Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is the sequel to ``Weekend at Bernie's.'' But this doesn't work. The headline yesterday in The Washington Post was: GOP Campaigns Ditch Touting Tax Law in Ads. The first one stunk. This is even worse. Republican economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a good, good guy, said this past May: ``There's just no evidence that the tax cuts actually pay for themselves.'' Of course they don't. That is why you are targeting healthcare. That is why you are targeting Medicare. That is why you are targeting Social Security. You already targeted Medicaid. In New Jersey--we are still a State--the average SALT deduction claimed in 2016 was more than the $10,000 limit. In my district, the average is over $18,000. One of the counties in my district is $24,000. What have you done? That means the average taxpaying household--New Jersey, listen up--now has to pay income tax on an additional $14,000 worth of income. We may have 12 Democrats by the end of the election. If they are a middle-class family being taxed at 24 percent, that is an extra $3,400 they have to come up with at tax time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, for hundreds of thousands of New Jersey families, that is a mortgage payment; that is a tuition bill; that is money for unexpected medical bills. Instead, it is going to be moving to pay more bills in Montana and South Dakota. I offered an amendment to restore the full SALT. So every Member who votes for this monstrosity today is voting to make the SALT caps forever and to impose a permanent tax on middle-class families. It is mind-boggling that a Member would want to hammer his constituents like that. I ask my colleagues: How could you vote to punish your middle-class constituents to give even more money to the 1 percent? What is even more fascinating, a number of people on the other side, Mr. Speaker, no wonder they are voting for this thing today. They get less than 1 percent of the donations from folks like you and me. So that is why they are tuned in to corporate America.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, as the co-chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus I wish to recognize Timothy S. Wall, who will be stepping down as Chair of the Volunteer and Combination Officers Section (VCOS) of the International Association Fire Chiefs (IAFC) in November at the annual Volunteer and Combination Officers Section's Conference in Clearwater, Florida. A third-generation firefighter, Chief Wall joined the North Farms Volunteer Fire Department in 1979. For the past 20 years, he served as the department's chief. Active in civic organizations and public safety agencies, Chief Wall became a deputy sheriff of New Haven County in 1980 and has served as a Connecticut state fire marshal since 2000. In addition, he is a former president of the Connecticut Fire Chiefs Association and the New England Division of Fire Chief. The mission of VCOS is to provide chief officers who manage volunteer and combination departments within the fire, rescue, and EMS delivery system with information, education, services, and representation to enhance their professionalism and capabilities. Chief Wall was elected Chair of the Volunteer and Combination Officers Section in 2005. Under his leadership, VCOS has been successfully performing its mission. Most recently, VCOS published a joint publication with the National Volunteer Fire Council on cancer prevention within the fire service, which is the most pressing issue in the fire service. Other challenges include volunteer recruitment and retention, workplace safety, leadership accountability and emergency medical services. VCOS has always demonstrated leadership in addressing the emerging issues that confront their members--whether it's through publishing reports, developing training materials or delivering important messages to our elected leaders. These actions require strong leadership, which Chief Wall has demonstrated throughout his term as Chair. As a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I extend my thanks to Chief Wall for the support he has provided to the Fire Caucus throughout the years. He understands the importance of grassroots advocacy and has always offered his support to my fellow fire caucus co-chairs and me to help us advance fire service legislation through Congress. President Abraham Lincoln once said, ``Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition.'' To me, these words describe the character of the men and women of our nation's fire service. Firefighters perform their mission not for recognition, but for a much higher cause: to safeguard the citizens of their communities. While Chief Wall has never sought recognition, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation for his selfless dedication and commitment to public safety. He has certainly earned the right to be recognized.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For decades, the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act of 2018 has had longstanding and broad bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress. It has been used as a means to bolster United States manufacturing and competitiveness by temporarily reducing or suspending tariffs on certain imported goods and components. I cosponsored this bill when it was introduced last November. I supported it when we considered it on the floor earlier this year in January. The MTB returns to the House today for consideration of amendments made by the Senate on July 26. As the House takes up this bill again, I intend to support the bill, as amended. I have always supported and will always support American manufacturers, and will do everything I can to boost their ability to compete. And I commend the chairman. My home State of New Jersey will benefit greatly from the program, with firms projected to save more than $100 million over the course of a 3-year period. From chemicals to textiles, our State's industries will benefit. The largest industry in New Jersey is chemical manufacturing, employing directly or indirectly over 100,000 workers. Several of those firms will receive tariff relief from numerous imported chemicals that I dare not try to pronounce. I can't overlook the relief given to little, green peperoncino for those subs and pizzas we all love. Even in Texas, they have that. But today's vote raises important questions about what I consider to be the chaotic approach to trade from this President and some of my Republican colleagues, their unwillingness to challenge. Since the passage of the MTB in January, this administration has imposed tariffs on up to $47 billion of steel and aluminum imports from around the world and $50 billion on imported goods from China. The administration is now in the final week of a public comment process to determine $200 billion of additional imports from China that it intends