Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, that is while I was watching what was happening with the San Francisco 49ers and the Baltimore Ravens. Sports, sports, the center of our lives. That is the unifying factor. We all are for our teams--aren't we?--and, hopefully, we are all Team USA. Now we can prove that on this U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. While I was calling the distinguished chairman, I was in Brussels for the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. We had a bipartisan delegation there to thank our veterans. All of them were in their nineties, many of whom who were there, so we could thank them personally and be there to see them acknowledged by heads of state and the rest. In terms of Spain, it was about we are still in it when it comes to the Paris accord. So, work, work, work. But this was a priority, and time was important. We were trying to get it done as soon as it met the standards that we share. I proudly rise to join my colleagues on this exciting day as the House passes a historic trade agreement that is truly worthy of the American people, a new and dramatically improved U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade agreement. I salute Chairman Richard Neal, a lifelong champion for working people, the maestro in the House on our side of this process, who helped deliver a trade agreement that will serve as a model for future trade agreements. I thank each member of the Trade Working Group who worked so hard to improve the product that was sent originally by the administration nearly 2 years ago to where we are now. I thank Chairman Blumenauer, chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, walking in now; Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro; Congressman John Larson; Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky; Congressman Mike Thompson; Congresswoman Terri Sewell; Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici; and Congressman Jimmy Gomez, each of them working on the different categories that are mentioned: enforcement, labor rights, environmental protections, and pharmaceuticals. I thank every Member for their wisdom, leadership, and commitment to delivering for the people during this process. I was just asked in a press conference: Aren't you giving President Trump--Mr. Brady always asks this question--aren't you giving the President a victory to boast about? I said: That would be collateral benefit if we could come together to support America's working families. And if the President wants to take credit, so be it. That would not stand in the way of our passing this. However, I do want to point out some of the distance we have come from the President's original product. The House Democratic Caucus is united in our values and our priority to making progress for America's working families in everything we do, including this trade agreement. We all thank Trade Representative Lighthizer, Mr. Ambassador, for being an honest broker and straight shooter with us as we worked toward an agreement. Not every day was without its, shall we say, exuberances, but this day is possible because of the hard work of many Members representing every corner of our country. We thank Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, a true warrior for workers, who helped secure an agreement that is light-years better than what the administration proposed 2 years ago. Democrats knew that hardworking Americans needed more from the USMCA than just some broken NAFTA with better language but no real enforcement. That was my concern: We just can't come up with a bill that is a little sugar on the top and say this is better, because the impact on workers would be felt for a long time to come. And we knew we could do better. The original USMCA draft put forth by the administration fell far short of where it is now. It still left many American workers exposed to losing their jobs to Mexico; included unacceptable provisions, locking in high drug prices; came up short on key environmental standards; critically lacked the tough, effective enforcements that are essential to protect American jobs and holding our trading partners accountable to their promises. After months of Democrats working with the Trade Representative, we have key changes to the USMCA that make this a truly transformative agreement for America's workers. Now, with Democratic changes, the USMCA has the strongest enforcement mechanism of any U.S. trade agreement. Again, in contrast to the original USMCA draft which would have allowed nations that do not live up to their obligations to stop enforcement complaints from even being heard, Democrats' changes prevented nations from panel blocking. For workers, while the administration drafts stack the deck against labor violation claims, our changes enact new rules and monitoring tools to protect American workers, prosecute labor violations, and ensure that Mexico is complying with labor reforms. Other points that are for the workers include establishing labor attaches based in Mexico who will provide on-the-ground information about Mexico's labor practices and creating a facility-specific rapid response law enforcement mechanism to stop trade in goods that violate this agreement. These are not technical changes. These make a big difference. For the environment, whereas the administration's draft had weak environmental rules and tilted the playing field against violation claims, democrats have strengthened the rules and enforcement tools and are lowering pollution and increasing resilient infrastructure. Sadly, while the administration refuses to acknowledge the existence, let alone the urgency, of the climate crisis, our changes in the USMCA set a firm footing for progress when we have a President who brings us back to the Paris accord. And, by the way, when we were in Spain on this subject, our large bicameral delegation's theme was ``we are still in'' when it came to the Paris accord. For lowering prescription drug costs, the White House draft contained unacceptable giveaways for Big Pharma that would have locked in high prescription drug prices. Democrats have eliminated these unfair handouts to big corporations and secured provisions to lower drug costs and improve access to life- saving medicines. The changes House Democrats have secured in the USMCA make this a truly transformational trade agreement. As the AFL-CIO wrote in their letter of support last week, we have secured an agreement that working people can proudly support. Working people are responsible for a deal that is a vast improvement over the original NAFTA and the flawed proposal brought forward in 2017. For the first time, there truly will be enforceable labor standards. The USMCA also eliminates special carve-outs for corporations like the big giveaway to Big Pharma in the administration's initial proposal and loopholes designed to make it harder to prosecute labor violations. The USMCA is far from perfect, but there is no denying that the trade rules in America are fairer because of the hard work of so many people, and our perseverance. Working people have created a new standard for future trade negotiations. Indeed, the strength of Democrats' USMCA is recognized by endorsements from groups representing tens of millions of Americans across industries and geographies: labor groups and trade organizations; farmers, growers, and ranchers; groups representing businesses around the country; social justice, and faith-based organizations, such as NETWORK. The list goes on and on, and it will be part of the statement that I include in the Record. This is a strong agreement that honors our promises For the People to give us bigger paychecks and makes a difference for millions. With all the respect in the world for our neighbors, our respect for the greatness of Mexico as our neighbor, and the friendship that we have and want to engender, and our neighbor to the north, Canada, with respect to them, our responsibility is to have a trade agreement that lifts all workers in our hemisphere. Our first responsibility is to American workers. I urge a bipartisan vote for the USMCA and urge Senator McConnell to take the bill up quickly. We can send it right over, and he can take it up anytime. If the Senate Republicans care about workers, they will no doubt join us to send this bill to the President's desk in the House and in the Senate. Madam Speaker, I commend our chairman, Richard Neal, for his outstanding work. I know that you have a good rapport with Ranking Member Brady. I thank all the Members who are responsible for bringing this to the floor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his tremendous leadership in helping us honor the Constitution of the United States. I also extend my gratitude to Chairman Schiff, who will be presiding later in the day. Madam Speaker, this morning and every morning when we come together, Members rise and pledge allegiance to the flag. Every day, all across America, children in school, members of the military, officials, and those civilly engaged, also pledge allegiance to the flag. Let us recall what that pledge says: ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' ``The Republic for which it stands'' is what we are here to talk about today: ``a republic, if we can keep it.'' We gather today, under the dome of this temple of democracy, to exercise one of the most solemn powers that this body can take: the impeachment of the President of the United States. No Member, regardless of party or politics, comes to Congress to impeach a President; but every one of us, as our first act as a Member of Congress, stood on this historic House floor, before our beautiful American flag, and raised our hands in this sacred oath: ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . . . So help me God.'' For 230 years, Members have taken that sacred oath, which makes us custodians of the Constitution. When our Founders declared independence and established our new Nation, they crafted a system of government unlike any ever seen before: a republic, starting with the sacred words, ``We the People.'' For centuries, Americans have fought--and died--to defend democracy for the people. But, very sadly, now, our Founders' vision of a republic is under threat from actions from the White House. That is why, today, as Speaker of the House, I solemnly and sadly open the debate on the impeachment of the President of the United States. If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty. It is tragic that the President's reckless actions make impeachment necessary. He gave us no choice. What we are discussing today is the established fact that the President violated the Constitution. It is a matter of fact that the President is an ongoing threat to our national security and the integrity of our elections: the basis of our democracy. Hundreds of historians, legal scholars, and former prosecutors-- regardless of party--have stated that the President committed impeachable offenses. Since today is a national civics lesson, though a sad one, I submit these documents for the Record and commend them for students to study. 450+ Former Federal Prosecutors Statement on Mueller Report May 6 We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country. Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truthfinding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include: The President's efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort; The President's efforts to limit the scope of Mueller's investigation to exclude his conduct; and The President's efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign. Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made ``repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story''--going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter ``for our files'' falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller's termination. Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates-- obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel's report states: ``Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President's conduct toward the investigation.'' Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation. First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President's stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would ``protect'' him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused. Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump's message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump's message. As the report explains, ``[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct''--in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates. All of this conduct--trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others--is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions. Witness tampering and intimidation The Special Counsel's report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani's message to Cohen's lawyer that Cohen should ``[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.'' Of course, these aren't the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report. We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice--the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution--runs counter to logic and our experience. As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction--which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished--puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report. If you are a former federal prosecutor and would like to add your name below, click here. Protect Democracy will update this list daily with new signatories.