Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome President Moon Jae-in of the Republic of Korea to the United States. This visit presents the United States and the Republic of Korea an opportunity to strengthen our relationship and advance cooperation on mutually beneficial economic, energy, cultural, and global security issues. Our shared commitment to upholding the rule of law, democracy, and a free market economy is rooted in our two countries' historic friendship. Our nations have a long history dating back to when the United States and the Republic of Korea established diplomatic relations in 1882. This vibrant connection between our nations and New Jersey's prominence as a home to immigrant communities from all walks of life, Koreans have always found a place in my home state. In my congressional district we are proud to have a strong and engaged Korean-American population that has attracted several North American headquarters of South Korean businesses. Because of our nations' connection, I am thankful President Moon has found time to visit the United States. I hope this visit allows our nations the opportunity to broaden and deepen our partnerships and alliances.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting issue with the canvas in the back of the entire immigration laws that need to be addressed. This body--not the body at the other end of the building, this body-- didn't have the guts to address it 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago, nor this year. This is something that we need to address, even though it is not the bill itself. I am a strong supporter of law enforcement. As co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, I rise in total opposition to this bill and the rule. Here is what the misguided goal of this bill would do: You are going to prove a point by penalizing law enforcement for immigration policies politicians in their city have to implement. That is what you want to do. So it absolves us down here in Washington. This bill threatens the central Federal funding streams for law enforcement. You have heard all of those programs that are being endangered. Any grant administered by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security that is substantially related to law enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, or naturalization you are putting on the chopping block if this bill becomes law. This bill would not make our communities safer. In fact, it undermines public safety. The funding this bill puts at risk allows local police departments to purchase equipment and hire and provide training for officers. This actually jeopardizes the security--read my lips--of communities in order to perpetuate a false narrative about immigrants. I just received a letter from the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association. I think it says it better than anything I could say. It says: ``Politics should not interfere with the safety of our members or our ability to do our job.'' The police are telling us that, and you are asking them to go out and do the job of protecting our citizens day in and day out--which we all are, I hope--and then you are telling them: But I am sorry, because we have a disagreement on this issue, you are going to suffer the consequences. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association. New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association, Inc., Woodbridge, NJ, June 28, 2017. Re H.R. 3003. Hon. William Pascrell, Jr., Paterson, NJ. Dear Congressman Pascrell: The New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association (NJSPBA) represents over 33,000 law enforcement officers throughout our state. It is no secret that law enforcement officers risk their own safety every day to keep our communities safe. And as a strong supporter of law enforcement on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, we would like to thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the men and women that serve within the law enforcement community. It is our understanding that this week the House is voting on H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' which adds additional obstacles to funding for the hiring of additional police officers in certain communities throughout our state. Specifically, the bill restricts municipalities from receiving grants administered by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security if municipal officials fail to notify the federal government with regard to the presence of individuals as it relates to information regarding citizenship or immigration status. While we strongly agree that state and local law enforcement should work closely with federal law enforcement, cutting off funding for law enforcement to already underfunded and understaffed police departments and law enforcement entities undermines our collective efforts to keep our members and the communities they serve safe. Politics should not interfere with the safety of our members or our ability to do our job. On behalf of our membership, we appreciate your ongoing efforts and hope you will continue to work with your colleagues in Congress to assure funding for law enforcement and prevent our government from punishing our membership for something that is completely out of our control. I am available to discuss our opposition to H.R. 3003 further, at your convenience. You can reach me at our NJSPBA offices, if you have any questions. Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the men and women of law enforcement. Sincerely, Patrick Colligan, State President.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, congressional Republicans are doing that right here. They are playing politics with our Nation's security. To quote the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association again--these words are from the police, not me--`` . . . punishing our membership for something that is completely out of our control.'' Why are the police opposed to this legislation? The Fraternal Order of Police you have heard about. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk the talk when it comes to supporting law enforcement until it either costs money or we are going to have to deal with the bigger factors. That is a fact. You may laugh all you want, but that is a fact. I can cite you chapter and verse if you want. This is no laughing matter. This is business. This is the lives of the police.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very pathetic way to look at our police officers in this country. ``If you don't like it, don't take the money.'' You must be kidding me. I urge my colleagues to find a different tactic to penalize political decisions that you don't like. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Here we are again. We are debating a bill to roll back regulations that protect the public, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker. I think we are a little bit tone deaf. Here is a news flash: The whole country is focused on defending blue- collar jobs, bolstering our industrial manufacturing base. Americans broadly agree that keeping United States jobs from moving overseas is a top priority. Yet despite campaign promises, the administration has awarded government contracts to companies that continue to offshore. You can't make this up. So we say one thing and then we do another. Now, look, both parties do it. Neither party is privy to virtue. But let me tell you something, there is a plethora of these before us on saying one thing when you are campaigning and not following through. That is not good. The flow of jobs overseas is not stopping. Just this week, it was announced that Ford is canceling plans to build the Ford Focus in Mexico, ending North American production entirely and making the model almost completely in China beginning next year, as soon as its output ends at a plant in Michigan. Yet, right now, when companies move overseas, as the gentleman from Colorado just said, we actually give them a reward. We give them a tax break for the cost of moving. Do you think that is going to impede or help people deciding whether they should stay or go? A tax break for leaving. The average citizen never gets that kind of a break. I mean, that is the law. I am not making it up. I will stand corrected, if need be, Mr. Speaker. We need to stop offshoring these jobs. And this Congress should start by defeating the previous question and bringing up the Bring Jobs Home Act. Around 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1994. Just ask folks in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania who have seen steel mills and rubber factories shipped overseas. Come to my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, formerly the hub of the textile manufacturing industry. My bill eliminates this tax deduction to those companies and those corporations who want to bring their jobs overseas, and it gives a tax credit of up to 20 percent of the cost to U.S. businesses that bring jobs back to the United States of America. The companies would have to add jobs to claim the tax benefit. So let's stop subsidizing companies that ship jobs overseas and start bringing jobs back to our shores.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't get much simpler than that. This is not a new idea. President Obama and Democrats in Congress have raised this bill for years, and the Republican Congress has blocked our bill at every turn. Senator Stabenow of Michigan leads this bill in the Senate, where it cleared a procedural vote 93-7 in 2014. I challenge you, today, to take up and pass this bill to stand up for American manufacturing and the workers here at home. Talk only goes so far. Let's act.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, isn't it good to hear good news? I just got this on my electronic device here. The MedStar: ``Congressman Steve Scalise continues to make good progress. He is now listed in fair condition and is beginning an extended period of healing and rehabilitation.'' Isn't that good news?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, how are you today?

Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, I do, thank you.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to define a few terms here what we are talking about. We are talking about tax returns. What does that mean? It doesn't mean the 1040. It doesn't mean the 278. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about close to 12,000 pages of tax returns; that is what we are talking about, the integrity of the House, the integrity of myself and you. I know you are a person of integrity. And I say it like it is, so I am not blowing smoke. That is why this is important. So a 2-page, 3-page 1040 doesn't mean anything to what we are doing; 12,000 pages, just on this President's tax returns. The stunning potential conflicts of interest are piling up. Every day, we all read about it. The President was told by the Ethics Commission, divest yourself of your holdings. That doesn't mean you give your money away, your assets away. It means what it says, you divest. But I think that there is nothing more of a threat to the integrity of our House than ignoring our duties, to provide a check and a balance to the executive branch. To restore the dignity of the House, we must use our authority to request the President's tax returns. Give the American people the transparency that they deserve. In addition, it is reported that the President's hotel in Washington received $270,000 from Saudi Arabia when they were here to lobby against the bill allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi Government. Now, last week, the District of Columbia and Maryland filed a lawsuit against the President, arguing that he is violating the anticorruption clauses in the Constitution by allowing his businesses to accept payments from foreign governments and other government entities. We have no way of knowing whether the President or his firms have received Russian income or loans or entered into Russian-linked partnerships. In fact, you are going to read a lot about that this week. There are hearings going on as we speak. A certified letter from paid attorneys does nothing to assuage these concerns. Two weeks ago, we heard from the former Director of the FBI, James Comey, who confirmed that the President tried to influence him to stop the Russian investigation. Isn't it great that we live in a body where they can't stop us? The President can't stop us. We can only stop ourselves. The legislative branch has the responsibility and authority to check the executive branch, and section 6103, you have heard me say that number many times, section 6103 of the Tax Code, which allows for the examination of tax returns--that authority, put in place specifically so Congress could examine conflicts of interest following that scandal which we all know about in 1923. Nothing could be more of a threat, to me, to the integrity of the House and our Members, than ignoring our duty to fully examine the personal financial entanglements of this President or any President, and particularly those, at this time, which we are reading about, that he may have with the Russian entities and individuals or whether he abused the tax laws of this country. We have a right to know who our public officials are and what investments they have made, and every member of the executive branch of government--and this was made clear in the decision in 1924, particularly Interior Secretary Fall at that time, to examine his tax records, and that is how people were brought to justice in 1924. It also protects the privacy of the very taxpayer. And we are having exceptions. We have exceptions to that. Three years ago, we had an exception in the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, it does constitute a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker. May I continue?

Mr. PASCRELL. Very good. Thank you. Just let me say this in conclusion: if and when, if and when such conflicts are revealed, I don't want to say to you, my constituents, that we had the power to review the conflicts, but we chose not to. I, for one, do not want my integrity or the integrity of my brothers and sisters on this floor to be demeaned by a shameful failure. To restore the dignity of the House is what this privilege is all about. I have a question of the Speaker at this particular time, if I may.

Mr. PASCRELL. I think that I would like to present today what Congress should do immediately about the question of privilege before us. May I proceed?