to subject to tariffs. This administration can and should take strong measures to make China accountable for cheating our global trade system and ripping off American companies and workers. On that, we can agree. But what is confusing right now is the fact that, while the administration continues to move forward with tariffs that will cover nearly half of all imported products from China, the MTB will reduce or remove tariffs on many of the same products. That is a little confusing. To me, it is. For the $50 billion in Chinese imports currently subject to Section 301 tariffs, there are up to 150 products that are covered by today's bill. For the list of proposed goods valued at $200 billion in Chinese imports that the administration is currently considering subjecting to additional tariffs, the overlap with today's bill could be as high as 1,000 products. Now, it is true that the MTB reduces or suspends tariffs on products imported from any and all countries, not just China. But let me remind everyone of this: While the administration has been imposing tariffs, our trading partners have been responding in kind by hitting our exports with retaliatory tariffs. As we consider suspending some 1,600 tariffs on imports from China and other countries, I haven't heard that any of those countries is about to reciprocate and do us any similar favors. Because the administration is relying so heavily on the use of tariffs as a trade enforcement tool--remember, a tool, yes, not a weapon--the majority's push to move MTB, which reduces and suspends tariffs, with a minimal amount of process, seems like a concerted effort to contradict the administration's own trade agenda. So, how does the MTB fit with this administration's trade agenda? Well, we have been asking that question for many months. Several months ago, the administration reached out to the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee to express concerns with the MTB, especially as it will apply to import duties on goods from China, including finished goods. In response, I expressed my strong interest in working with the administration to address and resolve those concerns. In May, as the administration turned up the heat on tariffs on China, I asked the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to convene a hearing with administration representatives on these China trade policies. My Democratic colleagues and I were also open to marking up the MTB in committee and considering the legislation under regular order. In no case did we find willing partners. Tomorrow, the Ways and Means Committee will hold a markup on my resolution of inquiry, seeking information about the administration's tariffs policy, and I expect to revisit the question. Today, I will support the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act of 2018. I want to commend the chairman. I don't say that blindly. I think he has asked many good questions when we have had tariff issues and trade issues before the entire body as well as the subcommittee. I think that this is good. I think that this is important. But we are talking about a specific bill here today, and it is in contradiction to what the administration has proffered. I have also, on behalf of my fellow Democrats, extended every effort to work toward bringing coherence to the policies. To my Republican colleagues, the question I ask you is: What have you done to do that? As we look to the future, in conclusion, I am committed to working to improve the MTB process, to pursue a broader global economic strategy that supports U.S. workers and firms. Imposing or suspending tariffs is not enough. We need trade policies that are strong, effective, and coherent. We must remember what the purpose of the miscellaneous tariff process is. If we don't produce it in the United States, then we will not place a tariff on anything. That helps us and our manufacturers, who might need those products from other countries. I think it is a wise process, and I commend the chairman for pursuing this and sticking to it. Madam Speaker, I think that this is important legislation. No one can deny that. This is not frivolous legislation by any stretch, but it cannot be in contradiction with the general agenda for trade universally. This is what I am very concerned about. I have given specific examples as to what I am talking about. This is going to help my State; it is going to help a lot of States throughout the union. I sincerely do commend the chairman for making sure that we get this done before November. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I know the great intentions of the sponsor of this legislation. That is not in question. What is in question is that we have very, very short memories when it comes to healthcare. We made a commitment when we put the Affordable Care Act together. We knew it wasn't perfect, and obviously since then we have tried to make some changes, but we haven't had much cooperation from the other side. It wasn't mindless. In fact, the medical device industry agreed to the conclusion. In sitting down in negotiations we started out with one thought in mind, regardless of what we were talking about: we shall pay for what we vote on, unlike some other legislation that will go nameless right now. We devised the Affordable Care Act so that it could be paid for and we would not have to add to the deficit. In fact, one of these taxes, in order to pay for the Affordable Care Act, we are discussing right now, the medical device tax. It started out at 5 percent. In working with the industry, we came to a conclusion of 2.3 percent. So we went from $40 billion raised for the Affordable Care Act to $20 billion, see, because we knew we had to pay for this. That is what healthcare is all about, and that is why you guys on the other side-- you people have not come up with an alternative, because you don't know how to pay for anything. So we paid for this. The Protect Medical Innovation Act. Well, when the Affordable Care Act was being crafted, the medical device industry--and by the way, the medical device industry is probably the most scrutinized industry in the United States. Most of those companies, the 7,000 in the United States--most of them--are good actors, but a lot of them were not. Ten years ago I stood on this floor, Mr. Speaker, and pointed out all the cases against the medical device companies who were bribing doctors in order for those doctors to recommend the device. That is a fact of life. I didn't make that up. That is not a political injection here. This is what happened. You could shove it off all you want. If I have to come back to the floor on another occasion and cite chapter and verse the court cases, you won't be so happy. That is not my purpose today. What I am saying is, they agreed to the deal. They knew that the increase in health coverage of millions more Americans would directly increase the demand for medical devices.

