Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. No, I am not. I am not in Idaho. The fact of the matter is, this is a very specific document that each administration presents when it is sworn. This is the set of rules which govern the executive branch of government. When I read in documentation that we are getting set to sell off public lands, what am I reminded of? Talk about the integrity of the House of Representatives. What am I reminded of? I am reminded of what happened in 1922, 1923, 1924, when they tried to sell off oil reserves, and it got them into trouble. Republicans had their hands out. Democrats had their hands out, which led, Mr. Speaker----

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H. Res. 354, I rise today in strong support passing this legislation to condemn the reprehensible attacks outside the Turkish Ambassador's residence on May 16. I am a proud member of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans. New Jersey's Ninth District, and particularly my hometown of Paterson, has a large and thriving Turkish-American community and I cherish our close relationship. However, what happened last month was beyond the pale. The brutal attacks on peaceful protesters are an affront to our American values and core democratic freedoms of free speech and peaceful assembly. One of the individuals attacked by President Erdogan's thugs was a constituent of mine from East Rutherford. As a college student, Ceren Borazan bravely joined her friends to peacefully protest President Erdogan's policies in Washington D.C. Since President Erdogan has taken office, Turkey has cracked down on freedom of expression, raided media outlets, and jailed judges, journalists, and civil servants in violation of democratic norms. Outside the embassy Ceren was thrown to the ground and kicked by the Turkish security guards. During the attack a blood vessel in her eye burst and weeks later she is still reminded of the trauma by nightmares and fears of retribution. While freedom of speech and freedom to protest may be prohibited in Turkey, they are bedrock U.S. principles that must be safeguarded. Violence is never an appropriate response to free speech. To ensure such an incident never happens again on our soil, those involved in carrying out this attack must be brought to justice. They must be denied diplomatic immunity and prosecuted to the fullest extent of U.S. law. Mr. Speaker, we must pass H. Res. 354 today to call attention to these attacks and to ensure justice is carried out for people like Ceren. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an editorial from The Star-Ledger titled ``Trump won't denounce American thuggery. Will he punish Turkey?'' Trump Won't Denounce American Thuggery. Will He Punish Turkey? (By Star-Ledger Editorial Board) Time to take stock of our rights of free speech and peaceful protest in this country, and what--if anything-- President Trump has done to protect them. He's been noticeably silent on the brutal beating of peaceful protesters in Washington, D.C. by the Turkish President's thuggish bodyguards, on public property, right in front of our own police, fully caught on video. The violence was completely unprovoked, and happened shortly after Trump welcomed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the Oval Office. Among others, a young woman from East Rutherford, Ceren Borazan, was put into a headlock and choked--popping a blood vessel in her eye--by a man who threatened to kill her. This is common practice in Turkey--which is why Trump needs to make it clear that it isn't acceptable here. But perhaps the real problem is that it is increasingly acceptable here. Not just verbal and physical attacks against peaceful protesters, but against journalists, whom Trump has called ``the enemy of the people.'' In the past month alone, reporters have been arrested, slapped, pinned against a wall and choked for trying to do their jobs; most recently by newly-elected Montana congressman Greg Gianforte, accused of body-slamming a journalist. He's faced no real consequences. ``Elections are about choices and Montanans made their choice,'' Speaker Paul Ryan said Friday. Trump, who had lavished praise on Gianforte--``a wonderful guy''--added: ``Great win in Montana.'' Perhaps this is why the former Breitbart News reporter Michelle Fields, who was grabbed roughly by Corey Lewandowski last year when she tried to ask Trump a question, said some Republicans ``have put party over civility.'' The casualty isn't just civility. Trump's hostility toward the press--like his attempt to use the FBI to muzzle journalists--has led Reporters Without Borders to lower America's ranking on press freedom, measured by government restrictions and threats against the news media. We're now ranked right below Burkina Faso, one of the world's poorest countries. This failure to speak up for peaceful protesters and journalists began at Trump's rallies, where his supporters threatened and committed actual violence against them. Since then, the United Nations has warned that the basic principle of peaceful protest is under attack in the United States. At least 19 states have introduced measures that would criminalize such protests. The very least the President can do is make some sort of distinction between what is tolerated here and in Turkey. Yes, it's a NATO ally, and we have a complex relationship. But this is about protecting the freedom of speech and assembly, and basic rules of law in our own country. The New York Times has publicly identified the culprits, and New Jersey Rep. Bill Pascrell is among those leading the bipartisan charge to hold them accountable. If we can't get to the thugs in Turkey, then the Trump administration should hold the diplomats here to account. Think about the message it sends if the Turkish government escapes this without so much as a slap on the wrist. A truly populist President, a defender of American freedoms, would stick up for the people--not the jack-booted thugs.