Mr. PASCRELL. The Chair is good on that answer, Mr. Speaker. I think that we should do this. I think we should require the President and the Vice President, whomever that will be in the future, for now, and their families, to resolve their conflicts of interest by selling their assets, using a truly independent asset manager.

Mr. PASCRELL. I don't believe so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PASCRELL. But I am compelled to follow your direction.

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, my final comment is this: I know you don't take the question of integrity lightly. That is not a joking matter at all. Nor do I take the integrity of the President of the United States lightly. I have an obligation and a responsibility. As I said on February 1, I will not yield. This is important to all of us, and it is not partisan. Read my letter of February 1. I thank the Chair for his indulgence.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, prior to 2010, banks lending to consumers operated with too little oversight and often exploited the lack of rules to turn a profit at any cost. We saw the dire consequences in the 2008 financial crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to enforce laws and protect consumers in the marketplace. Their mission is to root out deceptive and abusive practices. And so far, the agency has returned $11.8 billion to consumers from enforcement against abusive practices from banks, lenders, and financial companies. I challenge any member of this body to go to one of their constituents and ask whether or not they would like a consumer watchdog to stand up for them against abuses from big banks, or if they'd like us to leave them to go it alone. The CFPB has already returned $11.8 billion to more than 29 million consumers. That is $11.8 billion dollars that went back into the pockets of 29 million of our constituents. A vote for this legislation is a vote against those 29 million consumers who have been helped by the CFPB's actions. In my home state of New Jersey, one resident held a mortgage with Citibank, who failed to report accurately the status of a closed account and incorrectly reported it as late. A complaint was submitted to the CFPB and when they intervened, the issue was resolved and the late mark removed. Stories like these are not uncommon. Decisions like these can impact a consumer's credit for life and cause tremendous distress. Before the CFPB, consumers facing deceptive practices could go ignored by mega- banks and lending institutions. But when a government agency with enforcement powers gets involved, these banks pay attention. They can't ignore the CFPB. When the cards are stacked against the everyday consumer, the need for the CFPB is a no-brainer. The New York Times this morning reported that the President's pick to oversee the nation's largest banks, Joseph Otting, formerly ran OneWest, which has been criticized for ``robo-signing'' foreclosure documents in the wake of the financial crisis. If Mr. Otting didn't protect consumers when he ran a mortgage lender, why would he protect them as Comptroller of the Currency? Especially in this Administration, we need an independent consumer watchdog that can act without the influence of politics on behalf of consumers. Some would choose to erode this bulwark of protection against the big banks but it is needed now more than ever. Mr. Chair, this vote is a clear marker of who you stand with: I stand on the side of my constituents in urging a no vote.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, just when you think you heard it all, you haven't. And as my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) just pointed out, what we need to do is uphold the integrity of this body, the legislative branch of government. Now, just a brief review, because I have about 2,000 pages of reference. We are not going to go into that all tonight, but if you will allow me, I will go into some of it.

Mr. PASCRELL. I never wander, Mr. Speaker. I may not stick to the subject, but I don't wander.

Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, sir. We started out on February 1. We have had a letter to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. We have had an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee, which is one of the three committees under 6103, paragraph F, section 1 of the Tax Code, written in 1924, that allows the Ways and Means Committee, along with the Senate Finance Committee, along with the Joint Committee on Taxation, to do its due diligence. We have had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven privileged resolutions. Mr. Capuano has offered tonight's privileged resolution. We have had a resolution, two resolutions of inquiry through the Ways and Means Committee--just having a little review here of what we have done. We have debated all of these. They must have all been in order. And we have a discharge petition right now before the Congress of the United States, and if we get to 218 in that discharge petition, we will have to take another vote. As Mr. Capuano pointed out, there are a lot of votes that we don't like to take, but these are votes that are necessary, Mr. Speaker. Already, two dozen Members of the majority party at town meetings have said, yes, the President should give the public, or at least the committees, first of all, his tax returns. We are not talking about a 1040. We are talking about thousands of pages that go into a businessperson's, who is a billion-, zillionaire, whatever the heck he is, that is what it takes.

Mr. PASCRELL. Oh, I think this is a privilege of the House, sir.

Mr. PASCRELL. Right. I understand that. I understand that. Thank you for pointing that out. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you know who Walter Shaub is. S-H-A-U-B. Walter Shaub is the Director of the United States Office of Government Ethics. That is pretty important. In fact, in the last administration-- talk about the privilege of the House--this is the document that was presented on June 21, the day after inauguration, 2009, the Ethics Commitments by the Executive Branch of Personnel. This document goes into such things as the revolving door ban on lobbyists or pertaining to the executive branch of government because that is what we are talking about. Just when you think you have heard it all, you haven't. Two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, this administration threw out there in a trial balloon that we are going to start to sell off---- Is there a problem? Is there a problem?

Mr. PASCRELL. That is correct. That is exactly what I am doing.