Mr. PASCRELL. By the way, Mr. Ranking Member, many medical devices are sold to people old, like myself, who are on Medicare. You continue to cut Medicare, and you will be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Congress most recently passed a delay of the medical device tax as part of the continuing resolution. This extended the time that they wouldn't have to pay a dime to the health system through the end of next year, costing taxpayers $4 billion. Nothing to sneeze at. Additionally, this year, the industry has stood to benefit tremendously from the reduction in the corporate tax rate, down to 21 percent. You didn't get that break, and I didn't get that break. There is nothing that will lead me to believe these benefits will trickle down to help patients afford the devices they need to survive or lower the price of those devices in the first place, regardless of who is paying for them, out of what plan. I'll go back to the point. We put the ACA together so that it would be paid for. That is why we had to come up with that money, and we did, so you couldn't repeal it. And what you are trying to do is choke it to death. You are trying to bleed it. What you are doing is forcing more and more people--you just went from 20 million down to 17 million because of the subsidies that you wouldn't put through that were in the law, because of the mandate that was originally in the law. And what is the alternative? Silence. Health issues are the biggest issue this year, Mr. Speaker. I am glad I am on the right side.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, in light of the upcoming one-on-one meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin, I rise today to remind the American people about the cloud of collusion hanging over their heads. As the American people continue to learn details of this unfolding scandal, the implausible idea of Russia compromising the President of the United States becomes more fact than fiction. The President, his family members, his campaign staff, and his close associates have repeatedly lied about their multiple contacts with Russian officials and close associates of Putin. They have had no consistent explanation for these meetings. It has happened over and over. Furthermore, the President continues to parrot Putin's version of world events over those of his own American career civil servants, intelligence operatives, military officials, and allies. This betrayal has become like clockwork, an inexplicable routine we cannot simply shrug off. While it is possible the current list of known campaign contacts, positive policy positions, and fawning statements have an innocuous explanation, there is a simpler reason the House should be investigating: Has President Donald Trump been covertly influenced or personally compromised by Russia, a hostile foreign power? Russian intelligence is known for using blackmail that exploits greed, stupidity, and ego--and other weaknesses--to leverage over people. He has employed Mr. Michael Cohen, Mr. Felix Sater--the record is very clear on this--both of whom have links to the Russian mafia. He has continued the secrecy about his business finances by not releasing his tax returns. The ethics commissioner told the President of the United States to divest. He did not, and he defied that person most responsible for draining the swamp, the ethics commissioner. From operating his business at or beyond the edge of ethical boundaries, Trump's penchant for compromising behavior, his willingness to work closely with criminals and expressed desire to protect his privacy makes him the ideal target. With close business ties, Russia has enjoyed financial leverage over President Trump for 15 years. This is a fact that his family has admitted to multiple times. The story is well known. After a series of brazen abuses of bankruptcy laws, President Trump, who was not President at the time, Mr. Trump, found it impossible to borrow from American banks, so he turned to unconventional sources of capital, including Russian cash. From 2003 to 2017, people from the former Soviet Union made 86 all- cash purchases that we know of, a known red flag of potential money laundering of Trump properties, totaling $109 million. ``Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.'' Those are the words of Donald Junior in 2008. In 2010, the private wealth division of Deutsche Bank also loaned President Trump hundreds of millions of dollars during the same period it was laundering billions in Russian money. ``We don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.'' Those are the boasts of Eric Trump from 2014. Shady business transactions offer the perfect cover for covert payments, and President Trump's adamant refusal to release his tax returns publicly only raises the level of suspicion. The idea that Russia has been cultivating, supporting, and assisting Donald Trump to undermine Western alliances should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention. Before and during his campaign for President--Mr. Trump--there were several odd connections between the two men, which they lied about to the public. As President, Mr. Trump called Putin ``fine people.'' He ignored the fact that Putin invaded Crimea; intervened in eastern Ukraine; poisoned people in the United Kingdom; has commissioned the murder of dissidents, journalists, and spies; shot down a commercial airliner in Europe; propped up the most ruthless dictator of our time in Syria; and violated our sovereignty in the 2016 Presidential election, by every-- every--intelligence organization that says ``USA.'' To ensure the American people and future Congresses know how we got here today, today I will read parts of the Trump-Russia dossier into the Record, also known as the Christopher Steele dossier, and include a link to its entirety in the Congressional Record. Partisans on the other side of the aisle may dismiss the document as bogus, even fake news, but they know that several allegations in this document have already been verified. While the dossier represents raw intelligence or, effectively, a first draft, not a single thing of substance has been disproven--not one. And Christopher Steele has reliably provided intelligence to the U.K. and U.S. intelligence agencies for decades. While history will be the final judge on these matters, these are some of the allegations which we know have been verified. Madam Speaker, this is serious business. When I read from the dossier, I am reading from my prime source. What I read tonight has all been verified and certified, that which I am reading. While history will be a final judge