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, as we just heard from my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), as co-chairs of the Law Enforcement Caucus, this is an important piece of legislation for us. Mr. Speaker, as the lead Democrat sponsor of this bill, the Probation Officer Protection Act, I rise in strong support of closing a gap in the current law to help Federal probation officers more safely and effectively carry out their duties. Despite the fact that assaulting, resisting, or otherwise preventing Federal probation officers from performing their official duties is against the law, current law does not provide the same officers the authority to correct or restrain an interfering third party. This act simply expands the authority of the Federal probation officers to arrest a third party with probable cause in cases where a third party tries to physically obstruct or harm the officer. I understand that some of my friends worry about the implications of expanding arrest authority for law enforcement. I have to say there are a lot of trumped up arguments being made against this bill. For starters, Federal probation officers are fully trained and sworn Federal law enforcement officers. They have a tremendous training program in Charleston, South Carolina, the Law Enforcement Training Center. They understand that this training is a continuing process as well. These officers receive extensive, ongoing, nationally standardized training to safely arrest individuals on supervised release with probable cause without a warrant. This training is also applicable to the limited arrest authority granted by this bill. The idea that expanding probation officers' arrest authority to third parties will somehow lead to probation officers going on an unwarranted arresting spree, violating individuals' civil rights with impunity, is nonsense. The bill includes language to ensure that the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts would issue national guidelines to implement this new, limited authority. The authority will not give Federal probation officers plenary law enforcement powers or general arrest authority. Probable cause still must exist to carry out an arrest. That is very clear in the legislation. The bill does nothing to alter Federal probation officers' scope of responsibility. To suggest so undermines the training these officers receive and the oaths that they take. Secondly, I understand that constitutional concerns have been raised by my colleagues about the due process and rights of these third parties. Nothing in this bill, Mr. Speaker, alters the due process or rights of third parties. Nothing in the bill. If a third party agrees to house an individual on supervised release, they consent to the Federal probation officer having access to common areas and any part of the home to which the offender has access. Additionally, Federal probation officers build a relationship with the third party housing the individual on supervised release in order to manage their expectations on what it means to have a supervised probationer living under their roof. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Federal probation officers conducted a total of 1,060 searches pursuant to a court-ordered search condition or with consent last year. More than half of the searches had at least one third party present. Despite relying on other law enforcement agencies for support and assistance during 493 of these searches, Federal probation officers encountered uncooperative third parties on 39 occasions. So, Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have acknowledged, we are not talking about a significant number of instances where this additional authority is needed--remember, only 39 instances last year. Opponents claim these numbers are low, making this a solution in search of a problem. But in these 39 instances, a third party threatened, intimidated, refused to cooperate, and denied officers entry into residence to prevent an officer from doing their job.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, opponents claim, that is their claim that they have. This is against the law, plain and simple. The probation officer in these instances did not have the authority they needed to remedy the situation. No one wants to increase the number of arrests. That is not the purpose of the legislation. In a perfect world, everyone wants a situation to be deescalated before an arrest or a detention happens. Ideally, Federal probation officers would have the resources to visit their probe with a law enforcement officer. However, we don't live in a perfect world. Oh? These resources are not always available. Third parties sometimes intentionally interfere to prevent a Federal probation officer from performing their official duties. I urge my colleagues to support the Probation Officer Protection Act to ensure Federal probation officers are able to do their job safely and more effectively by giving them third-party arrest authority when probable cause exists.