as I have said in previous conversations, multiple veterans working in my office, including a Wounded Warrior fellow and a HillVets fellow. We should ensure that we are supporting programs that connect veterans with employers. My amendment would also ensure funding for the VA to expand its Veterans Economic Communities Initiative, a program in which nonprofits and educational institutions build supportive networks for veterans. This is exactly the kind of long-term support that we should have had in place years ago before launching into these conflicts. For many Americans, the American Dream is owning your own business and being your own boss. The vocational rehabilitation and employment account includes programs that help veterans do just that. The vocational rehabilitation and employment account also includes the VetSuccess on Campus program, which places vocational rehab counselors in partner schools. This amendment would give the VA the opportunity to expand these programs, reaching even more veterans. Unfortunately, as this process has moved forward, we have come to understand that the VA would intend to reduce the account for direct support for tuition and other supplies for veterans under their rights under the GI Bill. I will ask that this amendment be withdrawn, but I want to make sure to make the point that we ought to have a specific carveout for these vocational programs, for these transition programs. It is my hope that, as we move forward, we will be able to work with the VA to be able to identify a source that would not reduce the other benefits that are available to veterans seeking to better themselves. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time Mr. Chair, I withdraw this amendment.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank the committee Democrats and Republicans for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. One of the most important pieces of infrastructure in my particular district in the State of Michigan is the Saginaw River. This Federal port allows for raw material from around the world to be brought into our communities to be used in manufacturing and agriculture and is really the lifeblood of the economy there. The depth of the river, however, currently limits the size of the ships that can use this very important port. Our dock owners on the Saginaw River have joined with the local government and businesses to propose deepening the Saginaw River to increase business opportunities and grow jobs in our region. The Army Corps process to authorize deepening of the river, however, can sometimes be rather time-consuming. While millions have been spent by dock owners, under current law, the Army Corps construction plan for considering construction projects does not allow those investments that have already been made. So I am supporting this legislation, in part, because of the reforms in the bill. It changes the way the Army Corps does their cost-benefit analysis on a project. It will greatly benefit many projects, including the Saginaw River's deepening project. This will grow jobs in my district, in our State, and in our country. It is a step in the right direction. I encourage the Corps to work with those local members and that local coalition on the deepening of this river using the reforms in this bill. This is really important for my district. I really appreciate the work of the committee in coming together and delivering these reforms and delivering a good bill to the floor in a bipartisan fashion. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I am here to protest what has been the most closed Congress in American history. I know the other side will recite the number of amendments that have been allowed, but the fact remains, this is the most closed Congress we have ever had: 84 closed rules and not one open rule. We are sent here by our constituents to advocate for their interests, and in the minority, one of the few tools we have is the ability to offer amendments and have those arguments heard on the floor of this House. Knowing that we may not win every fight, knowing that we may not win a majority on each idea, we ought to at least allow the power of a good idea to have a fair hearing. Twenty-eight times I have offered amendments, thoughtful amendments that were crafted with the idea that we could actually improve policy, and 28 times those amendments have been blocked. These are not messaging amendments, just to give two examples: One would have increased the amount of funding available to local governments that are struggling to improve their drinking water systems. Think about my hometown of Flint and the hundreds of other communities that would have benefited from that. Another would have directed the Federal Government to do more to deal with this issue of PFAS, perfluorinated chemicals, that is poisoning groundwater. In fact, while the EPA is having a conversation today about this very dangerous chemical that is affecting human life in this country, I offered an opportunity for Congress to do something. Why didn't we do it? Because up in the Rules Committee, it was blocked. The ideas ought to have a chance on the floor of the House. That is what we are sent here to do. We ought to open this Congress up.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak against an amendment included in this rule, the Foxx-Davis amendment, in defense of the 2,300 factory workers and 900 family farmers who grow sugar beets in my community. The sugar program in this country supports family farmers. The company that is formed is a co-op formed by local family-owned growers who come together, and all they ask for is a fair chance to compete, to grow their high quality product, and to not have to compete with state- subsidized foreign sugar that is dumped if we don't have a program that protects our local growers. The question is really simple. It comes down to marginally increasing the profits of large corporations or supporting family farmers who support their families by growing high quality sugar beets and sugarcane in this country. This is a program that does not cost the taxpayers a dime according to CBO. It comes down to a simple question: Are we going to support our own growers, or are we going to support foreign-produced sugar and moderately, if at all, increase the profits of large companies?