on these matters, here are some of the allegations. Page 1 of the dossier, the claim: ``Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting, and assisting Trump for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by Putin, has been to encourage splits and divisions in the Western alliance''--in the Western alliance. ``So far,'' the dossier reads, I will continue, ``Trump has declined various sweetener real estate business deals offered him in Russia in order to further the Kremlin's cultivation of him. However, he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.'' Now, here is the truth: On January 6, 2017, an intelligence community assessment released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that Russian leadership favored Trump's candidacy over Clinton's and that Putin personally ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and ``undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process,'' as well as ordering cyber attacks on ``both major U.S. political parties.'' Page 7 and 8, I don't have time to read the whole thing tonight, obviously. Dossier claim on page 7 and 8: ``The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing email messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee to the WikiLeaks platform. The reason for using WikiLeaks was `plausible deniability,' and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team. In return, the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise U.S./NATO defense commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine, a priority for Putin, who needed to cauterize the subject.'' This is what he wrote. That is on page 7 and 8, what the dossier claims. Now here is the truth: In July 2016, the Republican National Convention made changes to the Republican Party's platform on Ukraine. Initially, the GOP platform proposed providing ``lethal weapons'' to Ukraine. That is what it originally stated, that platform. But the line was watered down to promise ``appropriate assistance.'' NPR reported that Diana Denman, a Republican delegate who supported arming U.S. allies in Ukraine, has told people that Trump aide J.D. Gordon said at the Republican Convention in 2016 that Trump directed him to support weakening that position in the official platform. J.D. Gordon, who was one of Trump's national security advisers during the campaign, said he had advocated for changing language because that reflected what Trump had said. The Trump campaign did not appear to have intervened in any other platform deliberations, only the language on Ukraine. Here is the truth: As the President and throughout the campaign, Donald Trump has called NATO ``obsolete''--although he changed his mind today, a little bit--championed the disintegration of the European Union, and said that he is open to lifting sanctions on Russia or has declined to enforce them. Trump has repeatedly questioned whether our allies are paying enough into NATO, ultimately raising questions as to whether he is deliberately facilitating Putin's long-term objective of undermining the Western liberal order. Dossier page 30: ``Speaking to a trusted compatriot in mid-October 2015, a close associate of Rosneft president and Putin ally Igor Sechin''--his name appears all over the place in the dossier-- ``elaborated on the reported secret meeting between'' Mr. Sechin and Carter Page, of United States Republican Presidential candidate's foreign policy team, in Moscow in July 2016. The secret meeting ``had been confirmed to him/her by a senior member of the staff, in addition to by the Rosneft president himself. It took place on either 7 or 8 July, the same day or the one after Carter Page made a public speech to the Higher Economic School in Moscow. ``In terms of the substance of the discussion, Sechin's associate said that the Rosneft president was so keen to lift personal and corporate Western sanctions imposed on the company that he offered Page,'' and Mr. Trump's associates as well, ``the brokerage of up to a 19 percent privatized stake in Rosneft in return. Page had expressed interest and confirmed that were Trump elected U.S. President,'' sanctions on Russia would be lifted. The truth: On December 29, 2016, during the transition period between the election and the inauguration, National Security Advisor-designate Mike Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, urging him not to retaliate for newly imposed sanctions. Ultimately, the Russians did not retaliate. Days after the inauguration, the Trump administration ordered State Department staffers to develop proposals for immediately revoking the economic and other sanctions imposed against Russia. Thankfully, these staffers alerted Congress, who took steps to codify the sanctions in a law passed in August 2017. The attempt to overturn the sanctions was abandoned after Mr. Flynn's conversation was revealed and Mr. Flynn resigned. Carter Page has confirmed this meeting with top Moscow and Rosneft officials, that company or corporation, in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence testimony. It is all laid out. When Page was asked if a Rosneft executive had offered him a potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft, Page said, ``He may have briefly mentioned it.'' Dossier claim on page 23: ``Finally, speaking separately to the same compatriot, a senior Russian,'' Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ``MFA official reported that, as a prophylactic measure, a leading Russian diplomat, Mikhail Kalugin, had been withdrawn from Washington at short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement in the U.S. Presidential election operation, including the so-called veterans' pensions ruse,'' which we reported previously in the dossier, ``would be exposed in the media there. His replacement, Andrei Bondarev, however, was clean in this regard.'' The truth: Mikhail Kalugin was the head of the economics section at the Russian Embassy. He returned to Russia in August 2016. The BBC would go on to report that United States officials in 2016 had identified Kalugin as a spy, that he was under surveillance, thus verifying this key claim in the dossier. Further reporting by McClatchy has claimed that the FBI was investigating whether Kalugin played a role in the election interference. Mr. Speaker, these are facts. They just scratch the surface of what we are dealing with. This is what we know. Despite some opponents and opportunists and attempts, these facts are indisputable. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the link to the entire Trump/ Russia dossier produced by Christopher Steele, so future generations will know the truth of how we got here today. The link is: https:// www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence- Allegations.html. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a little bit more of the dossier, and I am going to stay away from the scurrilous things that have been reported in the newspaper, because they, to me, are just distractions from what we should be looking at. This is from the dossier: The ``mechanism for transmitting this intelligence involves `pension' disbursements to Russian emigres living'' in the United States as cover, using consular offices in New York, Miami, and D.C. ``Suggestion from source close to Trump and Manafort that Republican campaign team happy to have Russia as media bogeyman to mask more extensive corrupt business ties to China and other emerging countries. ``Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was using foreign policy adviser Carter Page and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whom President Putin apparently hated and feared. ``Inter alia, Source E acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing email messages emanating from the Democratic National Committee'' to that WikiLeaks platform. Attention, attention: ``Source E said he understood that the Republican candidate and his team were relatively relaxed about this because it deflected media and the Democrats' attention away from Trump's business dealings in China and other emerging markets.'' For the Record, Mr. Speaker, I will enter that in the Record at the proper time, not this evening. We have a whole dossier, again, having nothing to do with this, of every deal that we know of that the President and his team made in 52 foreign countries. That will be entered into the Record. ``Finally, regarding Trump's claimed minimal investment profile in Russia, a separate source with direct knowledge said this had not been for want of trying. Trump's previous efforts had included exploring the real estate sector in St. Petersburg as well as Moscow, but, in the end, Trump had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success.'' That is what the dossier says. ``Trump adviser Carter Page holds secret meetings in Moscow with Sechin and senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, Divyekin. Sechin raises issues of future bilateral U.S.-Russian energy cooperation and associated lifting of Western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine. Page noncommittal in response. Divyekin discusses release of Russian dossier of `kompromat' on Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, but also hints at Kremlin possession of such material on Trump.'' ``Kremlin concerned that political fallout from DNC email hacking operation is spiraling out of control. Extreme nervousness among Trump's associates as result of negative media attention/accusations. ``Russians meanwhile keen to cool situation and maintain `plausible deniability' of existing/ongoing pro-Trump and anti-Clinton operations; therefore, unlikely to be any ratcheting up offensive plays in the immediate future. ``Source close to Trump campaign, however, confirms regular exchange with Kremlin has existed for at least 8 years''--I said 5 years before; 8 years--``including intelligence fed back to Russia on oligarchs' activities in U.S.'' ``Within this context, Putin's priority requirement had been for intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the U.S. of leading Russian oligarchs and their families.'' And his associates duly had obtained and supplied that information. ``Speaking in early August 2016, two well-placed and established Kremlin sources outlined the divisions and backlash in Moscow arising from the leaking of Democratic National Committee emails and the wider pro-Trump operation being conducted in the U.S. Head of Presidential Administration, Sergei Ivanov, was angry at the recent turn of events. He believed the Kremlin `team' involved, led by presidential spokesman Dmitriy Peskov, had gone too far in interfering in foreign affairs with their `elephant in a china shop black PR'. Ivanov claimed always to have opposed the handling and exploitation of intelligence by this PR `team'. Following the backlash against such foreign interference in U.S. politics, Ivanov was advocating that the only sensible course of action now for the Russian leadership was to `sit tight and deny everything'.'' And they did. ``Continuing on this theme, the source close to Ivanov reported that Peskov now was `scared' ''--I will not use the derogatory term--``that he would be scapegoated by Putin and the Kremlin and held responsible for the backlash. . . . '' Page after page, Mr. Ivanov appears. He is at the center of this. And if we know this, then Mr. Mueller knows this. And if we know this, Mr. Mueller knows more. So this is the dossier, which has been public now since early last year. And I wanted to bring this to the floor last year, but we chose to do it another way, if you remember, in trying to get the President's taxes made public. So I will conclude with this, Mr. Speaker--you have been patient. This is, to me, a big deal: 83 percent of this dossier has been proven correct. I did not use anything that was dubious of the 17 percent. So I say to you, the Congress has a right, as an equal branch of government, to review what has happened so that our President, as Mr. Shaub, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, said to President Trump: What you need to do is cut yourself off from your assets. That is what you need to do. That is what you must do. And, obviously, he did not do it. So there is a lot of material out there. Going at this a year and a half is not a long time. You know how long Watergate took. But I would think that this is going to take longer than Watergate--that is my opinion--on some of these things which will have to be traced. Some people have been indicted. Some people are going to prison already. But I am telling you, the bulk of information is going to be laid out when Mr. Mueller is ready, not when I am ready or anybody in the Chamber is ready. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. That is unacceptable. I did not engage in any personalities. I read from the record. I didn't call anybody a name. If I read it, it was somebody else that was writing it, not me.

Mr. PASCRELL. The President is not above the law, sir. I am not above the law.

Mr. PASCRELL. No, I don't have a motion.

Mr. PASCRELL. Do you want me to make a motion to extend? Is that what you are asking me to do?

Mr. PASCRELL. Fine. You have it your way. I will be back.