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the stunning conflicts of interest are piling up as the President, his family, and his friends profit in their personal business endeavors while serving in public office. Under rule IX, clause 1, questions of the privileges of the House are ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.'' There is nothing more of a threat to the integrity of this House than ignoring our duty to provide a check and balance to the executive branch. To restore the dignity of the House, we must use our authority to request President Trump's tax returns and begin to give the American people the transparency they deserve. That is what we should be giving them. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is evidence time. Today there is in The Wall Street Journal an article entitled, ``Russian State-Run Bank Financed Deal Involving Trump Hotel Partner.'' It is a very interesting article, I advise, and I want to put it into the Record with your permission. Mr. Speaker, a letter was sent just recently from Mr. Trump's lawyers to Mr. Trump and then on to Senator Lindsey Graham. That letter was supposed to be an explanation of the President of the United States' involvement in the finances and vice versa of Russia and President Trump. It does not in any manner, shape, or form, Mr. Speaker, go into any partnership which may exist. There is nothing about that. There is nothing about the Russian state-run bank financing a deal involving Mr. Trump's hotel partner in Toronto. Number three, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN as it is called, which is part of the Treasury Department but independent-- independent--has independent investigative powers. They are looking into the money laundering in that situation. They are already investigating that with these Russian oligarchs--very interesting. Also we know of what happened----

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, I would like to know, Mr. Speaker--I am sure you would, Mr. Speaker--how foreign investments have enriched the President of the United States. That is the only way we are going to find out the conflicts of interest--the only way. So I have heard some House leaders argue that the House should not concern itself with things outside of its control. But section 6103 of the IRS Code is very much within the control of the House, if you have read it, giving specific responsibility to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and the American people are demanding the Congress request the President's tax returns be exercised for several reasons. Mr. Trump has not divested himself from his businesses as was recommended by the Office of Government Ethics. Mr. Speaker, I think it is relevant if we look at what was produced-- remember, it is evidence time--what was produced on January 21, 2009, the ethics commitments by executive branch personnel and what has been committed and produced under this administration. They have laughed at Mr. Shaub, who is the ethics commission chairman. They have laughed at him because it is almost like Cornelius Vanderbilt: You have the law; I have the power.

Mr. PASCRELL. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker----

Mr. PASCRELL. I'm sorry to interrupt.

Mr. PASCRELL. On a question of privilege--I am talking about the privilege of this House. I am talking about the privilege of Republicans and Democrats. We are all alike. We are all equal. Nobody is better than anybody else. What I am saying to you tonight, Mr. Speaker, is that this goes to the very heart of the issue and why this is a privileged resolution because we have a right to know, we have a right to uphold the integrity of this institution--everybody--not just some. Mr. Trump has not divested himself from his businesses as was recommended by the Office of Government Ethics. We need to see how our President--our President--would personally benefit from changes to our Tax Code. Tax Code changes proposed by his administration could lower his own personal tax bill by tens of millions of dollars. The American people have a right to know that. We have learned that earlier this year the President apparently asked Mr. Comey to cease his investigation of Trump National Security Advisor Flynn. In a surprise move last week, Mr. Trump fired the Director of the FBI.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am saying here and very specifically, we have no way of knowing whether Mr. Trump or his firms have received Russian income. It is an insult to the integrity of this House-- Republicans and Democrats alike. We need to know this. We need to know that the President of the United States is beyond question in his objectivity with any nation, and particularly those who are pretty shaky in relationship with, like Russia. A certified letter from paid attorneys that actually confirms the President, in fact, does have financial ties to Russia does nothing to assuage these concerns. The legislative branch has the responsibility--it has the authority-- to check the executive branch, and section 6103(f)(1) is very clear, very distinct, the privilege of the House--the privilege of the Tax Code--which allows for an examination of the tax returns, the authority put in place specifically so Congress could examine conflicts of interest in the executive following the Teapot Dome scandal. As I mentioned before, the possible sale of public lands under this administration is not very different than the biggest scandal of the 20th century at Teapot Rock, Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more of a threat to the integrity of this distinguished----

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have only 2 more minutes. May I finish?

