Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will save the American taxpayers millions of dollars, restore the appropriate focus of the July Fourth holiday as a universal, nonpartisan celebration of our Nation's independence, and ensure that taxpayer money is spent for public, nonpartisan purposes, not private, personal, and partisan ones. This amendment will ban military parades and shows organized at the personal request of the President that serve no other governmental or military purpose. What happened this last Fourth of July was a shameful, extravagant, and profligate display of quasi-monarchical pageantry which delighted the President and the political guests that he brought in on special tickets, but no one else. This year's July Fourth celebration, at the President's insistence, featured seven flyovers of 24 different military aircraft, including B- 2s, F-22s, F-35s, displays of ceremonial units, mobilization of tanks and other military equipment, all on the National Mall, an unprecedented Presidential speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the Fourth of July, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of fireworks that generated so much smoke that the fireworks could barely be seen by the people sitting on the Mall. And all of that was inspired by the President's observation of a similar military display when he was in Paris for Bastille Day. And guess who pays the price for all this? The taxpayers do. That is right. The National Park Service was forced to divert $2.5 million in park fees to help cover the costs for this event. The Washington Post estimated that the combined hourly rate of the seven flyovers of military aircraft, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-22 Raptors, and the F-35 Lightnings, would have cost at least $560,000 per hour. $560,000 per hour. The Defense Department said this week that it used money from the military services' training budgets to pay for these demonstrations ordered by the President's whim, and spent additional funds to transport the military equipment, which shut down traffic in Washington D.C. for most of the day. Just yesterday, we learned the District of Columbia spent $1.7 million, an amount that, combined with police expenses for the demonstrations through the weekend, has wiped out funding intended to protect the Nation's Capital. And now the President is saying he wants to do it all over again next year on the Fourth of July, and into the foreseeable future. We obviously cannot allow that to happen. This amendment will save all of our money. It will depoliticize the Fourth of July, and call us back to its original, honorable purposes and the way we have always celebrated; and it will send a message to the executive branch that the Federal Government serves the people, not one person. We have no kings here. We have no queens. We have no monarchs. We have no royal pageantry. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the SAFE Act because Vladimir Putin conducted a sweeping and systematic campaign to disrupt and destabilize our Presidential election in 2016. Some say we can't pass the SAFE Act to guarantee the security of our elections, that because of federalism, we should let the States work it out on their own. But we are not the fragmented, divided States of America. We are the United States of America, and that is the way we were designed. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, Madam Speaker, says Congress ``shall guarantee to every State in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.'' What does it mean by ``republican form of government''? It doesn't mean a Republican Party form of government. It means a representative form of government. That means we must have a system that accurately translates the popular will into the election of a Congress. This is a massive technical challenge in a country of hundreds of millions of people, 50 States, and thousands of jurisdictions, especially in the computer age. We need voter-certified, paper-ballot voting systems in every State in the Union. We need risk-reducing audits. We need real accountability for election vendors. We need voting machines manufactured in the United States, where our democracy is created, too.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, Mr. McGovern, for his extraordinary leadership on H.R. 2722, the Securing America's Federal Elections Act, the SAFE Act. Madam Speaker, we were attacked as a country in 2016. We were not attacked as Democrats or Republicans or Independents. Our Nation was attacked. Special Counsel Mueller found that Russia conducted a sweeping and systematic campaign to subvert and undermine the U.S. election on behalf of one party and one candidate as opposed to another party or another candidate, but you know what, that should make no difference to us today. It could have been the reverse. I would hope that all of us would be standing together as Americans to reject foreign interference in our elections. What did the Russians do? Well, they conducted cyber surveillance and espionage and sabotage at the Democratic National Committee, at the Democratic National Campaign Committee, and at Hillary Clinton's headquarters. They injected racial and ethnic propaganda and poison into our body politic through Facebook, through Twitter, through social media, and then they directly entered into the websites of 30 different State boards of election across the country, with varying degrees of success, according to how well prepared the different election boards were. Now, in response to all of this, what do we get from the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? What we get is denunciation of what he calls the Russian hoax. He rejects the evidence offered to him by his own intelligence agencies and leaders. He rejects all of the evidence compiled by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He rejects the conclusion that there was a sweeping and systematic effort to undermine our election. H.R. 2722 says we need to protect our election in 2020. It is precious. Our democracy is precious to us, so we will promote accuracy, integrity, and security through voter-verified permanent paper ballots, and provide grants to the States to carry out the security improvements that we need. It will establish cybersecurity requirements for voting systems and require testing of the existing hardware and software to make sure there is not malware in there, to make sure that it is not being manipulated, and it will