Mr. PASCRELL

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

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Larry Doby, a sports legend, a pioneer of American civil rights, a man who proudly served his country, and a fellow native of the streets of my hometown, Paterson, New Jersey, where he was a star multisport athlete at Eastside High School, well known for his character. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Huizenga for the work that he did, tirelessly trying to get enough signatures, both last year and this year--a great job--and I know the brothers and sisters in Ohio are very proud of him. I thank Maxine Waters, who made it very, very possible to bring this to the floor today, my deepest, deepest thanks. Larry Doby served in the United States Navy in the Pacific during World War II. After an honorable discharge in 1946, he returned to New Jersey to pursue his career in baseball with the Newark Eagles after being scouted at Hinchliffe Stadium in Paterson. Hinchliffe Stadium is now in the historic district of Paterson, the same field I played on as a kid, which gave me the delusions of making it to the major leagues-- almost, but not quite. We were proud that Larry Doby achieved that greatness. In 1946, Larry helped the Eagles win the Negro World Series championship over the legendary Satchel Paige--think about that--and the Kansas City Monarchs. Larry Doby hit .372, with one home run, five RBIs, and three stolen bases in that world series. Many believed Larry Doby would be the first to break Major League Baseball's infamous color barrier, but we know what happened. On April 15, 1947, Jackie Robinson took to the field in Ebbets Field; and on July 5, 1947, Larry Doby integrated the American League with the Cleveland Indians, 71 years ago last week. Being second did not make his challenge any less difficult or his courage any less remarkable. Larry was also treated to horrible racism. Even some of his teammates shunned him. Larry Doby took that abuse wherever he went. Imagine that burden. Imagine the courage it would take to stand in front of that every day, and yet he handled the adversity with bottomless strength, poise, and dignity. There was no interleague play back in 1947 and certainly no ESPN. Baseball fans from American League only areas--like northern Ohio, Michigan, and around Washington, D.C.--would never be able to see Jackie Robinson play. It was Larry Doby who integrated the American League parks. The poise and courage of Larry Doby was a source of inspiration for so many. I knew his family very well, as well as Larry. He knew it, too. Larry once said: ``I knew being accepted was going to be hard, but I knew I was involved in a situation that was going to bring opportunities to other Blacks.'' Besides being a pioneer, Larry Doby was no slouch on the diamond. He played 13 years. He led the Indians to their last World Series in 1948, and I remind Mr. Renacci of that point. They are due. He was voted to seven all-star teams. When it was all done, he finished with 253 home runs, nearly a thousand RBIs, and a cool lifetime .283 batting average. Even when he was retired, Larry Doby continued to break barriers. As Mr. Renacci pointed out, in 1978, he became manager of the Chicago White Sox. He became only the second African American manager of a major league team. His play on the field might have been good enough by itself, but for his ability and for his courage, Larry Doby was rightly elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1998. I made that trip to Cooperstown, as many folks from Ohio and many people from Paterson, New Jersey, did. I was filled with pride watching this product of Paterson ascend to the Parthenon of America's game. But even after he was finished in baseball, Larry Doby wasn't finished. He continued to make significant contributions to his community. He served as the director of community relations for the National Basketball Association's New Jersey Nets, where he was deeply involved with building several inner-city youth programs. This was a special, special person, Mr. Speaker. This bipartisan bill would posthumously award Larry Doby with a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award bestowed by the United States Congress on extraordinary individuals. It is right recognition for Larry Doby's athletic feats, his courageous leadership, the opportunities he created for others, and the inspiration he gave to millions. H.R. 1861, The Larry Doby Congressional Gold Medal Act, I introduced with my friend Representative Jim Renacci is a big deal. I also thank the Senate sponsors of the companion legislation: Senators Rob Portman, Robert Menendez, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Tim Scott, and Lindsey Graham. Since coming to Congress, I have tried to support the legacy of Larry Doby. We passed an act of Congress to name the post office in Paterson after him. We worked hard to make sure he was recognized by the United States Postal Service with a beautiful postage stamp. We are fortunate to have heroes who inspire us to achieve our best and lead our communities towards positive change. These are uniters in our community, and that is what we need more of. Today, we are proud to recognize Lawrence Eugene Doby as one of those heroes.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to thank Representatives Chris Collins and Frank Pallone and Senators Menendez and Lisa Murkowski for the support and work to get this bipartisan bill to protect the health and wellbeing of our Nation's firefighters across the finish line. I am pleased this bill, which has the strong support of the firefighter community, will finally be on its way to the President's desk. I look forward to working with all the stakeholders to create a firefighter cancer registry with this bill. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in solidarity with the workers who have paid in for years to have retirement security only to have the rug pulled out from under them. Mondelez International, the maker of iconic Nabisco products, like Oreo cookies, has, in recent years, moved hundreds of good-paying middle class jobs to Mexico. Now they have doubled down on shafting their U.S. employees. On May 23, Mondelez-Nabisco announced it would withdraw from their employees' pension plan. How nice. They have participated in this plan for 60 years. This decision jeopardizes the hard-earned retirement security of 110,000 current and future retirees. This decision comes at the same time that this corporation, Mondelez, paid its new CEO, Dirk Van de Put, $42.4 million for 41 days of work in 2017. I would be remiss if I didn't mention Mondelez reaped millions of dollars in tax breaks as a result of the passage of the recent Trump tax cuts. Since 2014, Mondelez has increasingly shifted production from the U.S. to Mexico and taken major jobs with it. On December 15, I wrote a letter to the United States Trade Representative asking them, in the context of NAFTA, to prioritize strong, enforceable labor provisions to discourage this kind of outsourcing to Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this is an epidemic.