Mr. PASCRELL. I am confining my remarks to the question of privileges which I said last night. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield on that issue. That is all I am doing--no more, no less. This is not a court. All I am saying is putting forth the rationale behind the resolution which I have put forth today--put forth yesterday and was read today. We have nothing but evidence to justify an examination, Mr. Speaker. This is not hot air. If and when such conflicts are revealed, I do not want to say to our constituents that we had the power to review these conflicts, but we did nothing. I for one do not want the integrity--my integrity, the integrity of my colleagues, and the integrity of this House--to be demeaned by such a shameful failure. That goes to the very heart in their own words of what of a privileged resolution is. To restore the dignity of the House, we must use our authority to request President Trump's tax returns and give the American people the transparency they deserve. My concluding statement is this, Mr. Speaker: I mentioned Vanderbilt before because that is a very powerful statement he made--a very rich guy. He felt he could do anything: The law? What law? I am all the power. This is not the United States of America, this is not our democracy, and this is not what Republicans and Democrats have fought for since they have been in this House and before. I stand with us in only getting what we deserve, and then we decide whether we will communicate it to the American people through the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your courtesies.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause (2)(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President shall immediately disclose his tax return information to Congress and the American people; Whereas, in the United States' system of checks and balances, Congress has a responsibility to hold the executive branch of government to the highest standard of transparency to ensure the public interest is placed first; Whereas, according to the Tax History Project, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed their tax return information to the public; Whereas, tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because they contain highly instructive information, including whether the candidate paid taxes, number one; what they own, number two; what they have borrowed and from whom, number three; whether they have made any charitable donations, number four; and whether they have taken advantage of tax loopholes, number five. Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns could help those investigating Russian influence in the 2016 election understand the President's financial ties to the Russian Federation and Russian citizens, including debts owed and whether he shares any partnership interests, equity interests, joint ventures, or licensing agreements with Russia or Russians; Whereas, the President fired FBI Director James Comey last week, whose FBI was investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election; Whereas, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who made the recommendation to fire Director Comey, during sworn testimony--the Interior Ryan Zinke to review national monuments that Presidents have designated or expanded since 1996; Whereas, this review was praised by industry groups who could benefit financially from oil, gas, mining, and condemned by environmental organizations concerned this review will scrap or scale back critical Federal designation to protect tribal and historic lands; Whereas, the American people are in the dark to knowing if this review was started to justify selling or leasing public lands to private corporations that could enrich the President or his business partners without reviewing the President's tax returns; Whereas, it has been reported that Federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn seeking business records as part of the ongoing probe into Russian involvement in the 2016 election; Whereas, according to his 2016 candidate filing with the Federal Election Commission, the President has 564 financial positions in companies located not only in the United States but around the world; Whereas, against the advice of ethics attorneys and the Office of Government Ethics, the President has refused to divest his ownership stake in his businesses and can still withdraw funds at any time from the trust of which he is sole beneficiary; Whereas, the Emoluments Clause was included in the United States Constitution for the express purpose of preventing Federal officials from accepting any--from the Constitution, article I, section 9-- ``present Emolument, Office, or Title . . . from any King, Prince, or foreign state''; Whereas, the most signed petition on the White House website calls for the release of the President's tax return information to verify compliance. The legislative branch has the responsibility and the authority to check the executive branch in section 6103 of the Tax Code--in 1924 allows for an examination of his tax returns, the authority put in place specifically so Congress could examine the conflicts of interest in the executive branch of government following the biggest scandal of the 20th century, the Teapot Dome scandal. Nothing could be more of a threat to the integrity of the House than ignoring our duty to fully examine the personal financial entanglements this President may have with Russian entities and individuals and whether he has abused the tax laws of the United States of America. We have nothing but evidence to justify such an examination. If and when such conflicts are revealed, I do not want to say to our constituents that we had the power to review these conflicts, but we did nothing. I, for one, do not want my integrity, or the integrity of my colleagues on either side of the aisle in this body, to be demeaned by such a shameful failure. To restore the dignity of the House, we must use our authority to request President Trump's tax returns and give the American people the transparency they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the oral announcement of the resolution in order that the entire text appears in the Record.