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, what we are discussing today is the established fact that the President, again, violated the Constitution. It is a matter of fact that the President is, again, an ongoing threat to our national security. And the testimony of decorated war heroes, distinguished diplomats, and patriotic, career public servants--some the President's own appointees--over the past weeks have told us this. The President used the power of his public office to obtain an improper personal, political benefit at the expense of America's national security. When the President weakens a democratic ally that is advancing American security interests by fighting an American adversary, the President weakens America. This abuse of power also jeopardizes the integrity of our elections. All Americans agree that American voters should choose our President, not some foreign government. The Founders understood that it is profoundly corrosive for our democracy for a President to invite interference in our elections. As George Washington, our Nation's patriarch, under whose gaze we stand today, warned: ``History and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government''-- George Washington. Sadly, the American people have witnessed further wrongs of the President, which necessitate the second Article of Impeachment: obstruction of Congress. When the President's wrongdoing was revealed, he launched an unprecedented, indiscriminate, and categorical campaign of defiance and obstruction. Never before in the history of our Nation have we seen a President declare--and act as if--he is above the law. The President even goes so far as to say and act on this absurdity when he says: ``Article II says I can do whatever I want.'' No, it doesn't. That recklessness is a profound violation of the Constitution and our Republic, which endure because of our system of separation of powers: three coequal branches, each a check and balance on the others--``a republic,'' again, ``if we can keep it.'' The Founders' great fear of a rogue or corrupt President is the very reason why they enshrined impeachment in the Constitution. As one Founder, William Davie of North Carolina, warned, unless the Constitution contained an impeachment provision, a President might spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected. Another Founder, George Mason, insisted that the President who procured his appointment in the first instance through improper and corrupt acts might repeat his guilt and return to power. We in Congress, Article I, the legislative branch, must stand up and make clear to the American people and to all people who this body still stands by the principles enshrined in the Constitution and defended by generations of Americans. Last week, in observance of the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, Members traveled to that hallowed ground to express our gratitude to the heroes who sacrificed everything to secure victory of freedom over tyranny, not just for America but for the world. The veterans of that battle, who are in their nineties, told us how, after the war was won, the Europeans whom they liberated would ask: Why did you risk--you don't know us--and give your lives to save us? We are not Americans. Our men would say: We came here to fight for you not because you are Americans but because we are Americans. As our beloved Elijah Cummings, our Oversight Committee chair, our North Star, said when he announced his support of this action: ``When the history books are written about this tumultuous era, I want them to show that I was among those in the House of Representatives who stood up to lawlessness and tyranny.'' He also said, almost prophetically: When we are dancing with the angels, the question will be: What did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact? Elijah has since passed on. Now, he is dancing with the angels. I know that he and all of us here are very proud of the moral courage of Members who want to honor the vision of our Founders for a republic, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform to defend it, and the aspirations of our children to live freely within it. Today, we are here to defend democracy for the people. May God bless America.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding in a very gracious and generous way. More importantly, I want to thank her for her tremendous leadership as chair of the Appropriations Committee to bring a bill to the floor that has shared values, meeting the needs of the American people. And I want to commend Ranking Member Kay Granger for her leadership, as well, so that we can have strong, bipartisan support in meeting the needs of the American people. I congratulate Madam Chair for getting all of our bills done this summer. The gentlewoman worked around the clock and across the aisle to overcome any opposition and to craft a strong appropriation package that we are bringing to the floor. As the gentlewoman mentioned, I am an appropriator, and when I served on committee I had always said to the administration and to others: When left to their own devices, our appropriators can get the job done. They have experience in working in a bipartisan way, they understand everyone's concerns, regional needs, and the rest, and that we must by the clock get the job done. I thank the gentlewoman for doing that and making today possible. Madam Speaker, this weekend I was pleased to join a bipartisan delegation to observe the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. We spent time in Luxembourg and in Belgium where so much of that conflict took place. We met with the leaders of the community, the king, the queen, and the archduke; and that was all wonderful. But what was really important, and the purpose of our visit was to meet with our own veterans--now 75 years later, who are revisiting the site--and to thank them, to hear their ongoing stories, and to hear their purpose in fighting. Some of them were as young as 18 years old at the Battle of the Bulge. Do the math. They are in their nineties. One of them told me he was 20, and one was 21. The oldest one is 98 years old now. But all of them were full of vitality and concern about our country as we go forward. We promised them in a tribute to their courage, their determination, and their patriotism that we know that our responsibility is to build a future worthy of their sacrifice and that we also want to always be ready to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform today as they protect and defend democracy and freedom as our valiant veterans did 75 years ago. Mr. Conaway was with us on that trip--a very valued leader on that trip--and I think you will agree, Madam Speaker, that America was truly blessed by the courage of our veterans then and now. So I am glad that in this legislation we meet the needs of those who are providing for our defense and the security of our country to make us the home of the brave and the land of the free. I do believe that our success on this legislation began when working together we were able to come to an agreement on the caps in funding to make sure that although we obviously all support our national security, we want to be sure that people understood that we measure the strength of America not just in our military might but in the health, education, and well-being of the American people, and this part of the legislation does just that. We will vote on the earlier part and now on the part that deals with, shall we say, the health and well-being of the American people. With this agreement we are investing in the good health of the American people. We are protecting the quality of affordable healthcare of millions as we permanently repeal healthcare taxes and block the President's ACA sabotage nuclear options by preventing him from ending silver loading and auto re-enrollment. At the same time we are investing in innovation and the future of healthcare with robust funding for the National Institutes of Health that our distinguished colleague, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, mentioned, we continue our leadership to combat the opioid epidemic, and we honor our responsibility to our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico and the other territories. Of course, we want more, and, of course, we need to get more at some point. But for now we are very pleased with the fact that we have 2 years' adequate funding to go forward. Again, I look forward to preparing further into the future. While this legislation does not contain permanent fixes for everything, we are proud that it lays the groundwork for further progress to end the financial catastrophe of surprise billing, to lower prescription drug costs, and to extend robust funding for key health initiatives. This appropriations package also achieves critical victories for, as I mentioned, our national security and the economic security of the American people. Our appropriations legislation makes America safer at home by funding gun violence research at the CDC and the National Institutes of Health for the first time in more than 20 years; and funding election security grants to protect against foreign attack which the minority, the Republicans, then the majority, refused to do last year. These bills make workers and families stronger by protecting the pensions of 100,000 coal miners; reauthorizing the job-creating Export- Import Bank; extending the National Flood Insurance Program; protecting schools, small businesses, and other pillars of communities, as well as commercial interests by reauthorizing the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program and doing so in a timely fashion; extending key tax provisions through 2020 that encourage investments in clean energy, provide relief for families recovering from disasters, support investment in low- income communities with the low-income housing tax credit, and protect families facing high medical costs for the loss of home to foreclosure. Again, this is very personal. People always talk about coming to Washington and having a seat at the table. The most important seat at the table for us is the seat at America's kitchen table where people talk about their plans for the future and how they intend to meet their financial obligations, whether it is the education of their children, the mortgage on their house, their medical expenses, or providing for their own pension future. Personally and officially, I am proud that this legislation takes strong action to advance the health and well-being of America's children. The three most important issues, in my view, facing the Congress are the well-being of our children, our children, our children; strengthening Family First Prevention Services; securing record funding levels for Head Start, Child Care and Development Block Grants, and Title I schools; and extending funding for thousands of schools in rural communities across 41 States because there is no better investment that Congress can make than an investment in the education of our children. By the way, there is nothing that we can do that brings more resources to the Federal Treasury than investing in education: early childhood, K-12, higher education, and lifetime learning training for our workers. I also want to acknowledge the important investment that this legislation does in IDEA, meeting the needs of our children with additional challenges. In this House our title and job description are one and the same: Representative. Today we must pass this legislation so that we can meet the needs of the people whom we are privileged to represent. I know that this is going to be a strong, bipartisan vote, and I think that is a very good thing for the health, the economic security, and the well- being of the American people. I am grateful to Ranking Member Granger, Chairwoman Lowey, and all of the leadership of our subcommittees who made this successful day possible for us. Madam Speaker, I urge a strong, bipartisan vote on minibus 1 and minibus 2, and, again, a great victory for our children, our children, our children.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan, a leader in the freshman class, for yielding time and for her extraordinary leadership in so many ways. It is just so invigorating to see the freshmen Members of this class taking the lead on this important legislation. Many of us just came in from the steps of the Capitol where, again, the freshmen Members took the lead. Following up on a promise made last year during the election, For the People, we will lower the cost of healthcare in America by lowering the cost of prescription drugs. H.R. 3 does just that, named for our great and departed--may he rest in peace--Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Drug Act. This is very, very important. And it may come as news to some of our Republican friends who were saying things to the contrary, but this is a product of the work of three committees in Congress. I thank Chairman Pallone of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chairman Richie Neal of the Committee on Ways and Means, and Bobby Scott, chair of the Committee on Education and Labor, for their relentless and persistent work on this lifesaving legislation where many freshmen are speaking now, controlling the time. But in the course of the debate of yesterday, under the aegis of the committees of jurisdiction, many of them spoke at that time as well, demonstrating their leadership on this issue, making it a reality on the floor of the House. Again, I thank them for their bold urgency to lower the cost of drugs. The crushing burden of prescription drugs is an issue that impacts every family in America. Much talk is given around here about having a seat at the table. The most important seat at the most important table is the kitchen table of America's working families where they enjoy family, but also address challenges that face them, whether it is in their health or in their financial health and how that is related. This legislation today speaks to that important table of concerns. In my travels across the country, I have seen grown men cry about how they cannot meet the needs of their families when it comes to prescription drug costs, a spouse with a long-term illness, children with chronic diseases, and the rest. Prescription drug prices are out of control. The price of insulin invented nearly a century ago--when people say we have to cover our research costs--doubled from 2012 to 2016 because of Big Pharma. Many people use it. A lot of people buy it. Let's increase our profits, they say. Americans are paying four times or more for what Big Pharma charges for the exact drugs in other countries. While Big Pharma companies reap record-breaking profits and multibillion-dollar windfalls from the GOP tax scam, 58 million Americans couldn't afford to fill a prescription they needed to stay healthy in the past year--58 million Americans. Thirty-four million Americans know a loved one who died from not being able to afford a treatment that they needed. We face medical, economic, and moral crises that demand that we act and that we act boldly. Yes, they have a motion to recommit. I think it was appropriate that the Republicans have the opportunity to put an alternative on the floor, incremental pieces, not going to the heart of the matter. How dare they ever think of enabling the Secretary to negotiate for lower prices, which is the heart of the matter. We have been trying to do this for a number of years. Today, we will. Last year, again, we made the promise For the People, that we would lower the cost of prescription drugs. We are finally giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices. Some Republicans say it is un-American for the Secretary to be able to negotiate for lower prices--un-American--then making those lower prices available to the hundreds of millions of Americans with private insurance, too. We are insisting that American seniors and families shouldn't have to pay more for our medicines