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Republican chairman of the committee and the Democratic ranking member of this committee both oppose this amendment, for good reason. It is a simple question: Do we want to support local growers like the 900 families that I represent who, collectively, through a co-op, own their processing facility? This notion of mega producers is really a story of 900 families that collectively bound together in a co-op to own the production facility to deal with the sugar that they, themselves, grow. This is a question of local growers or foreign-subsidized sugar using child labor. That is the simple question before us.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, Americans depend on good roads and bridges to get to work every day and to take care of their families. Good infrastructure drives our economy. Americans depend on water systems to provide clean and safe drinkable water. But in this country, we have failed to make the necessary investments in water infrastructure, in roads and bridges, in essential infrastructure that is important to drive our economy. I will work with anyone on any side of the question on both sides of the aisle to make sure that we invest in America's infrastructure. It is what we need to do to grow our economy, but, unfortunately, what the President has suggested really puts the burden on State and local governments, communities like the ones I represent. My own hometown of Flint, for example, if they had the money to put into their water system to prevent the disaster that occurred, they long ago would have done this. We need--our communities need a strong Federal partner. And the Democrats, we offer A Better Deal. We have a plan to rebuild America's infrastructure. This is what the Congress ought to be doing. We ought not wait for the President to offer his suggestion. We should do the work ourselves. It is long overdue.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, it was a year ago this very day that Republicans in this House voted to eliminate healthcare for millions of Americans, something we knew at that point, if it went through, would increase premiums on millions of other Americans that still had coverage. And after that vote, they all boarded a bus and went over to the White House for a big celebration. Thankfully, that bill never became law, because had it become law, people would not have been protected with health insurance if they had a preexisting condition. There would have been a terrible age tax imposed on people ages 50-64. It would have been a massive step in the wrong direction. Despite the fact that that legislation did not become law, we are still seeing premium increases because of the undermining of the law of the land. The Affordable Care Act has been undermined by the Trump administration and by action by this Congress, and because of that, we are seeing premium increases again. Forever, we heard from the other side criticisms of premium increases that were more in line with inflation in healthcare. Now, in Michigan, we see a 28-percent increase under this administration. Where is the outrage? We ought to work together to fix the problem. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect. I am the first to admit it. Let's stop undermining the law and make it work.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. DeFazio both for yielding, but especially for his leadership on this issue. As the ranking member said, this is something that comes up every year. Thankfully, Democrats and Republicans have stood together to protect this important worker protection. Let's just be clear about this. This is about the desire to engage in this race to the bottom to pay working families less money. The truth of the matter is coming from a community, a community like Flint, Saginaw, Bay City, where we have seen significant and continuing loss of earned income by working people, where we have a chance to say to the American people that when it is your tax dollars being spent, we are not going to use them to undermine the ability of a family to have a decent wage. People work hard at these jobs, they have trained long for these jobs, going through apprenticeships or other skilled training, and the idea that we would reverse a decades-long commitment to the American worker that when it comes to federally funded projects, we are going to ensure that if you work hard, play by the rules, you get a decent wage, I support that, and we all should.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, it is wrong that Republicans continue to pursue policies that clearly benefit only the wealthiest Americans and large corporations, in particular, leaving middle class Americans behind. They have undermined our healthcare system, raising premiums on Americans and increasing the cost of prescription drugs. That is the impact of what this Republican majority has done. At a time when we see more Americans concerned about rising healthcare costs, we really ought to be figuring out ways to work together. I know Democrats and Republicans can do that. But instead, the Republican majority is focused on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations, essentially passing huge benefits--$250 billion--to CEOs and wealthy shareholders, mostly through stock buybacks, which is money that does not go to America's workers. Now, Republicans are using their deficit-exploding tax plan to justify huge cuts that could impact Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That is a raw deal. Democrats are offering a better deal. We want to grow our economy and create high-wage jobs that support a family, not just so they can just get by, but so they can actually succeed. We have a plan for opportunities.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Nicholas Thomas Evans, a leader in my district and a champion for Genesee County families, who passed away rather suddenly just recently. Nick was born in London, England, but raised in Holly, Michigan. Nicholas started his career as a leader in the Genesee County branch of the American Cancer Society. In 1998, he accepted a position at Kettering University, and in 2003, he came to the Genesys Health System. During his career, Nicholas did so much and offered so much to our community, leading important initiatives like the Genesys Health Park Campus Plan, the PACE program in Flint, the revitalization of so many parts of our community, and empowering women through the Michigan Food & Farming Systems and the Women in Agriculture program. There were so many things that Nick did. I can't even go through the long list. But for all of us back home, we will just miss him. His wife, Kim, and his daughters, Madison and Camryn, I am sure will miss him forever. He loved them, he loved his community, and he gave so much to his community. We loved him. He was a friend, and we will miss him.