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, now I have to say to my friends on the other side: You sold out cheap--as we say in New Jersey--all to give a tax cut to insurance companies and the most well off. The Upton amendment is, of course, an admission. After 7 years, you came up with this? You have got to be kidding me. This is worse than a Fellini movie. At least he didn't take 7 years to distinguish between fantasy and reality. For a New Jerseyan with asthma, this will mean a $4,340 premium surcharge; for autism, $5,510. The list goes on and on--60, $70,000 if you have cancer. But less discussed is their attempt to rid the essential health benefits which removes yet another ACA protection for everyone. So now the Republicans have hit for the cycle. You hit for the cycle. You jeopardized the health care of nearly every single American--those on Medicare, those on Medicaid, those in the ACA exchanges, and now 150 million people with employer coverage. You sold out. It is a shame. I like most of you, but you are on the wrong path. It took you 7 years for this? I will never yield. I will never yield.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the outstanding achievements of the St. Joseph's Healthcare System as they celebrated their 150th Anniversary on Monday, May 1, 2017. On September 8, 1867, the sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth opened the 12 bed St. Joseph's Hospital in a small wooden house on Church Street, in Paterson, New Jersey. After caring for 102 patients that year, the start of St. Joseph's Healthcare became known and appreciated. Today we like to thank those Sisters and Dr. John Quinn for working together to create the start of St. Joseph's. Without them, and the hard workers that have followed in their footsteps, St. Joseph's would not be where it is today. I would like to look back to 1882, when St. Joseph's was only 15 years old, and the first surgery was performed. The saving of lives is something that not only me, but everyone in the 9th Congressional District is thankful for. Performing surgeries is something that a very select amount of people can do, and it is a job that I will forever be thankful for, especially when it is saving the lives of people. The work of St. Joseph's never fails to have me amazed. The lives they help, and the lives they save is some of the most astonishing work, but it does not stop there. In 1895, St. Joseph's opened up their School of Nursing. They had their first graduating class of nine nurses in 1904, and have been training and preparing nurses ever since. St. Joseph's works hard every day to help these upcoming nurses be the best healthcare providers that they can possibly be. St. Joseph's is continuing to grow every single day, and thankfully they only grew for the better. As technology advances, St. Joseph's has been able to advance their abilities as well. From one time being a little house on Church Street, I have watched St. Joseph's grow, and improve. After relocating and then expanding their equipment, staff, and resources, the St. Joseph's hospital has expanded to other towns like Wayne, New Jersey and are still growing and improving every day. Besides having a top of the line Children's hospital, they also have an Ambulatory Surgery Center in Paterson and one of the best emergency rooms in a hospital. I have the great honor of representing the hard working people of St. Joseph's in Congress. This is a place where people work hard to support their family and their community, a place where the history is long and storied. The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing and commemorating 150 years of St. Joseph's Healthcare System. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues to celebrate 150 years of service, dedication, and excellence from the people of St. Joseph's Healthcare System.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the outstanding achievements of the great town of Garfield as they celebrate their 100th Anniversary this Sunday, April 30, 2017. March 15, 1898 was the day that Garfield broke away from the Township of Saddle River and first became a borough. The State Legislature set Garfield's boundaries which still exist today. Finally the big day on April 19, 1917, the borough became the City of Garfield which we have all come to know. Today we like to thank Gilbert D. Bogart, the man who is credited as the founder of modern day Garfield. Since 1972, Garfield has been governed by a City Manager and five council members, one of who is selected by their Council colleagues to be Mayor. The residents of Garfield are some of the most involved citizens, and elect all members of the City Council. The 1,333 acres of land that make up Garfield are arguably the most diverse acres in the 9th congressional district. With over 20 places of worship, a YMCA, Boys and Girls club, Senior Citizen centers, and a public library the City of Garfield is a place for anyone to feel accepted and welcomed. The City of Garfield has been essential to the growth and development of Bergen County and the State of New Jersey overall. In fact, Garfield has experienced many of the major milestones in our nation's history: including the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Today, the City of Garfield is led by City Manager Thomas J. Duch, and Mayor Richard Rigoglioso, both lifelong residents, who have spent most of their lives dedicated to Garfield. I have the great honor of representing the residents of Garfield in Congress. This is a city where people work hard to support their family and their community, a town where the history is long and storied. Since 2012 when I started representing Garfield in my congressional district I have learned so much about the City. When I visit Garfield I see some of the most hardworking, caring, and welcoming people that I have ever met. I know I can always count on the City of Garfield to be one of the friendliest communities in the 9th district. The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing and commemorating 100 years of history in Garfield, NJ. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues to celebrate 100 years of service, dedication, and excellence from the residents of Garfield