than what Big Pharma charges for the same drug overseas. I say that again. H.R. 3 means lowering the cost of medication for Americans with leukemia by more than 70 percent. It means lowering the cost of medication for arthritis, which more than 50 million Americans have, by almost 75 percent. It means lowering the cost of asthma medication for 25 million Americans with this condition from $1,500 to $270. Yesterday, we had Mr. Riordan testify at our press conference. The cost of his medication for asthma, in his case, was over $60,000 a month. Eighty percent of it was covered by Medicare, but he had to pay over $4,000 a month. Can you absorb that? $4,000 a month for a drug that you are supposed to take four times a month? He was taking it twice a month, once a month, or not at all, not a healthy thing to do, but reaping big profits for Big Pharma. Under H.R. 3, some commonly used insulins could cost as little as $400 a year. With the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, we put more money back into the pockets of seniors and hardworking families. We drive down insurance premiums, making it easier to afford coverage. When we lift the immense burden of drug costs on employers, the CBO says American businesses can expect bigger paychecks and salaries for their workers. H.R. 3 also represents the most transformative expansion of Medicare since its inception. Now, many people on the other side of the aisle did not support Medicare at its inception, but this is a vast improvement because we are investing more than a half-trillion dollars--that is with a T-R--a half-trillion dollars that we are saving by lowering out-of-control prices and investing in historic new benefits for vision, dental, and hearing for Medicare beneficiaries for the first time. With these huge savings, we are also investing in new research for new treatments and cures and fighting the opioid epidemic, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose) pointed out, and in the community health centers that deliver quality healthcare to so many Americans. Advocacy groups representing tens of millions of Americans, seniors, retirees, patients, providers, faith leaders, businesses, and the men and women of labor, and more, support H.R. 3. AARP wrote to Members of Congress this week and said: ``This important legislation is a bold step toward lowering prescription drug prices and improving Medicare for seniors and families across the country. . . . H.R. 3 will help more Americans afford their prescription drugs and get the care they need to stay healthy.'' They said that in their support of the legislation. There is every reason in the world for Republicans to join us in passing this bill. The bill delivers on President Trump's promise to the American people. In his words, he said: ``When it comes time to negotiate the cost of drugs, we are going to negotiate like crazy.'' Negotiation is what this bill is about. The Republican substitute is what this bill is not about, and that negotiation is the heart of the matter. The President also said: ``It's unacceptable that Americans pay vastly more than people in other countries for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same place. This is wrong; this is unfair; and together, we will stop it.'' Actually, in creating this bill, and working with the committees to do so, we were working with the interests of the White House, the administration, on all of this. I don't know where it happened, but somewhere along the way, negotiation and the rest fell by the by, and that, again, could be attributed to I don't know what. Democrats named H.R. 3, as I mentioned, in honor of Chairman Elijah Cummings, our North Star who worked across the aisle and down Pennsylvania Avenue--he met with the President--to lower prescription drug prices. In honor of Chairman Cummings, and for the sake of the millions of Americans struggling with high prescription drug costs, I urge a strong vote on H.R. 3 to lower drug costs now for all Americans, for the people. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I commend Congresswoman Lofgren for her tremendous leadership on this important legislation, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. I join with Mr. LaMalfa, my friend, my Italian America colleague from California, in his strong remarks for this bill. It is bipartisan, and it is important for us to pass it. I proudly join all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, a historic victory for farmworkers and for growers, which ensures that America can continue to feed the world. I salute, again, Chair Zoe Lofgren for her months of tough, relentless leadership without which this bill would not be possible. I commend the leadership of the United Farm Workers. Arturo Rodriguez has been working on this bill for almost a generation, 17 years. Arturo Rodriguez and Teresa Romero have sent a statement of support for the legislation, which very clearly points out the need and the answer that this bill is about. I submit for the Record the United Farm Workers statement of support for the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. United Farm Workers Support for the Farm Workforce Modernization Act (H.R. 5038--Lofgren) The United Farm Workers of America supports the bipartisan Farm Workforce Modernization Act (H.R. 5038). We were proud to join the bipartisan group of members of Congress and the major grower associations to develop and support H.R. 5038. It is cruelly ironic that the people who feed the United States live in a deep, all-encompassing fear that they themselves cannot provide food for their families. The human cost and stress for farm workers and their families as they live in fear of deportation and harassment due to our broken immigration system threatens our nation's food supply and is a source of great shame for our nation. The compromise legislation authored by Representatives Lofgren, cosponsored by a bipartisan, diverse group of over 50 members of the House, and endorsed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus will go a long way towards improving the lives of farm workers today and in the future, and our broken immigration system. We support H.R. 5038 for a simple reason--it will make the lives of all farm workers better. H.R. 5038 meets the following basic principles: 1. Equality of Treatment--the new agricultural visa program will allow farm workers and their families to have the same rights and protections as current U.S. farm workers. 2. No Discrimination--the program does not create major incentives to discriminate against U.S. workers (including newly legalized workers). 3. Fairness in pay--the pay rates protect U.S. workers and supports predictable pay increases. 4. Eligibility to earn permanent residence--no one that works to feed our country should be condemned to permanent second class status. H.R. 5038 changes our current immoral system. You have the ability to pass H.R. 5038. If H.R. 5038 becomes law, agricultural workers will have stability for themselves, and their families and the agricultural industry. Please vote YES on H.R. 5038. Teresa Romero, President, United Farm Workers. Arturo S. Rodriguez, President Emeritus and former Board Chair, United Farm Workers and UFW Foundation.

Ms. PELOSI. So many Members brought their vision, their voices, their values to this process. I thank all of you for strengthening the bill we have on the floor today. I thank our friends from the groups for doing the outside organizing that makes our inside maneuvering successful. We have all been inspired by the immortal words of our beloved Dolores Huerta: ``Si, se puede.'' This legislation honors workers' dignity and supports the farm economy with strong, smart reforms. The bill provides a path for legalization, as Mr. LaMalfa referenced, for currently undocumented farmworkers. No one who works to feed our country should be condemned to permanent second-class status. The bill secures the agricultural workforce of the future by updating, expanding, and strengthening the H-2A initiative to ensure that farms have stable, secure workforces. Critically, it demands fair, humane treatment for farmworkers, following the lead of legislation in California by securing fairness in pay, improving access to quality housing, and ensuring robust safety and heat illness protections. Many in this Chamber, particularly, I know firsthand, from California, have helped lead the fight for farmworkers for decades. This fight is not only about ensuring fair wages and fair treatment, but about honoring the spark of divinity within each person, which makes us all worthy of dignity and respect. This bill honors the 2 million farmworkers who are the backbone of our economy and country, powering our farm economy, and producing the food on our tables, even as they persevere through harsh working conditions and low wages. As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote last month in support of this bill: ``The dignity of work of farmworkers and their families is a central concern. . . . Farmworkers produce the food that we eat and contribute to the care of our community.'' This legislation is a critical step forward for workers, for growers, and for the farm economy, but our work is not done. Led by Chair Zoe Lofgren and Members from every corner of the country, we will continue to work to stabilize the farm economy, protect workers and their families, and maintain America's proud agricultural preeminence in the world. As we do so, remember the words of the late Cesar Chavez. He said this: ``To make a great dream come true, the first requirement is a great capacity to dream; the second is persistence.'' Madam Speaker, I thank Chair Lofgren for her persistence, and I thank Mr. Rodriguez for his help. I am pleased with the bipartisanship of this bill. I thank our Members for their persistence on this legislation, for which I urge a strong bipartisan vote. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Buck for his leadership on this as well.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Nadler, the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee. I thank him for his leadership in bringing this important opportunity for America to the floor of the House today. I commend Congresswoman Terri Sewell for her tremendous leadership, the gentlewoman from Alabama, who knows this subject well, personally, geographically, and officially, now, as a leading member of the House of Representatives. I thank her for her leadership. I thank Congresswoman Marcia Fudge for holding field hearings from Alabama to Arizona on this urgent issue of voting rights. That scope of Alabama to Arizona is not alphabetically a big range, but, geographically and experiencewise, it is. And to Congressman John Lewis, the conscience of the Congress, what an honor it is for each and every one of us to serve with him, to call him colleague and, in many cases, to call him friend. He is a civil rights hero of the House, whose Voter Empowerment Act was the backbone of H.R. 1, the For the People Act. Because there is some resistance on the side of the aisle here to our reducing the role of dark money in politics, which is a significant part of H.R. 1, we pulled out H.R. 4 as its own vehicle on the floor, and I thank all the House Democrats who came to Congress committed to restoring the right to the ballot, reflected in our naming of this legislation, H.R. 4, one of our top priorities. And I say Democrats, but it saddens me to hear the distinguished ranking member's comments about this legislation and urging a ``no'' vote on the Republican side, because I was leader when we passed the Voting Rights Act that the Court sent us back to the drawing board on. At that time, we had around 400 votes in the House of Representatives, upwards of 395, 400 votes, a completely bipartisan vote to pass that bill; and it was unanimous in the United States Senate, not partisan in any way. And we have come to a place where the Court said you need to do this or thus. We followed Justice Roberts' guidance; and now, with the improvements insisted upon by Justice Roberts, the Republicans have gone from being part of a nearly 400-vote majority on the bill to, hopefully, not being unanimously against it, but we will see. Mr. Speaker, nearly 55 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson came to the House of Representatives. He came on the House floor to urge passage of the Voting Rights Act ``for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy.'' He declared: ``This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose. . . . `All men are created equal.' ``Those are not just clever words. . . . In their name, Americans have fought and died for two centuries. . . . Those words are a promise to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man.'' He continued: ``Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish, it must be rooted in democracy . . . the right to choose your own leaders. The history of this country, in large measure, is the history of the expansion of that right to all of our people.'' Yet, a half century later, the constitutional right of all Americans to determine their leaders and the destiny of our democracy is under great assault from a brazen, nationwide voter suppression campaign. Since the Shelby v. Holder decision, 23 States--maybe more--have enacted voter suppression laws, including voter purges, strict ID requirements, poll closures, and vote intimidation, denying millions their voices by their vote. The record compiled by the committees shows that the counties with the worst histories of voter suppression doubled down on their discrimination during this time, purging 17 million voters from the rolls between 2016 and 2018 alone, primarily people of color. Today, the House is honoring our Nation's sacred pledge--all are created equal--by passing H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. This bill restores the Voting Rights Act's strength to combat the clear resurgence of voter discrimination unleashed by Shelby by updating the data determining which States and practices are covered by the law. No longer will cynical politicians and States with dark histories of discrimination have a green light to freely continue their systematic suppression campaign. When President Johnson spoke on this floor, he said: ``There must be no delay, no hesitation, and no compromise with our purpose. . . . We have already waited a hundred years and more, and the time for waiting is gone.'' Indeed, it took the courage and the ultimate sacrifice of countless Americans, including our own John Lewis, to secure the passage of the Voting Rights Act. Honoring and strengthening that legacy is essential to our democracy. We want to be sure that everyone who is eligible to vote can vote and that that person's vote is counted as cast. Today, too, the time for waiting is gone. We must pass this bill, which is a vote for civil rights, liberty, and justice for all. I thank Mr. Nadler, Marcia Fudge, and Terri Sewell, the author of this legislation, which she introduced now to the third Congress, for giving us the privilege to be part of honoring the pledge of our Founders: All are created equal. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership and thank he and Mr. Smith, two gentlemen from New Jersey, for being champions for human rights. I also thank Mr. McCaul and Mr. Eliot Engel, the ranking member and the chair of the committee. And I thank Mr. Malinowski for being a champion for human rights even before he came to Congress. My colleagues, next week marks 71 years since the nations of the world gathered in Paris to enshrine our global commitment to human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The opening words of that declaration read: ``Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. ``Whereas, disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.'' Today, the human dignity and human rights of the Uighur community are under threat from Beijing's barbarous actions, which are an outrage to the collective conscience of the world. Across the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, the Uighur people and other Muslim minorities face brutal repression: a pervasive state of mass surveillance, including the arbitrary and nonconsensual collection of children's DNA; the mass incarceration of 1 to 3 million innocent people with beatings, solitary confinement, deprivation of food and medical treatment, forced sterilizations, and other forms of torture; incidents of mass shootings and extrajudicial killings; and the intimidation and suppression of journalists courageously exposing the truth. Mihrigul Tursun, a former detainee, testified she faced treatment so brutal that ``I thought I would rather die than go through this torture and begged them to kill me.'' Another former detainee, Tursunay Ziyawudun, testified, ``We were all helpless and unable to defend ourselves. We all went through all kinds of mistreatment. The screaming, pleading, crying is still in my head.'' Today, with this bicameral and overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation, the United States Congress is taking a critical step to counter Beijing's horrific human rights abuses against Uighurs. I thank Chairman Engel, Representative Brad Sherman, Representative Suozzi, and Chairman McGovern for their leadership on this important legislation. We are sending a message to Beijing: America is watching, and we will not stay silent. This legislation helps uncover the truth, requiring reports by the DNI, Director of National Intelligence; the State Department; and the FBI about the depths of the crisis and about China's campaign against journalists exposing the facts. It creates accountability, ensuring transparency of Chinese and foreign companies involved in the camps. And it engages the full firepower of American law and leadership, including by urging the application of Global Magnitsky and other related sanctions and the full implementation of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, named for our distinguished former colleague and human rights champion, Congressman Frank Wolf. Sadly, Beijing's human rights abuses extend beyond the Uighurs, from the decades-long abuse faced by the Tibetan people; to Hong Kong's fight for democracy and rule of law; and to the jailing of journalists, human rights lawyers, Christians, and democracy advocates on the mainland. In the Congress, Democrats and Republicans stand united with all people fighting for human rights in the face of China's abuses. Last month, we were proud to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which has now become law, and we are grateful that the President has signed that legislation. If America does not speak out for human rights in China because of commercial issues, we lose all moral authority to speak out for human rights anyplace in the world. In honor of the millions fighting for their dignity, safety, and rights in China and around the world, I urge a strong bipartisan vote for the Uighur Intervention and Global Humanitarian Unified Response Act. I thank Mr. Smith, Mr. Sires, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Suozzi, Chairman Eliot Engel, and Mr. McCaul for their leadership. And I acknowledge the leadership of Senator Rubio in the United States Senate on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. I salute him and Mr. McCaul, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. To you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. McCaul, thank you for affording this opportunity to vote on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. This is a proud day for the U.S. Congress, for our values of freedom and justice, and for the people of Hong Kong. For 6 months, the people of Hong Kong have stirred the hearts of all freedom-loving people with their extraordinary outpouring of courage and their refusal to relinquish their demand for democracy, the democratic freedoms, and the rule of law which was promised more than two decades ago. Today, the Congress is sending an unmistakable message to the world that the United States stands in solidarity with the freedom-loving people of Hong Kong, and we fully support their fight for freedom. We salute Chairman McGovern, a leading voice for human rights in China and around the world, our Congressional-Executive Commission on China chair and also chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Smith, just listening to him talk about we are into our third generation of freedom-loving people in Hong Kong. I am so glad Mr. Smith acknowledged the work of our distinguished former colleague, Frank Wolf, who was so, so very much a part and still continues to be a spiritual leader to us in this regard. We have worked with Martin Lee and Anson Chan way back when and--so late 1980s, early 1990s--then into this new century with another generation; and now, three generations, Martin Lee still being involved, but with Joshua Wong and Nathan Wong and all of the young participants who are there, because it is a sad situation. In 1997, when the United Kingdom transferred Hong Kong to China, America was hopeful that the people of Hong Kong would achieve the ``high degree of autonomy''--that is in quotes--``high degree of autonomy'' that they were promised. Today, it is beyond question that China has utterly broken that promise. America has been watching for years as the people of Hong Kong have been increasingly denied their full autonomy and faced with a cruel crackdown on their freedoms and an escalation of violence. Most recently, the violent attacks against students at Hong Kong Polytechnic University have shocked the world as unconscionable and unacceptable. More than 1,000 young people were denied food, water, first aid. Scores were sent to the hospital for hypothermia after attempting to escape through a sewer, and hundreds now languish in jail cells. Right now, frightened parents of the students who remain on campus are holding vigil outside, praying that their children will be safe, clutching signs reading: ``Save the kids. Don't kill our children,'' and, ``They are children of God. Let them go.'' In the Congress, Democrats and Republicans stand united with the protestors and with the people of Hong Kong. We have stood united in a bipartisan way. It has been a very unifying issue for us, whether we are talking about the autonomy of Tibet that the Chinese are trying to destroy, the culture, the language, and the region of Tibet; the Uighurs, where 1, 2, 3, maybe 3 million Uighurs are under education camps, which the Chinese Government says they really enjoy being in--Oh, really?--or human rights violations, suppression of human rights throughout all of China. If America does not speak out for human rights in China because of commercial interests, we lose all moral authority to speak out on human rights elsewhere. Since Tiananmen Square, many of us in a bipartisan way have been fighting this fight, and we have seen that commercial interests always win the fight. It has always for them been about money. To those who take the repressive Chinese Government's side, I say: What does it profit a person to gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul? Today the House is proud to once again pass the bicameral, bipartisan Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act to reaffirm America's commitment to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the face of Beijing's crackdown. I see we have been joined by the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. McCaul. I thank him for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. I acknowledged him earlier, along with our distinguished chairman, Mr. Engel. We are proud to pass the Senate version of Chairman McGovern's Protect Hong Kong Act to suspend sales on dangerous munitions to the Hong Kong police, and we also salute Senator Merkley in his leadership in passing that on the Senate floor. The future of Hong Kong, the future of autonomy, freedom, and justice for millions is at stake. America must take a stand with Hong Kong. I am so pleased that we are making our statement in Congress in the House and in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans unified in speaking out for democracy. I urge a ``yes'' vote on both of these bills.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, to honor the life and legacy of Mr. Bernard Tyson, a devoted husband, father, and health advocate. His passing is a great loss for our country and all those committed to quality, affordable health care, as well as a deeply personal loss for all of those who were privileged to call him a friend. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife, Denise Bradley-Tyson, his three sons, Bernard Jr., Alexander, and Charles, and the Kaiser Permanente family on their loss. Bernard Tyson was a proud son of the Bay Area who embodied our city's values of equality and opportunity for all. Born in Vallejo, California, on January 20, 1959, Mr. Tyson was one of seven children of Billie and Moses Tyson. He spent his formative years in Vallejo, CA, where he graduated from Vallejo High School with the class of 1977. Mr. Tyson and his family spent much time in and out of hospitals with his mother, who had diabetes. These visits helped shape and develop his interest in the field of medicine, and inspired within him a dream of running his own hospital one day. After graduating from high school, Mr. Tyson attended Golden Gate University in San Francisco, California. While in university, he worked as an administrative analyst for Vallejo General Hospital. In 1982, he earned his Bachelor's Degree in Health Service Management and in 1984, he earned his Master of Business Administration from Golden Gate University. Mr. Tyson spent much of his professional career at Kaiser Permanente, which he loved. He joined the company in 1987 as an Assistant Administrator. In 1992, he was appointed CEO of the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Santa Rosa. From 1993 to 1999, he held the positions of Vice President, Senior Vice President (SVP), and Central East Division president for Kaiser Permanente. From 1999 to 2006, he was the SVP, Chief Operating Officer for regions outside California, and SVP of brand strategy. From 2006 to 2010, he served as the Executive VP of Health Plan and Hospital Operations. From 2010 to 2013, he was President and COO of Kaiser Permanente. From 2013 to 2014, he was promoted to CEO and from 2014 to 2019, he had been Chairman and CEO. To say that Mr. Tyson knew the interworking of the Kaiser would be an understatement. He worked his way to the top one step at a time, mastering all he could along the way. Mr. Tyson's innovative, pioneering and effective leadership was recognized by many. In 2017, Mr. Tyson was named one of Time's 100 most influential people. As one of our nation's most prominent African American CEOs and health care leaders, Mr. Tyson blazed a trail for countless other health care advocates and leaders of color to bring their vision, values and expertise to improving the health and well-being of our communities. While he made his mark as a leader of the health care community, his reach extended to every part of our Bay Area community: to the arts, education, sports, and local activism. He brought a commitment to diversity and inclusion to everything he did, from the grassroots to the corporate suite. His bright smile encouraged others to participate. He gave people hope. From when we first met Mr. Tyson, his visionary approach to health care stood out. His passionate advocacy for the Affordable Care Act helped protect and strengthen this landmark legislation, ensuring that every family, in every community had access to the care they needed to grow and thrive. For his many contributions to the health of families and the strength of our nation, we are deeply grateful. Today, on behalf of California's 12th Congressional District, I join Congresswoman Lee in celebrating Bernard Tyson's impactful life and legacy. May it be a comfort to Denise, Bernard Jr., Alexander, and Charles that so many mourn with and pray for them during this sad time. May Bernard rest in power and in peace.