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, Leviticus Chapter 19: 33-34, in the Old Testament--Democrats can quote the Bible also. As a practicing Catholic, let me do that. ``When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native- born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.'' When did, Mr. Speaker, this barbaric, xenophobic, anti-immigrant modern agenda begin? Let's go through it quickly. One, the birther issue: An embarrassment to this country by the administration, the head of the administration. The Muslim ban: Imagine banning people that profess a particular religion. Third, Charlottesville: That debacle, equal opportunity. Fourth, the incendiary talk that painted the entire Mexican population--our ally, probably our third or fourth leading trade partner, our ally--with a wide brush of pure prejudice, pure. He painted the entire population. To say that Democrats are for open borders, that is a lie. You know it; I know it. I am standing up to reject it. You sit quietly. You sit quietly and say nothing. I was on the original starting gate at the Homeland Security after 9/ 11. Democrats, just as well as Republicans, worked together to put that together. How dare anybody insinuate that we don't accept the security of this Nation. By the way, by the way, we have four borders, not one. The people who attacked us on 9/11 came from Canada. They didn't come from Mexico. You have never met a Mexican terrorist, and I certainly haven't met one either.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be on the floor today regarding a bill that we have been negotiating for many months and that deals with an incredibly important topic: the opioid epidemic that is having a devastating impact across the country. Despite current efforts, this opioid epidemic continues to ravage our communities. Every day in this country, 115 Americans lose their lives to opioids--painkillers. In 2016, my home State of New Jersey alone experienced 2,056 lives lost to this epidemic. The New Jersey Attorney General predicts that it will be 3,000 this year. This legislation addresses one aspect of the crisis: synthetic opioids making their way into homes across the country through the mail. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, China is the primary source of the fentanyl that enters this country. Fentanyl is often sold online and then shipped to the United States in small quantities, making it very difficult to detect. I saw firsthand the way that the U.S. Postal Service and Customs is working together to stop the flow of synthetic opioids coming in through international mail. I visited a mail facility in Secaucus, New Jersey, with representatives from these agencies and the Food and Drug Administration. I know that the Postal Service receives an overwhelming volume of mail and they are working hard with limited resources to screen shipments. But we have some clear strategies that we can employ to create an effective system for targeting shipments that have a risk of containing these opioids, namely collecting advance electronic data, AED, on all packages that enter the United States. The information contained in the AED typically includes the name and address of the shipper and recipient, as well as the contents of the package. CBP, Customs and Border Protection, uses this information to identify packages that may pose a risk. Customs can then place a hold on the shipment and notify carriers that a package must be presented for examination. Private carriers have been required to collect this information since 2002, but we made the Postal Service exempt from this requirement. As a result, it has become the preferred method for shipping illicit materials, including opioids, into the United States. The version of the STOP Act that we are considering today is an amended version of the original act, which was introduced back in 2017. We had 271 sponsors on that legislation. The old STOP Act would have required the United States Postal Service to collect 100 percent of that information within 1 year or face penalties of up to $5,000 for every package for which it failed to do so. A number of stakeholders raised concerns with this approach, so we worked with them, including the Postal Service and their unions, to try to arrive at a workable solution. As a result of these discussions and consultations, we have been able to make a number of important changes. The legislation on the floor today makes a number of significant changes that address the concerns raised by stakeholders. First, this bill allows more time for the United States Postal Service to come into compliance. The United States Postal Service will have until the end of 2020 to transmit the AED on all international mail delivered to the United States. This legislation includes a waiver that excludes countries that lack capacity to collect that information and pose a low risk of violating U.S. laws from the 100 percent requirement. As a result, the United States Postal Service will not be penalized for issues that are outside its control and should be able to comply with its international commitments. Second, the amended legislation removes the requirement that the United States Postal Service hire a broker for every package that enters into the United States, saving costs and ensuring they can receive inbound mail under its current practices. Finally, the legislation provides for a more nuanced approach to United States Postal Service penalties. Customs is required to reduce or eliminate penalties if the Postal Service does one of three things: it cooperates with Customs, it has a high compliance rate, or it takes remedial measures. These changes were proposed by the United States Postal Service to address its concerns regarding the penalties provision. So as a practical matter, these changes mean that, if the Postal Service continues its current work, penalties will likely never be imposed. Further, the legislation does not allow penalties to be considered until 2021. I would also like to highlight language in the bill directing the Customs and Border Protection to provide an annual report on the individuals and the companies that are not providing this information and the manner in which it imposes penalties. Requiring the CBP to report this useful information on violators and violator penalty assessments I believe will enhance the interdiction of prohibited items from entering the United States through express consignment operators. This revised bill has support from a variety of public safety and public health groups, as well as the National Conference of State Legislatures. Just