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the outstanding achievements of Rev. Patricia Bruger and her contributions to the Center of United Methodist Aid to the Community (CUMAC) on this special day, Thursday, April 27, 2017. Born and raised in Washington, DC, Patricia is a graduate of the University of Maryland, where she earned her BS in Education in 1969. She worked for the Girl Scouts of America and was a public school teacher. From 1969 until 1972 she served as a high school teacher in Silver Spring, Maryland. She later moved to New Jersey, and served as a substitute teacher in Bergen County from 1985 to 1991. She then received her Masters of Divinity at the Drew Theological Seminary in 1995 with over 25 years of experience in social and civic ministries. She is an ordained Elder of The United Methodist Church, a certified Mentor for the Board of Ordained Ministry, a certified counselor for the Clergy Partnership on Domestic Violence, and a member of the Bishop's Task Force on Urban Minorities. Patricia is a committed social servant dedicated to the eradication of hunger and poverty through direct source and broad advocacy efforts. Patricia has been the Executive Director of CUMAC for over 26 years. She has led the organization through a tremendous period of growth from operating out of an abandoned church to purchasing its own 28,000 square foot facility and from a small food pantry to a multi-service agency serving over 40,000 people in need every year, providing food assistance, disaster relief, job training, supportive housing, and hope to a community facing pervasive poverty. She was a founding and active member of the Emergency Food Coalition of Passaic County (newly operating as a CUMAC program), the NJ statewide Anti-Hunger Coalition, and the Paterson Alliance. Patricia has been a leading voice for her community, advocating for hunger to be addressed in the state budget, as well as rallying support for SNAP benefits and Breakfast after the Bell, to feed hungry students so they can concentrate on their education instead. Patricia's forward-thinking and leadership abilities has encouraged and inspired staff and volunteers to partake in CUMAC's mission of taking care of others. She has raised awareness about pervasive poverty through this organization, and strives to fulfill the needs of people who do not have the adequate resources to function in their daily lives. She has worked closely with other feeding programs throughout Passaic County and northern New Jersey to bring about change in the community, and to assist in eradicating poverty. The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing and commemorating individuals who have dedicated their lives to serving the people. Patricia has truly left an everlasting mark on my hometown of Paterson. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, family and friends, all those whose lives she has touched, and me, in recognizing the work of Rev. Patricia Bruger and her strong desire to help those in need across the world.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, on the campaign trail, the President talked a good game on trade that appealed to working families. But now that he is President, his promises ring hollow. He promised to stop outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas, but he issued 15 contracts since becoming President with companies that have outsourced jobs. He promised to hold China accountable and label them a currency manipulator. He reversed that pledge. He promised to drain the swamp, but he has done just the opposite. He stacked the Cabinet with wealthy insiders; and his White House is filled with friends, family, and a stunning display of nepotism and conflicts of interest. He said he would release his tax returns. That is a laugher. Breaking with 40 years of precedent, he has not released his taxes and claimed the American people don't care. Seventy-four percent of Americans want to see his tax returns. And we will never know the full extent of his conflicts of interest and how he stands to enrich himself in office until we see his tax returns. Congressional tax-writing committees can request them because they have the authority under IRC 6103, and I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 496, which is the first and likely only legislation striking an Obama Administration era rule or regulation outright that I will be supporting this Congress. From when I first learned of the rule last year, I have had strong concerns about the United States Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposal on Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform. Planning was a top priority of one of my predecessors in the United States House of Representatives, former Public Works Committee Chairman Bob Roe. In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the Congress overhauled the planning process and gave tremendous authority to local Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO). The process works well in Northern New Jersey, where the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) plays an important role advancing regional projects that provides an important opportunity for local communities to offer meaningful input. I joined my colleague, Mr. Sires, in a letter last summer expressing concerns with the draft rule and requesting that the comment period be extended. I appreciate the DOTs end goal: to make planning more efficient, more comprehensible to stakeholders and the public, and more focused on projects that address critical regional needs. However, in a rush to judgment and ignoring the concerns of many comments from across the county, the DOT finalized a well-intended, but misguided rule. Specifically, I object to the severity of its reconstruction of the planning processes, practices, and understandings that have been in effect for MPOs for decades, and the ability for the public to comment. Most concerning to me is that the rule could require the redrawing of Metropolitan Planning Areas (MPAs) and require Urbanized Areas (UZAs) to have a common MPO or common Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). For densely populated regions like Northern New Jersey, the proposed rule would reduce local decision-making by either forcing MPO consolidation or requiring a burdensome multi-region single long-term TIP that could weaken local input. The NJTPA region covering my district already includes 6.7 million people and its TIP is over $2 Billion--adding any more to their plate would be unwieldy. We just need to witness the dysfunction at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to know that mandating New Jersey to undertake transportation planning with New York City and New York State in this way would be a recipe for disaster. I thank my colleagues for advancing this bill, look forward to this rule being put back on the shelf, and hope DOT can come up with something less burdensome in their quest to reform transportation planning processes.