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise with joy to recognize an icon of San Francisco, a trailblazer in the fight for civil rights and a dear friend, Phyllis Lyon, who recently celebrated her 95th birthday. Beginning in the 1950s, Phyllis and her late wife, Del Martin, were on the vanguard in the fight to make real the promise of equality for LGBTQ Americans, forming our nation's first lesbian civil rights organization, Daughter of Bilitis, and establishing the first nationally distributed lesbian newsletter, the Ladder. They worked tirelessly to ensure that every woman could live without fear of violence or persecution. As a journalist, community organizer and clarion voice for justice and equality, Phyllis has dedicated her entire life to uniting diverse communities to create fundamental change. From working to decriminalize homosexuality, successfully advocating to outlaw employment discrimination in San Francisco and ensuring that our city respected the dignity of everyone, Phyllis's work has had a powerful impact that has strengthened our communities and our democracy. For 40 years, the Lyon-Martin Health Services, named in honor of their dedication to the health and well-being of all women, has been a model for community-based health care that provides lifesaving services, case management and care for women of every age, race, disability, socio-economic condition and sexual orientation. Phyllis' unwavering commitment to caring for our most vulnerable continued as my appointee to the 1995 White House Conference on Aging, where she was a strong voice for the rights of lesbian seniors and all women. Phyllis and Del's relationship and service to our community has been a source of inspiration to me and all who are fortunate enough to know them. In 1996, during the Floor debate on the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, I was privileged to display their picture, asking my colleagues, ``If you knew Phyllis and Del . . . why would you not want them to be treated equally?'' This year, I once again recognized them on the House Floor as we voted to pass the landmark Equality Act to finally, fully end discrimination against LGBTQ individuals and guarantee the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of who they are or whom the love. Phyllis and Del's marriage in 2004, the first same-sex wedding to be recognized in San Francisco, was a joyous celebration. When the California Supreme Court voided their marriage, they recommitted to the fight for equality until the decision was finally overturned in 2008, when they became the first LGBTQ couple to be legally married in California. While Del sadly passed away a few months later, Phyllis continues to be a blessing to our community, using her vision, values and voice to build a brighter future for San Franciscans and all Americans. On behalf of the House of Representatives, it is a pleasure to wish Phyllis Lyon a happy 95th birthday and a year filled with peace, love and joy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. It is very important for us to quantify just what this means as you require the agency to detail the effects of exports and projects financed by the agency on American jobs in energy and related fields and industries. This energy issue is an essential issue to so much of what commerce is about, especially in relationship to China as we are discussing that today. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which, for nearly a century, has been a force for creating jobs, strengthening small businesses, and advancing America's entrepreneurship and ingenuity in the world. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Waters for her extraordinary leadership. She has been relentless and persistent in working on this legislation, after a lifetime commitment to creating good-paying jobs and powering growth that lifts up all communities. We are blessed that she is in the position that she is in as chair of the Financial Services Committee, having the authority and the authorization power over the Ex-Im Bank. When I was on the Appropriations Committee, I chaired the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee, which funded the Ex-Im Bank, so I know well the good work that the Ex-Im Bank does, especially reaching down into communities and small businesses and suppliers across the country. Let me just say this about China. Mr. McHenry and I share some similar views on this subject, but I don't think that we should be taking the view of--I can immodestly say, as I said to my colleagues yesterday, I take second place to no one in this Congress in criticizing China for their human rights violations, whether it is what they are doing in Hong Kong now, antidemocratic actions; what they are doing to Uyghurs, the Muslims, 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, who knows how many people put into education camps and then putting other people in the homes of the people whom they have put into the camps--it is against humanity--what they are doing to undermine the culture of Tibet, whether it is the religion, the language, the culture of Tibet to resettle Hans there to dilute the Tibetan culture; whether it is what is going on all throughout China: jailing journalists, human rights lawyers, Christians, democracy activists throughout the mainland. So that is something that I have fought with China for 30 years. I have also fought them on their trade policies for 30 years, as well, all of this since Tiananmen Square. When we first started this fight, we had a trade deficit with China of $5 billion a year, which I thought would be useful in trying to improve the human rights situation, freeing the prisoners of Tiananmen Square, gaining access to their markets, stopping their privacy of intellectual property and stopping their proliferation of technologies that could be used in weapons of mass destruction to world countries. $5 billion a year, oh, they would never want to give that up. We could get concessions. But the powers that be and corporate America and all demanded that, no, we couldn't do that. If we just had peaceful evolution, that would lead to all this democratization and fairness in trade and stopping hostile activities regarding weapons of mass destruction and the rest. It didn't, and here we are 30 years later. We won every vote in the House. We couldn't override vetoes of Democratic and Republican Presidents. I put it at both doorsteps. Here we are 30 years later. The trade deficit is not $5 billion a year anymore; it is more than $5 billion a week--a week. So I share your concerns about human rights and other policies with regard to China, but we cannot let China's inhumanity and cruelty take a toll on America's small businesses and our economic opportunities. And so, as I say, I established those credentials to brag because I was right, but also to say I work with China on issues that relate to energy and climate and the rest of that because they are big players in that. It is very disappointing because, as I have said, if, for commercial purposes, we decide to ignore the human rights violations perpetrated by China, we lose all moral authority to challenge anyone anyplace. And so we continue to challenge them, but we cannot empower them to hurt our economy. And that is exactly what we would do today if we were to reject this reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank because of China. I salute those who have put amendments forward providing financing. The Bank will not provide financing for any individual sanctioned for human rights and free speech violations, including in China and including Hong Kong, or provide financing for those sanctions for opioid trafficking, human trafficking, or sex trafficking. So I thank Chair Waters for that, and I congratulate Congresswoman Torres Small, Congressman McAdams, Congressman Rose, and Congressman Lamb for their leadership on so many pieces of improving this legislation. But I do urge our colleagues to recognize what President Reagan said. The Export-Import Bank ``creates and sustains jobs for millions of American workers and contributes to the growth and strength of the United States economy. The Export-Import Bank contributes in a significant way to our Nation. . . .''--Ronald Reagan. This legislation ensures that the Ex-Im Bank can continue to contribute to our Nation's strength in a way that is good for American workers, American businesses, and our values. I urge a strong bipartisan vote. I again commend the chairwoman for her extraordinary leadership in getting us to this point and associate myself with some of the concerns that Mr. McHenry has put forth.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to begin my remarks with some of the most beautiful words in our country's history: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.'' It goes on immediately to establish Article I, the legislative branch; Article II, the executive branch; Article III, the judiciary-- the genius of the Constitution, a separation of powers, three coequal branches of government to be a check and balance on each other. It is to that that we take the oath of office. We gather here on that opening day with our families gathered around to proudly raise our hand to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And that is exactly what we are doing today. Sadly, this is not any cause for any glee or comfort. This is something that is very solemn, that is something prayerful, and that we had to gather so much information to take us to this next step. Again, this is a solemn occasion. Nobody, I doubt anybody in this place or anybody that you know, who comes to Congress to take the oath of office comes to Congress to impeach the President of the United States unless his actions are jeopardizing our honoring our oath of office. I am grateful to our committee chairs for all the careful and thoughtful investigation they have been doing as this inquiry has proceeded. Today, the House takes the next step forward, as we establish the procedures for open hearings conducted by the House Intelligence Committee so that the public can see the facts for themselves. This resolution ensures transparency, advancing the public disclosure of deposition transcripts, and outlining the procedure for the transfer of evidence to the Judiciary Committee to use in its proceedings. It enables effective public hearings, setting out procedures for the questioning of witnesses, and continuing the precedent of giving the minority the same rights in questioning witnesses as the majority, which has been true at every step of this inquiry, despite what you might hear fomenting there. It provides the President and his counsel opportunities to participate, including presenting his case, submitting requests for testimony, attending hearings, raising objections to testimony given, cross-examining witnesses, and more. Contrary to what you may have heard today, we give more opportunity to his case than was given to other Presidents before. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Schiff for making that point so clearly. These actions--this process, these open hearings, seeking the truth and making it available to the American people--will inform Congress on the very difficult decisions we will have to make in the future as to whether to impeach the President. That decision has not been made. That is what the inquiry will investigate. Then, we can make the decision based on the truth. I don't know why the Republicans are afraid of the truth. Every Member should support allowing the American people to hear the facts for themselves. That is really what this vote is about. It is about the truth. What is at stake? What is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy. Madam Chair, I proudly stand next to the flag, and I thank the gentleman from New York for providing it for us. So many have fought and died for this flag, which stands for our democracy. When Benjamin Franklin came out of Independence Hall--you have heard this over and over--on September 17, 1787, the day our Constitution was adopted, people said to him: ``Dr. Franklin, what do we have, a monarchy or a republic?'' As you know, he said: ``A republic, if you can keep it.'' If we can keep it. This Constitution is the blueprint for our Republic and not a monarchy. But when we have a President who says Article II says ``I can do whatever I want,'' that is in defiance of the separation of powers. That is not what our Constitution says. What is at stake? Our democracy. What are we fighting for? Defending our democracy for the people. In the early days of our Revolution, Thomas Paine said, ``The times have found us.'' The times found our Founders to declare independence from a monarchy, to fight a war of independence, to win, to write our founding documents--and, thank God, they made them amendable so that we can always be expanding freedom. And the genius--again, the genius--of that Constitution was the separation of powers. Any usurping of that power is a violation of our oath of office. So, proudly, we all raised our hand to protect, defend, and support the Constitution of the United States. That is what this vote is about. Today, we think the times found our Founders. The times have found others in the course of our history to protect our democracy and to keep our country united. The times have found each and every one of us in this room--and in our country--to pay attention to how we protect and defend the Constitution of the United States: honoring the vision of our Founders who declared independence from a monarch and established a country contrary to that principle; honoring the men and women in uniform who fight for our flag, for our freedom, and for our democracy; and honoring the aspirations of our children so that no President, whoever he or she may be in the future, could decide that Article II says they can do whatever they want. Again, let us honor our oath of office. Let us defend our democracy. Let us have a good vote, today, and have clarity--clarity--as to how we proceed, why we proceed, and, again, doing so in a way that honors the Constitution. We must honor the Constitution in how we do this; we must respect the institution we serve; and we must heed the further words of our Founders, ``e pluribus unum,'' ``out of many, one.'' They didn't know how many it would be or how different we would be, but they knew that we needed to always be unifying. Hopefully, as we go forward with this with a clarity of purpose, a clarity of procedure, a clarity of fact, and a clarity of truth--it is about the truth; it is about the Constitution--we will do so in a way that brings people together that is healing rather than dividing, and that is how we will honor our oath of office. Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and, more importantly, I thank him for bringing this very important legislation to the floor today. I thank Mr. Smith for his ongoing commitment to justice in the world in terms of respecting the dignity and worth of people and not ignoring atrocities when they happen, now and a long time ago. It is a pleasure to work with him always. Mr. Speaker, we have tried this bill out of committee more than one time, and now it has come to the floor. It is an honor to speak on it, and it is a great day for the Congress that we have that privilege. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in solemn remembrance of one of the great atrocities of the 20th century, the systematic murder of more than 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children by the Ottoman Empire. Too often, tragically, the truth of this staggering crime has been denied. Today, let us clearly state the facts on the floor of this House to be etched forever into the Congressional Record: The barbarism committed against the Armenian people was a genocide. As international observers wrote at the time, it was a ``campaign of race extermination,'' one that we as Members of Congress and as freedom-loving people have a moral obligation to never forget. If we ignore history, then we are destined to witness the mistakes of the past be repeated. The recent attacks by the Turkish military against the Kurdish people are a stark and brutal reminder of the danger in our own time. That is why it is critical, year in and year out, to reaffirm our dedication to recognizing the Armenian genocide and to placing the U.S. Congress firmly on the side of honesty in our history. For that, I thank Chairman Schiff, Chairman Engel, Congresswoman Eshoo, Armenian Caucus Co-chairs Pallone and Speier, and all who have worked relentlessly on this critical resolution, which states that Democrats and Republicans join to: ``Commemorate the Armenian genocide through official recognition and remembrance; ``Reject efforts to enlist, engage, or otherwise associate the United States Government with denial of the Armenian genocide or any other genocide; and ``Encourage education and public understanding of the facts of the Armenian genocide, including the United States role in the humanitarian relief effort, and the relevance of the Armenian genocide to modern-day crimes against humanity.'' To honor the memory of those lost and the suffering of those who survived, we firmly and unequivocally denounce all attempts to devalue or minimize these heinous crimes. Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong vote for this resolution, which is a statement to America's commitment to human rights and to the truth. We are blessed in our country with a large Armenian American population, some serving--Congresswoman Speier, Congresswoman Eshoo, and others--in this House. Every year, we come together to observe the sadness of the genocide, but today, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity. And may we have the strength and courage to always denounce hate, violence, and bigotry; to right the wrongs of history; and to build a future of hope, peace, and freedom for all mankind. That is who we are as Americans. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and others for giving us the opportunity to state our values.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Mr. Engel, distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Mr. McCaul, for their leadership in bringing this important, bipartisan bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, 3 weeks ago the President unleashed an escalation of chaos and insecurity in Syria when he gave Turkey the green light to attack our Kurdish partners, threatening lives, risking regional security, and undermining America's credibility as a trustworthy ally. And then, instead of holding Turkey accountable for its aggression, the President reversed his sanctions in exchange for a so-called cease- fire, which the Turks clearly stated was not a cease-fire. Today, Democrats and Republicans come together to demonstrate the strong, smart leadership that has sorely been lacking from the White House, as the House passed this tough, targeted sanctions bill to hold the Turks accountable for their attacks on our Kurdish partners. We salute Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul once again for their leadership on this PACT Act and on the resolution opposing President Trump's decision on Syria, including H.J. Res. 77, a bipartisan, bicameral resolution which passed the House on a 354-60 vote. Here are the facts: Our Kurdish partners freed millions of people and tens of thousands of square miles from the grip of ISIS. Throughout the fight, they sustained nearly 11,000 casualties. Until recently, our Kurdish partners protected America's security and the security of the region as more than 10,000 ISIS fighters and tens of thousands of ISIS family members were under their control. Yet, in a matter of weeks, the President has put our progress at risk. Even with the death of al-Baghdadi, ISIS remains a serious and resurgent threat. The death of a top ISIS leader does not mean the death of ISIS. Scores of fighters remain under uncertain conditions in Syrian prisons and at risk of a jailbreak. Nearly 800 ISIS supporters and family members have reportedly escaped. To say that Turkey and Syria still adequately guard the prisoners is outrageous and dangerous. At the same time, more than 250,000 Kurdish civilians have fled their homes because of Turkish attacks. Dozens of civilians, in addition to possibly hundreds of brave Kurdish fighters, have been killed. The only winners from the President's disastrous decision in Syria are ISIS, the Syrian Government, Iran, and Russia. With these targeted, strong sanctions, America is holding accountable top Turkish officials responsible for human rights abuses, including attacking our Kurdish partners. We are penalizing Turkish financial institutions that perpetuate President Erdogan's corruption and abuses, and are preventing the sale of arms to Turkey for use in Syria. As the House passes this legislation, we again call upon the President to support the Kurdish communities and work to ensure that the Turkish military acts with restraint, and we require the Trump administration to finally present a clear strategy to defeat ISIS. Mr. Speaker, I know we have bipartisan support for this legislation. Again, I salute Ranking Member McCaul and Chairman Engel for bringing this legislation to the floor, which is a vote to support the sacrifice of our military and our allies and a vote to restore strength, strategy, and sanity to our national security policy. I think that a very strong, bipartisan vote in the House, similar to the one we had on H.J. Res. 77, will send a very clear message that we can come together--and we will come together--in the interest of our national security; in the interest of Americans' values, which are part of our strength; and, again, to fight terrorism wherever it exists so that it does not reach our shores.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is a very disconcerting day for so many of us here. I thank Mr. Hoyer for bringing us together to mourn the loss of our dear friend and colleague, Elijah Cummings. I thank my friend for his beautiful statement calling forth so many of the beautiful attributes of Elijah Cummings. As the gentleman spoke, I was reminded of how he always was a calmer of the waters. No matter how rough and tumble things would be, he would always just calm the waters and reach out, whether it was across the aisle, across the issue, across the Capitol, or down Pennsylvania Avenue. I know that the people of Baltimore, the U.S. Congress, and America have lost the voice of the unsurpassed moral clarity and truth of our beloved Mr. Chairman, Elijah Cummings. I am personally devastated by his passing, as I know many of us are. We have flowers in his place where he sat, where we all sought counsel, learned more, or calmed down and were lifted up by the wisdom, the graciousness, and the goodness of Elijah Cummings. In the House, Elijah was the North Star. He was a leader of towering character and integrity whose stirring voice and steadfast values pushed the Congress and the country to give rise to a higher purpose of why we are here. His principled leadership as the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform was a perfect testament to his commitment to restoring honesty and honor to government, and he leaves a powerful legacy for years to come. People think of him as that chairman but meaning so much to him was his role as a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He was always fighting for his district, for his State of Maryland, and for the country. He was a powerful voice for building the infrastructure of America and for creating good-paying jobs. He was a working-class guy in terms of whom he was here to serve. I was very proud of him as a member of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors. He took great pride in the Naval Academy, his role on the board, and Maryland's role in our national security. I know we have some Naval Academy graduates here, and that was a source of great pride. He said that you have taken me to a new level of decisionmaking, in terms of national security. Chairman Cummings' story was the story of America. He was a sharecropper's son who dedicated his life to advancing justice, respecting human dignity, and--as the gentleman from Maryland said-- ending discrimination. He believed in the promise of America because he had lived it. He dedicated his life to advancing those values that safeguard our Republic: justice, equality, liberty, and fairness. As our distinguished leader, Mr. Hoyer, said earlier, we were always listening to Elijah. These flowers remind me of it because of the growth and renewal that are there. He said, ``Our children are the living messages we send to a future we will never see.'' He also wanted to build a future that was worthy of the aspirations of our children. He always wanted to make sure that they took with them the values that nurtured him and that he was promoting in his public service. Earlier this year, Chairman Cummings asked us: ``When we are dancing with the angels, the question will be asked: In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact?'' He is now with the angels, out of pain. And Maya said this morning, he fought the fight right up until the end. And those of us who communicated with him--I didn't know he was this close. I thought he was coming back in a few weeks. But our Members, as I stated to our Republican colleagues, we had a conference call on Friday, this past Friday, not a full week ago, in which Elijah, as always, was passionate about what he believed in, dispassionate about how he conveyed a plan for how we would go forward with fairness, with justice, with dignity, worthy of the oath of office that we take to the Constitution, worthy of the vision of our Founders establishing this institution, and worthy, again, of the aspirations of our children, his words: messengers to a future we will never see. His leadership made a difference in strengthening our democracy. Again, during difficult times, let us draw strength from his righteous words that the leader has been reminding us of all day: ``We are better than this. We are better than this.'' In the Congress, we will miss his wisdom, his dignity, the brilliance of his mind, the kindness of his heart, the friendship that meant so much to us and that we could all call upon. In Baltimore, we will miss him as a champion. May it be a comfort to his wife, Maya, to whom I conveyed the good wishes of the Congress this morning, may it be a comfort to Maya, to his three children and Chairman Cummings' entire family and, I want to add to that, his dedicated and devoted staff, in every capacity--as a Member, as a chairman, as a member of the committee, whom he just treated with such fairness and respect, his staff--may it be a comfort to them all that so many mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time and that he will always be inside of our hearts as we make decisions about our responsibilities and how we will be accountable when we are dancing with the angels. God bless you, darling Elijah. We all love you. We miss you, but we will never forget you, and your legacy will live in the Congress of the United States in this House of Representatives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his support of democracy and democratic freedom in Hong Kong. I want to salute my colleague, Representative Smith of New Jersey, with whom I have worked for decades on this subject, whether it is for religious freedom or freedom of expression in China. I thank Mr. McGovern for his important leadership as chair of the China Commission and as chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Right now, we are on the PROTECT Hong Kong Act, as amended, by Mr. McGovern, and I rise in support of that legislation and, indeed, the bills that are on the floor to support democratic freedom in Hong Kong. Mr. Speaker, for 4 months, the young people of Hong Kong have sent a stirring message to the world that the dreams of freedom, justice, and democracy can never be extinguished by injustice and intimidation. The extraordinary outpouring of courage from the people of Hong Kong stands in stark contrast to a cowardly government that refuses to respect the rule of law or live up to the ``one country, two systems'' framework, which was guaranteed more than two decades ago. In 1984, before the United Kingdom transferred Hong Kong to China, the Chinese Government promised a high degree of autonomy for the territory in the Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, providing for an independent executive, legislature, and judiciary; ensuring the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion; prohibiting the central government, the Chinese Government in Beijing, from interfering in the affairs that Hong Kong administers on its own according to the Basic Law; and pledging a path to universal suffrage. In 1997--that is when we were here doing this--when the handover occurred, America was hopeful that the people of Hong Kong would achieve this high degree of autonomy that they were promised, and this was a promise that was participated in by the U.K. Government. Today, we must sadly conclude that China has broken that promise. For years, the people of Hong Kong have faced a barrage of unjust and harsh restrictions on their freedoms, and those who have stood up for their rights have been met with a cruel crackdown. In Congress, Democrats and Republicans, in the House and in the Senate, stand united with the people of Hong Kong. If America does not speak out for human rights in China because of commercial interests, then we lose all moral authority to speak out for human rights anyplace in the world. Since Tiananmen Square 30 years ago, many of us, in a bipartisan way, have been fighting this fight, and we have seen that commercial interests always win. It is always about the money. I lost my innocence on human rights in America and China all those years ago when I saw that, while we talked a good talk, when it came right down to it, it was always about the money. Again, to those who want to take the repressive government's side in this discussion, I say to you: What does it profit a person if he gains the whole world and suffers the loss of his soul? We do not want to lose the soul of our country for commercial interests, whatever those commercial interests may be. It is interesting to hear people say we have to know both sides of the story. Do you want to hear both sides? One side is a very repressive regime that is crushing democratic freedoms in Hong Kong at the same time that they have tried to destroy the culture, the language, and the religion, all at the same time as they incarcerate in reeducation camps more than 1 million--it could be 3 million--Uyghur Muslims in China, or they repress religious freedom there. The list goes on and on. And the other side: young people speaking out for freedoms, democratic freedoms, in Hong Kong. They are so impressive. Mr. Smith and I have worked, as Mr. McGovern has, with some three generations, starting after Tiananmen Square and tanks rolling