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, today is tax day, the day that hardworking Americans finish preparing their taxes; and it is already clear, looking at the new tax bill, that it will overwhelmingly benefit CEOs, shareholders, and the wealthiest Americans. Since the passage of this Republican tax bill, corporations have already funneled $250 billion to CEOs and shareholders through stock buybacks, money that is not going to workers. Stock buybacks overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporate executives. In fact, the richest 10 percent of American households hold 84 percent of stocks. The CBO just released information showing that this tax bill will increase the deficit by $1.9 trillion. So let's get this straight. The Federal Government borrows almost $2 trillion from our children and our grandchildren so that we can funnel hundreds of billions of dollars to the wealthiest Americans. Is that what we should be doing here? I think not.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, released a report highlighting the fact that the budget deficit will pass $1 trillion within 2 years, thanks in large part to the massive tax cuts granted to the wealthiest Americans in the recently adopted Republican tax plan. $1 trillion. This tax plan is projected to itself add close to $2 trillion to the deficit over a decade. This reckless plan jeopardizes our economic recovery by taking away the ability for us to invest in those elements of our communities and society that will grow the economy. The very thought that we have a massive deficit in our public infrastructure, and that is nowhere on the table in the House, roads and bridges crumbling, water systems, like the water system of my hometown of Flint, failing, and continuing to pass on massive debt to our children and grandchildren is irresponsible and it ought to be reversed.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, this Friday marks the eighth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act being signed into law. In the richest country in the world, healthcare should be a basic human right, not a privilege for some. While the ACA is far from perfect--we know that--it made great progress, ensuring millions and millions of Americans that they could have health insurance, that they could have healthcare when they need it, making it more affordable, making sure that Americans with preexisting conditions were not denied coverage because they were sick or kicked off their coverage because they got sick. Unfortunately, though, this House has spent a good deal of the last year or so trying to take back some of those advances that we have made, essentially, putting more families in the position of having that economic uncertainty of not knowing whether or not their premiums will continue to go up or their copays will go up, or prescription drugs will be available but completely unaffordable to them; putting families back in the place where they are, essentially, one illness away from losing everything that they have worked for. We should work together because we know there are improvements that we need to make. We should work across the aisle to improve this law and move forward.

Mr. KILDEE

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

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the latest attempt by Republicans to undermine the Clean Air Act and give breaks to special interests, this time to power plants that burn waste coal. The bill undermines the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the MATS rule, one of most important protections for public health from toxic air pollutants from waste coal-burning power plants. Simply put, the bill would mean more pollutants being put into our air and our water by waste coal power plants. And on that point, there is really no disagreement. That is the point of the legislation, to allow more pollutants to be put into the air. But not only would this bill give waste coal power plants permission to pump more pollution into our air, it also prohibits higher standards from being enacted, even if future technologies are invented to help control toxic pollution emissions better. My motion would protect public health and prevent more pollutants, toxic substances like mercury, sulfur dioxide, and other hazardous particles, from being released into the air and into the water. These harmful substances impact brain development. They cause cancer. They harm respiratory systems. They pollute our lakes, our streams, our rivers, where people get their drinking water. As this body has heard me discuss many times, I know firsthand what happens when we fail to protect our environment and when we fail to protect our water supplies. We know what happened in my hometown of Flint, a city of 100,000 people, including thousands of children, poisoned by lead in their drinking water because of callous decisions by government that put the balance sheet approach, the dollars and cents that would accrue in this case to an operator, ahead of the interests of health. For 4 years, the people I represent have not had access to safe drinking water because of decisions that were made by government that allowed the water to be contaminated with high levels of lead, a dangerous neurotoxin with irreversible and damaging effects on children. America is the wealthiest, most prosperous country in the world. It is a shame that the people of my hometown can't turn on their taps and trust the water coming out. What happened in Flint is the result of policymakers, again, putting the balance sheet ahead of the interests of people. We can't measure every question on the ledger of a corporation. We have to think about the health of our people. Just looking at those short-term effects can lead to really bad choices. What happened in Flint is absolutely tragic. We ought to take that lesson and make sure that we do everything we can to prevent the consequences of ignoring environmental protections, the consequences on people. Flint is not an anomaly. Flint is a warning. What happened there could happen to lots of people all across the country if we don't take care to ensure that we protect public health and strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the