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities. I want to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Rhode Island and the gentleman from North Carolina. As a former teacher, I have seen firsthand how important the arts and humanities are in educating our kids and bettering society as a whole. It has been shown that exposure to the arts stimulates students' learning, their motivation, and their creativity. Those students involved in the arts score significantly higher in the SATs than other students. Now, more than ever, the arts often seem to be one of the first programs cut from a school or a government budget. In fact, this President has proposed eliminating both the Endowments entirely--the first time any President has proposed such a measure. This has been supported by Democrats and Republicans because it is meaningful to the entire Republic. The NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts, has already sustained significant budget reductions. The NEA appropriation is 12 percent lower than it was in 2010. It declined to $19.5 million. And while I understand, when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority, I understand that this priority affects the spirit of the greatest Nation in the world. The importance of arts and humanities is not something we should even forget, even in the face of tough economic times. The arts support 4.7 million full-time United States jobs and, as you have heard, creates billions in economic activity each year. In New Jersey, the National Endowment for the Arts last year provided over $1 million in direct grant funding to 13 arts organizations, community groups, schools, and artists, as well as enabled the New Jersey State Council on the Arts to award 171 grant and nongrant services totalling over $13 million. So there are consequences and a ripple effect to the few Federal dollars that are provided and targeted. In my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, the Council for the Humanities has awarded grant funding to the Hamilton Partnership for Paterson in support of their work for the Great Falls National Historical Park. Humanities organizations like these enrich the cultural and historical benefits of the Great Falls through programming and community involvement initiatives. That is why it is crucial that we ensure that they receive the funding and the recognition they deserve. The budget proposal does damage to Americans across the board. One area taking a massive hit, if I may use a parallel, is health care. This budget would cripple the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, slashing funding by $5.8 billion, equal to 19 percent of the current $30.8 billion discretionary budget. The budget takes aim at vital antipoverty programs that directly impact health care because poverty causes poor health. So our physical health is going to take a toll. But it is our mental health that could be improved through a strong arts foundation, helping to relieve stresses and lift American spirits. Spiritual health of Americans, supported by the NEA and the NEH, is a key piece of our overall well-being. As an active member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I have spent years opposing those who wanted to slash funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. I will continue to work with my colleagues--and I pledge to you today that I will--on these Federal initiatives that possess widespread and bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans have always come together on this issue. It lifts our spirit as a culture and a nation. You mentioned Yevtushenko before, a Russian poet who came to New York City in the fifties. I only know a few words in Russian, but I went anyway because he was going to read his poetry in Russian. There was no interpreter there. Yevtushenko had been in the midst of the Russian Revolution. He had been in the midst of people trying to gain a voice. I just know a few words; nonetheless, I was moved by his spirit, like watching a painting or looking at a photograph or going to a movie. I understand without knowing the words. That is what a poem should be. It should be, regardless of meaning, in any language. Whether it is music, art, poetry, sculpture, cinema, photography, dance, it doesn't matter. This is the heart of America. Our children are drawn to it. And we even use art and the humanities now to help those people through very distressing times, which is very interesting and fascinating. So I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for yielding. I want him to know he has a partner. Once I partner, you know I am not going to go away. I also thank those who did stay to speak about this very critical issue.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the question I get asked is: What the heck were they thinking about? Let me tell you what they are thinking about. Medicaid is the source of 25 percent of all projected public and private spending for drug abuse treatment. It is about $8 billion. Let's consider James Suber from my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey. Mr. Suber began seeking treatment when New Jersey expanded its Medicare program and provided more comprehensive access to treatment. At least New Jersey got it half right. Each morning Mr. Suber receives treatment at Paterson Counseling Center, which allows him to go to work as a cleaner at Well of Hope, another treatment center in Paterson serving the homeless. Without the treatment he receives through Medicaid, he wouldn't be working. He would be using the emergency department at St. Joseph's hospital, the most expensive part of the hospital. Or maybe he wouldn't have survived. So, Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I don't understand why we would jeopardize treatment for James and the millions of other Americans facing similar challenges. What were they thinking? Will this bill improve Medicaid? Nope. Will this bill increase the number of Americans with health coverage? Nope. Will it lower costs on the exchanges? Nope. Will this bill bolster employer coverage? No. Will coverage now provide more access to care, a promise time and time again by Mr. Trump, himself? No. Will it strengthen Medicare? No. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious. We know we are trying to change things and make them better. We changed Medicare. We did it together. We changed Medicaid. We did it together. We changed a lot of things together, but you chose the only lonely path.