over young people who spoke out for democratic freedoms in China; the next generation, a couple, 15 years later; and now this generation of young people, so impressive are they that even the more senior freedom fighters in Hong Kong are impressed by their courage and their stick-to-itiveness. Today, the House is proud to pass the bicameral and bipartisan Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act to reaffirm America's commitment to democracy. And that doesn't mean a democracy like this. It means democratic freedoms, human rights, and the rule of law in the face of Beijing's crackdown. And Beijing thinks that they can rule because of money. It always comes down to that. I thank Chairman McGovern and Congressman Smith for their work to ensure an honest accounting of the situation in Hong Kong, and to ensure accountability for those responsible for the crackdown. We are grateful to Chairman McGovern for his leadership on this PROTECT Hong Kong Act which suspends sales of crowd control technology and other equipment to the Hong Kong Police Force, as Mr. Sherman pointed out earlier. I thank Mr. Sherman for his work on this and thank him for his resolution calling for the Hong Kong Government to address protestors' demands and condemning police brutality, in addition to China's efforts to falsely accuse U.S. diplomats of fueling unrest. Last week, Martin Lee, the grandfather of Hong Kong democracy--we started working with him decades ago--said: ``We fear Hong Kong will become just another Chinese city.'' That means one without any of the freedoms that they were guaranteed. The future of Hong Kong, the future of autonomy, freedom, and justice for millions is at stake. America must stand with Hong Kong. It is very interesting that in the first weeks of the demonstration, the first months of the demonstration, 2 million people, mostly young people, were in the streets. And people were saying: Oh, my heavens, 2 million people turning out. And you remember that 2 million is 25 percent of the population of Hong Kong which is 8 million people. It is 25 percent of the population that was in the streets. And the beat goes on. Hopefully, they will hear from this Congress our support for their human rights, and that we will not sell our souls for money at the expense of our values. I also want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Eliot Engel, for his leadership on all of this over time. I urge an ``aye'' vote on all of the above to join in bipartisan, bicameral support for the people of Hong Kong.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the chairman for making that very important point about the quality of life of the families of our men and women in uniform, which appears to have been demeaned by our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress take a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution and to protect the American people. Today the House honors that oath with this resolution to defend our national security and our Constitution's system of checks and balances: the guardrails created by our Founders to safeguard our Republic. The President's decision to cancel $3.6 billion for military construction to pay for his wasteful wall makes America less safe. The administration is stealing funds from 127 initiatives in 21 countries, 23 States, and three territories, stooping so low as to steal from a middle school at Fort Campbell in Kentucky. A recent U.S. Air Force report shows that canceling these projects hurts our national security worldwide, including in Europe where the President is canceling construction for the European defense initiative which deters Russian aggression. The President is canceling a project which deters Russian aggression. That makes the Russians very happy. In the Middle East he is canceling maintenance at a key base to protect our troops from--in the words of this Air Force report--hostile penetration in the midst of contingency operations and an increased terrorist threat. In the Pacific he is canceling construction on storage facilities in Guam for more than $1 billion in munitions, the largest stockpile in the region; and in North America he is canceling repairs which are based in Alaska which are needed to prevent an explosion that would cause a full evacuation and require millions of dollars of repair. That decision also disrespects military families, as our distinguished chair, Mr. DeFazio, mentioned. A coalition of leading education, labor, and veterans organizations wrote to the President to express their ``profound concern,'' saying, ``Our troops and their families deserve much better for their sacrifices.'' The President had said Mexico will pay for his wall, not military families. The administration's decision also dishonors the Constitution by negating its most fundamental principle, the separation of powers, in an assault on our power of the purse. It does great violence to our Constitution and our democracy and strikes at the heart of our Founder's conception of America, which demands a separation of powers. Indeed, many White House decisions that have recently come to light show this same disdain and disregard for the Constitution. Today, we join the Senate--congratulations to the Senate--in a bipartisan way to restore our system of checks and balances and reassert Congress' constitutional responsibilities. This issue transcends partisan politics. All Members take the oath to protect and defend. We continue to urge House Republicans to join us to uphold the Constitution and defend and support our national security.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I commend him for his great patriotism, for the equanimity that he brings to all that he does with great wisdom and judgment. Madam Speaker, just over a week ago, when our Nation observed the anniversary of the adoption of our Constitution, on that very day, news broke of great allegations which were a threat to our Constitution. On that day, the intelligence community inspector general formally notified Congress that the administration was forbidding him from turning over a whistleblower complaint that he found to be of ``urgent concern'' and ``credible.'' The administration's refusal to turn over the full complaint is a violation of the law, which is unequivocal, stating that the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, shall provide Congress with the full complaint. I repeat, that obligation is mandatory. Shortly thereafter, the American people learned of a phone call from the White House calling upon a foreign power to intervene in the upcoming election. Today's release of the notes of the call by the White House confirms this behavior, which undermines the integrity of our elections, the dignity of any Presidency, and our national security. Let us repeat the facts: The intelligence community inspector general, who was appointed by President Trump, determined that the complaint was both of ``urgent concern and credible,'' and its disclosure ``relates to one of the most significant and important of the Director of National Intelligence's responsibilities to the American people.'' I want to talk a moment, Madam Speaker, if I may, about whistleblowers. First, let me say what an asset the intelligence community is to the security of our country. We talk about our men and women in uniform, and we praise them. We could never thank them enough. Our intelligence community personnel are a significant part of the national security of our country. Whistleblowers, in any part of the government, are important, but whistleblowers can be defined as an act of reporting waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption in a lawful manner to those who can correct the wrongdoing. The intelligence community has publicly recognized the importance of whistle blowing and supports protections for whistleblowers who conform to guidelines to protect classified information. This is a very important balance, and when laws were written--and I was there for it as a member of the committee and as ranking member and part of the Gang of Four, before I even became part of the leadership. I saw the evolution of these laws and then the improvements on them, with further protection for whistleblowers. I was also there for the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the relationship between the two, and it is a careful balance of protecting whistleblowers but also protecting our national security and our intelligence--our intelligence. So, in any event, one of the bills we wrote was the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. The law plays a vital role in our democracy. It enables our system of separation of powers to maintain the rule of law by making sure that the abuses of unlawful actions are known, first through the inspector general of the intelligence community, and then the congressional intelligence committees, House and Senate, which can act upon it. The statute does not permit the DNI to second-guess the inspector general's determination of any complaint he finds to be ``credible.'' At no point in the history of this law has a DNI ever refused to turn over a whistleblower's complaint that has been found by the IG as ``credible.'' Refusing to do this is a violation of the law. Our national security depends on this framework. This vote today is about more than just any one President. This resolution is about the preservation of our American system of government. Once we pass this resolution--and I acknowledge that we are joining the Senate, which passed it without objection yesterday, unanimously-- the DNI will be faced with a choice: to honor his responsibility to help preserve our Republic or to break the law. This resolution passed by unanimous consent--I repeat--in the Senate. Every Member, Democratic and Republican, should join us in passing this in the House. While we await the release of the full complaint, we reiterate our call for the release of the full transcript of the call between President Trump and the Ukrainian President and reiterate our call to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. Madam Speaker, I urge a bipartisan vote to defend our national security and to protect our democracy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his great work as the chair of the Budget Committee. He knows better than all of us that our Federal budget should be a statement of our national values and that what is important to us as a Nation should be reflected in that budget. I thank Mr. Yarmuth for his leadership and thank his staff for bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I also thank Chairwoman Nita Lowey, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, and her staff for the important work that they did to help us get to the place we are today. That place is bipartisan legislation which reflects an agreement that is bold, bipartisan, and a victory for the American people. I think we all agree, including the ranking member, that we all want to reduce the deficit, so let us work in a bipartisan way. The national debt, let's work in a bipartisan way to do that. While we are at it, we may want to eliminate the vote on lifting the debt ceiling each year as well because the full faith and credit of the United States of America should never, ever be in question. This agreement was reached, and it will meet the needs of the people whom we are honored to represent, investing in middle-class priorities that advance the health, financial security, and well-being of the American people, and enhancing our national security. Democrats have achieved priorities that we set out from the start. Obviously, we have shared priorities. We are permanently ending the threat of sequestration. That is a very important measure. The administration has joined us to end the devastating sequestration cuts that threaten our investments to keep America number one in the global economy and, again, ensure our national security. We are also limiting offsets to half of what was originally proposed to those that were accepted in an earlier bipartisan agreement. We are taking action to avoid another government shutdown, which is so harmful to meeting the needs of the American people and honoring the work of our important men and women in our Federal workforce, and also the collateral damage that a shutdown does to our economy. We are securing robust funding for crucial domestic priorities, as I said. We have always insisted on parity in increases between defense and nondefense. We are pleased that our increase in the nondefense budget actually exceeds the parity number on defense by $10 billion over the next 2 years. We are pleased to be able to say that we have secured an increase of more than $100 billion in the budget cap for domestic priorities since the President took office. Finally, we are safeguarding the full faith and credit of the United States of America by achieving a lifting of the debt limit until July 31, 2021. Perhaps between now and then, we can work in a bipartisan way to address removing all doubt about whether the debt limit will be increased. It is important to note that this is not about future spending. This is about paying for what we have invested in already. It was essential that we reach agreement before the upcoming August district work period because we were informed by the Secretary of the Treasury that we might exhaust the full faith and credit during the district work period in August. We are pleased to have done so with an agreement that meets the needs of America's families and our national security and achieves so many of our priorities. Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong vote for this bill. As I said, we can avoid the damage of sequestration and continue to advance progress for the American people. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership on behalf of America's working families, and I thank him for his role in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I thank Chairman Neal as well for his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee, so essential in our being able today to come to respect the work of America's workers. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation and in opposition to the amendment. Again, this is about the financial security and future of America's workers. Our House Democratic majority was elected to fight for the people. Today, as we pass the Butch Lewis bill that is bipartisan, that has bipartisan support, that is exactly what we are doing. The Butch Lewis Act delivers justice for 1.3 million workers and retirees facing devastating cuts to pensions earned over a lifetime of work. It protects the financial security of families, ensuring workers have the benefits they have earned and need to provide for spouses, children, and grandchildren. It honors the sacred pension promise in America, that if you work hard, you deserve the dignity of a secure retirement. Sadly, years of relentless special interest agendas have put that promise in peril. Unchecked recklessness on Wall Street ignited a financial meltdown that dealt a devastating blow to multiemployer pension plans while dangerous deregulation and relentless attacks against unions have eaten away at these plans' health. If we do not act, the pensions of many workers and retirees will be cut to the bone, and the financial security and futures of their families and communities will be thrown into jeopardy. Workers are the backbone of our Nation, and we cannot accept a single penny to be cut from their pensions. Congress has a responsibility to do right by hardworking Americans. We have a responsibility to Americans like Sam, a retired coal miner from southwest Virginia who has second-stage black lung and relies on a $475 a month pension to pay for his healthcare because he has been denied Federal black lung benefits. We have a responsibility to Americans like Kenneth from Wisconsin, who needs his pension to provide for his five children, nine grandkids, and, until recently, his beloved wife, Beverly, who he just lost to cancer. Yet, his pension faces a 55 percent cut. We have a responsibility to Americans like Rita Lewis, who is here with us today, wife to Butch Lewis, this bill's namesake, who so heroically fought until his death to protect pensions, including Rita's survivor benefits. As Rita testified before Congress: ``This pension was not a gift. He worked hard for every penny of that pension. He gave up wages and vacation pay and other benefits . . . so I would be taken care of if something happened to him.'' Now that pension risks being slashed to the core. Workers, retirees, and survivors like Sam, Kenneth, and Rita are forgoing much-needed medicines, or working into their eighties for more income, and are being robbed of their benefits that they need to help out their families. Not Rita. She is not working into her eighties. We must act now. We will swiftly pass this bill to honor workers' dignity, support their families, and protect their futures. We must always remember that the middle class is the backbone of our democracy, and our workers are the strength of that middle class. In fact, I do believe that the middle class has a union label on it. In the coming months, the House will continue to build on this progress, passing future legislation on behalf of working families. Our majority is for the people, and we will work relentlessly to restore a government that works for the people's interest, not the special interests. I urge a strong bipartisan vote to protect the pensions of workers and retirees, and I urge Senator McConnell to immediately take up this bill so that we can send it to the President's desk and give comfort to so many families in America.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, let us salute Congressman Ruiz, Chairman Nadler, Chairwoman Lofgren, Chairwoman Underwood, Chairwoman Slotkin, and Members. I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Kuster, for yielding me time. These Members have followed the facts, gone to the border, and raised a drumbeat on behalf of the children. I want to add to that Congresswoman Escobar, who has been so great on all of this. The humanitarian situation at the border challenges the conscience of our country, yet the Trump administration has chosen to approach the situation with cruelty instead of compassion. Children sleeping on concrete floors, children eating frozen and inedible food, and children denied basic sanitation. As the Gospel of Matthew said, ``When the Son of Man comes in all His glory,'' He will speak to the nations gathered before Him. You all know the Gospel of Matthew, ``When I was hungry.'' The American Medical Association writes, ``It is well known that childhood trauma and adverse childhood experiences created by inhumane treatment often create negative health impacts that can last an individual's entire lifespan.'' The American Academy of Pediatrics led a joint letter, writing, ``The tragic deaths of children in CBP custody are evidence for why timely, appropriate medical and mental health screening and care is so crucial.'' With Congressman Ruiz's Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border Protection Custody Act, we are taking a strong step to safeguard children and respect their families. Mr. Chairman, I am going to submit most of my statement for the Record, in the interest of time. I know you have heard it over and over again, Mr. Chairman. There is no use to just keep talking. We have to act. We have sent the money. We have paid attention. Now, we have to set the standards that must be met for humanitarian, hygiene, food, clothing, healthcare, and the rest. I thank Mr. Ruiz for bringing his experience as a public health doctor, as someone who has dealt with these crises in other parts of the world. We are blessed to have his service in the Congress, especially at this time, for the good of the children Mr. Chair, let us salute Congressman Ruiz, Chairman Nadler, Chairwoman Lofgren, Congresswoman Underwood, Chairwoman Slotkin and Members who have followed the facts, gone to the border and raised a drumbeat on behalf of the children. The humanitarian situation at the border challenges the conscience of our country. Yet, the Trump Administration has chosen to approach this situation with cruelty, instead of compassion. The appalling conditions facing children and families are an affront to our values and our humanity: Children sleeping on concrete floors, in freezing temperatures with constant light exposure; Children eating frozen or inedible food, and having insufficient or unclean water to drink; Children denied basic sanitation, forced to use open toilets and deprived of showers and handwashing stations. The Gospel of Matthew says, ``When the Son of Man comes in all his glory,'' he will speak to the nations gathered before him and say: ``For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'' The Administration's treatment of little children abandons that teaching, ignores the ``least of these'' and endangers lives. As the American Medical Association writes: ``Conditions in CBP facilities, including open toilets, constant light exposure, insufficient food and water, extreme temperatures, and forcing pregnant women and children to sleep on cement floors, are traumatizing. ``It is well known that childhood trauma and adverse childhood experiences created by inhumane treatment often create negative health impacts that can last an individual's entire lifespan.'' This week, the American Academy of Pediatrics led a joint letter with other medical experts to urge action, writing: ``The tragic deaths of children in CBP custody are evidence for why timely, appropriate medical and mental health screening and care is so crucial.'' The deaths of children at the border are unconscionable; a profound violation of the moral responsibility we all have to ensure all children of God are treated with compassion and decency. Today, with Congressman Ruiz's ``Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border Protection Custody Act'', we are taking a strong step to safeguard children and respect their spark of divinity. This bill protects children and families' health: requiring the CBP to provide timely, appropriate and standards-based health screenings by licensed medical professionals. It creates water, sanitation, and hygiene standards: requiring the CBP to provide sufficient drinking water; private, safe and clean toilets; a handwashing station; and basic personal hygiene products. It sets out nutrition standards: requiring that detainees receive three meals per day, with age-appropriate caloric intake, and special diets for babies, pregnant & breastfeeding women, the elderly & ill. And it establishes standards for shelters: specifying space requirements, temperature ranges and bedding standards, and also protecting religious freedom, family unity and the safety of unaccompanied minors and LGBTQ persons. Once we pass this bill--and our other legislation for the children-- we will call on Senator McConnell to immediately take them up. Sadly, some in the Republican Leadership have not demonstrated a concern for the children. The obstruction of the House-passed border bill dishonored our values, denigrated our immigrant heritage, and endangered little children. Every day that Senator McConnell delays this bill--and every vote against it--is a stain on the collective conscience of the Congress. I urge a strong, bipartisan vote of conscience for this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Melinda Walker, the Chief Reporter of Debates, on her retirement in August after more than 20 years of outstanding service to the House of Representatives. Ms. Walker has brought great effectiveness and integrity to this critical position, which has long been vital to the transparency and accessibility of Article I, the Legislative Branch, to the American people. She carries on the long, storied tradition of shorthand reporters of debates, upon whom the House has relied for nearly two centuries to ensure that the People's House can be open and accountable to the American people. A proud native of Texas, Ms. Walker came to the House in 1999 after serving as a court reporter for the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania. Her career began after graduating from the Stenograph Institute of Texas in 1989, and her skills took her around the country and the world, with positions in England, the Caribbean, and South Africa. Ms. Walker has led a career of great distinction in the House. She has reported both House committee hearings and Floor proceedings, and has taken down committee testimony from two Chief Justices of the United States and three Secretaries of State, among many others. On the Floor, Ms. Walker has reported the State of the Union messages for three Presidents as well as the speeches of numerous foreign dignitaries during Joint Meetings of Congress. Upon her promotion to Chief Reporter in 2015, she led the team of court reporters and staff in charge of the production of the Congressional Record. She has distinguished herself by the excellence with which she has mastered intricate parliamentary nuances of House proceedings and by her passion for and commitment to this institution. Among her many contributions to the House is the legacy she leaves through the 200-page style and format manual that she fully revised and updated for the Office of Official Reporters, which will serve as a resource for years to come. Ms. Walker is recognized by the National Court Reporters Association as a Registered Professional Reporter, a Certified Manager of Reporting Services, and is a Certified Shorthand Reporter in Texas. She plans to return to her hometown of San Saba, Texas, and spend more time with her family and faithful hound dog, Bleu. Madam Speaker, Ms. Walker has joined a long and distinguished tradition of dedicated, nonpartisan service to the House, and I join her staff and many others in wishing her the very best in retirement.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his extraordinary leadership, historic, really, for giving us this opportunity today to do something very special for the American people, for America's working families. This is an historic day, yes, because we are raising the minimum wage here in the House of Representatives, because we are channeling the energy of so many people across the country for fairness in the workplace, but it also happens to be the 171st anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention. The Seneca Falls Convention shook the world, when they had that convention, with the simple proclamation that all men and women are created equal. This bill achieves that equality, giving nearly 20 million working women, that is nearly one-third of all working women, a raise. And it helps narrow the gender wage gap that disproportionately targets women of color, putting more money in the pockets of more than one-third of working women of color. Today, we wake up for a day of jubilation because of the sense of fairness that this legislation engenders. We wake up every morning with a smile on our face, showing the world all the love in our hearts, and that love in our hearts is about fairness for the American people. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, as has been acknowledged--as I just heard Congressman Levin mention, and others, as well--that it has been 10 years since the Federal minimum wage was raised in the previous Democratic majority. It had been 11 years before then, when we passed it in 2007, and it was signed by President Bush. It was bipartisan, and we were thrilled about that. It is interesting to see what has happened in the time since then. While families work hard to make ends meet, the cost of living has surged to unsustainable highs. Inflation has eaten nearly 20 percent of their wages, and the GOP special interest agenda has left them far behind. I mentioned that this is about equality for women. It is also about 30 million people in our country getting a raise--30 million people-- and so many people being lifted out of poverty. I talked about 2007. That is when we first passed it in the House. It took a little more time for it to be law, going through the Senate and the rest. When we passed it, we were so thrilled, knowing that the President would sign it. We had a big rally outside the Capitol. As soon as the rally was finished, Senator Ted Kennedy, who had been a really important part of the Senate action on raising the minimum wage, said: ``You know what we have to do now? We have to raise the minimum wage!'' We always have to be injecting fairness, all the time. We must never stop fighting to honor the dignity of work and pushing forward for working families and women, again, affected so drastically in all of this. American workers deserve a raise. No one can live with dignity on a $7.25 per hour wage. Can you? The Raise the Wage Act honors workers and supports families, giving 33 million Americans a long-overdue raise and lifting many out of poverty. The bill grows our economy, increasing families' purchasing power, which drives economic growth that lifts up all communities. The consumer confidence of America's working families is an important element in growing our economy. It brings our democracy closer to the founding ideals, upholding the bedrock idea of fairness in our country, that hard work deserves a decent wage. Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong, bipartisan vote for this victory for working families and for America because every Member of this institution should be fighting to put more money in the pockets of workers in their community.