companies that are, unfortunately, unwilling to comply as other companies have, as other operators have, with existing standards. The public interest has to come first. We should be protecting our constituents from pollutants, not enacting law that explicitly allows for more pollutants to go into our air and water. It is the wrong direction for us. As my colleague Mr. Doyle said, Democrats and Republicans can figure out solutions to these problems, but the solution is not to take a step back and pass legislation that rather than empowering organizations and communities to protect air and water says these rules are too hard for some to adhere to; and because they are unwilling to spend the resources necessary to protect public health, we just say: Well, then it is okay. We know what happens when government takes that approach. There are human consequences--consequences that we can't ignore, consequences that are made clear by the experience of my hometown. I don't wish that on anyone in Michigan or Pennsylvania, or anyone else. Mr. Speaker, this Congress ought to do what it can to protect people from that ever happening to them. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, stand up for kids, stand up for the people who live in those communities who breathe that air, who depend on clean water. Support this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, like my friend Mr. Perlmutter and my friend Mr. Huffman and others, we didn't come to the Congress with the idea that we were going to spend our time talking about Russian collusion with a campaign to try to undermine our electoral system. We came here to solve problems that Americans want us to take on, to deal with the big problems that we face, whether it is infrastructure or education or the environment or all the things that people actually worry about, financial security for families. But we do have an obligation to uphold the oath that we took. We swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States. So while it is not my preference, and I know from my friends it is not our preference to have to deal with this question, we can't avoid it. We can't just look the other way, particularly when it is very clear that not just this President, but, sadly, some around him; and I think we have to acknowledge some of our Republican colleagues seem willing to try to interfere with or obfuscate what is a really important investigation. Let's remind ourselves, Mr. Mueller, who is leading this investigation, the special counsel, was appointed by the Republican Attorney General, appointed by the President of the United States, both Republicans. Bob Mueller was appointed head of the FBI by a Republican President. This is not a partisan question, certainly not a partisan witch hunt. This is a question as to whether or not we are going to let this investigation go to completion. The President keeps saying no collusion. The truth of the matter is, so far, there has been no conclusion. There is no conclusion to be drawn yet from this investigation, other than 17 individuals have been indicted. Several have pled guilty to very serious crimes, some people who have been very close to the President of the United States, the closest you can be, literally engaged in his campaign, side by side with him every day. So it begs the question and, really, the most important question: What are they afraid of? What do they have to worry about? If there is nothing to find, if there is no collusion, then let's let the process complete itself. Let's let the process come to conclusion and accept the result. So this is really a fundamental question to our democracy: Are we going to adhere to the rule of law, or are we going to allow a President to rule by fiat and, essentially, dismiss or diminish or discredit anyone who raises any question about his conduct coming into or performing his duties? That is not the America that we know, and that is not a standard that we ought to allow: 17 people indicted, people at the top of his campaign, including a whole group of Russians who clearly were engaged in trying to affect our election. You know, don't you remember the good ol' days? I think about some of our friends on the other side, when the biggest scandal that they could come up with was that the President of the United States wore a tan suit. The outrage. Where is the outrage now when a special counsel has been appointed and, at every moment, there is an attempt to try to discredit the work that this individual is doing? So I ask my Republican colleagues to stand up, adhere to the oath that they swore, support this process, allow for your own good and the good of the country, allow the investigation to be completed without interference. Push back when the President tries to discredit this process. There is just too much at stake. What are they afraid of? What are they worried about? This guy is a professional. When he was appointed, remember the chorus of praise left, right, and center for Bob Mueller and the integrity with which he has conducted himself in public life. He didn't change. He is still doing that. Let's let him do his work.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Perlmutter for yielding, and I want to just underscore a point he made in his opening remarks. This is fundamentally about a principle that we hold pretty dear in this country, and, that is, our freedom. Our freedom is rooted in the assumption that our democratic systems actually work, that the process of democracy has integrity, and that the choices that people make are not the subject of interference by some foreign power. We know that Russia interfered in our elections. There are only two people I can think of who have denied that repeatedly. One of them is President Trump; the other one is Vladimir Putin. Everyone else, including our Republican colleagues and our intelligence community, acknowledges that the Russians interfered with our elections. Five people have acknowledged that they committed crimes as a result of the investigations taking place; 12 other--15 others indicted. Why on Earth would we not allow the investigation that is taking place right now to determine the extent of that interference in order to prevent it from ever happening again? Why would we not insist that we protect that principle of democracy and that foundational principle of freedom by letting this process complete? What are they afraid of? That is the question: What are they afraid of? That is why I am glad Mr. Perlmutter initiated this effort, and I will continue to stand with him as he does it.