before we started today, the Fraternal Order of Police sent a supporting letter in support of this. This is good news for both sides of the aisle. This revised bill has support from a variety of public safety and public health groups. Despite the significant changes, I understand that some of the stakeholders remain opposed, and we should understand that. We tried to work with those who have opposed. I respect the continued concerns that these stakeholders have articulated and look forward to working with them going forward. However, with the changes that we have been able to incorporate into this legislation on a bipartisan basis, I believe that the current legislation provides an aggressive but workable approach to the United States Postal Service. I strongly support the legislation, Mr. Speaker, on the floor today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers on my side, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I plead with you and my brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle. I think we are making a big step today in this piece of legislation. I know there are other pieces. I would recommend, Mr. Speaker, that we approach this deadly epidemic--and it is deadly--in the same way that we approached the epidemic at the end of the eighties and the early nineties, and that was the epidemic of the HIV virus. No one wanted to talk about it, Mr. Speaker, so people died when they could have been saved if we had had knowledge of prevention, if we had had knowledge of how we take care of those folks. It took us until the beginning of the nineties, until we opened up local clinics, until people felt less involved in a stigma. Then they had to come out from the shadows to protect the rest of the population, including themselves. Then we came together, and the Federal Government passed the Ryan White legislation, which has been a big help on the HIV virus. Then we came together. Unfortunately, maladies bring Americans together. Well, that is good that we do come together, though. I ask and plead that we have the same vigor in approaching opiates and approaching fentanyl, which is coming in from other countries. If we do that, we will not only survive; we will help those--and we will prevent many from falling into the trap. You have heard some people talk about that trap today, starting with painkillers and moving on to even more dangerous drugs. We are going to get through this. We are going to get through this. Yesterday we passed by voice vote legislation to change the protocol on how we approach the patients, not only in the emergency rooms of America, but in many departments and hospitals across the United States. We need to find alternatives to the very opiates that are making fools of us. Those alternatives shall be part of the solution, part of the solution to getting to the promised land, as the gentleman says. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Bishop. I want to thank Mr. Brady. I want to thank my good friend from Massachusetts, Richie Neal, and all of those who worked on this legislation: David Reichert and many more. I congratulate our persistence in getting through a lot of hurdles. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5197, the Alternatives to Opioids, ALTO, in the Emergency Department Act. I would like to thank Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone for their work, not only today, but leading up to today. This is moving quickly on us. They have reviewed the legislation very carefully and have offered very, very good advice on all of these pieces of legislation. The leadership here is outstanding. Mr. Speaker, I want to give a special thank you to my colleague, David McKinley, who sponsored this legislation with me and has been an essential partner. I am glad to see this body come together in a bipartisan manner to address a problem that is ravaging every corner of our districts. I believe the bills being considered today should be seen as only a small part of an ongoing discussion and, more importantly, resources needed to reverse the unyielding trend of this epidemic. Opioids are contributing to 115 people dying a day. If you go back to the HIV epidemic at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, you will see similar numbers. Until we educated ourselves and people, we still were in the 19th century with that disease. In the 1990s, we had no idea how to solve that epidemic, and we finally did. Today, we do know how to prevent, how to halt, and how to reverse the horrific trend of substance use disorder, which continues to be on the rise. We need to make sure the front lines have the resources to address it. I believe a major piece of the equation is prevention. That is why I introduced this Alternatives to Opioids legislation, which enjoys strong bipartisan support. The ALTO program was pioneered at St. Joseph's Medical Center in the city I have lived in all my life, Paterson, New Jersey. They started in the emergency room, Mr. Speaker, and now they are moving to other departments to use alternatives that are legitimate. The president of that hospital, Kevin Slavin, and the head of Emergency Medicine, Dr. Mark Rosenberg, implemented innovative protocols to use nonopioid treatments to address some of the most common painful conditions, like acute backache and headaches. In its first 2 years, St. Joe's ALTO model has already led to an 82 percent reduction in opioid prescriptions. I think that is a big deal. St. Joseph's has been replicating this model, as I said, beyond the emergency department to other departments. They are also teaching ALTO to other States and other hospitals that are now seeing similar success. While ending the opioid epidemic will require a multifaceted approach, the initial success of this program and others like it are worthy of broader study and implementation. I recommend that, Mr. Speaker. This bill establishes a demonstration program to test alternative pain management. Those protocols should be limited to the use of opioids in emergency departments. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will then report on the results of the program and make recommendations for broader implementation. This bill will empower healthcare providers to prevent unnecessary opioids from getting into patients' hands and ultimately stop countless overdoses. My motto for dealing with a zero tolerance, which I taught in the classroom, is the fact that we need to prevent these things from happening: No market, no sale. That is the center of everything I do in terms of drug prevention, because we are not going to pass enough legislation until the culture itself rids our inner sanctums of having to deal with our devils and have to deal with those things that get us off track every day, whether you are a student or an adult. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for their cooperation.