implement risk-limiting audits to ensure the accuracy of vote tallies in an efficient manner. Madam Speaker, we have a philosophical difference with our friends. It is not just that the President denied the existence of the attack, but the Republican-controlled Senate did nothing, they offered us no plan. They controlled the House and the Senate in the last Congress. They did nothing. They offered us no plan for securing our elections against foreign attack in 2020, which is why we have come forward with an attempt to prevent the attack in 2020. Now, we have a philosophical difference with them, because when we say that America needs to act, they say federalism, let every State work it out on their own. I heard one of my colleagues say they are doing a great job at the local level running the elections. But we are not talking about running the elections, we are talking about protecting the security of our elections against a foreign attack. It is like we are saying we need to defend the country, and they say, well, we have got great local police forces all across the America. The police forces may be great, but we still need a national defense. The election boards might be doing a good job in some places, maybe less so in others, running the local elections, but we still need to protect all of our elections against the foreign attack that was described in detail by Special Counsel Mueller. There is a constitutional basis and imperative for doing this. I direct my friends to Article IV of the Constitution, the Republican Guarantee Clause, which my good friend from Illinois suggested may have been the Republican Party guarantee clause. I know he was kidding when he said it. It is not the Republican Party guarantee clause; it is a guarantee of a republican form of government. ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion''. That is a constitutional command that we must protect every State in the union's republican form of government. Well, what is a republican form of government? A republican form of government is a representative form of government where the voters vote for their leaders. It is republican only if the will of the people is properly expressed through an election, we get the will through an election, and it has integrity and accuracy and safety. That is what this bill is about. Madam Speaker, I urge everybody to support H.R. 2722.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share the frustrations of many of my constituents who are suffering from severe noise pollution caused by the FAA's NextGen program which has altered flight paths to Reagan National Airport. Montgomery County, Maryland, residents who live as much as 20 miles away from the airport have experienced a 300 to 500 percent increase in air traffic over their homes. These flight path changes have significantly disrupted life below with relentless noise pollution. As 400 flights per day cross over Bethesda at low altitudes, many of my constituents are woken up in the middle of the night, others are interrupted and distracted at work by the onslaught of noise, and there are children complaining that they cannot hear their teachers speak over the noise occasionally caused by commercial jets flying over their schools. After more than 3 years of incessant disturbance of their peace and quiet, my constituents were stunned last month when the FAA announced that it would implement yet another change to flight paths at Reagan National Airport that would lead to even more air traffic over our communities. The FAA casually announced the change slated for an August 2019 implementation date at a meeting with the Community Noise Working Group that works with FAA to address the problem of noise pollution at Reagan National Airport. Given the substantial consequences of this change and the complete lack of public input in its development, I urge the FAA to delay the implementation date and to engage seriously with our Community Noise Working Group, which is eager to evaluate the proposed changes and work towards alternative proposals or strategies to avert or at least mitigate the impact. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that with the $17.7 billion that this bill appropriates to the FAA, the agency will take serious steps toward dramatically reducing the noise pollution in residential areas in my district, in Montgomery, and throughout the Nation. Thank you, Chairman Price, for your indulgence.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 3055, relating to a problem taking place in my district that may be reflective of what is happening in many other parts of the country. A fire station on a military installation recently experienced a devastating fire itself, but now cannot get the funds it needs to construct a new firehouse. Madam Chairwoman, the United States spends billions of dollars every year on military projects, but we need the funds to fix and maintain the basic buildings and infrastructure that have fallen into disrepair on military installations across the country. This situation was brought to my attention by constituents who work at the Naval District of Washington Fire and Emergency Services station located at the Naval Support Activity Bethesda installation in Maryland. NSA Bethesda provides base support for 40 tenant commands, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, which the Members of this body know well. Earlier this year, a fire broke out at NSA Bethesda's station, which exacerbated already hazardous conditions at the firehouse. It began in the kitchen, but because the fire alarm never went off, the flames spread into other rooms, causing extensive damage and rendering the firehouse basically unfit for occupancy. Fortunately, no one was injured because no one was there, but had the fire occurred overnight while everyone was asleep, it would have been a nightmare. For several years prior to the fire, concerns about the safety of the firehouse, which was built in 1942, were raised by the people who live and work there. The complaints ranged from dangerous mold and asbestos, to roof leaks, electrical problems, and structural instability. Temporary trailers erected next to the firehouse are also at a breaking point with air-conditioning units that only work intermittently, chronic mold, and leaking septic pipes. Yet, the complaints of the firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs were minimized or ignored. The firefighters have been told repeatedly that there is simply no money available to renovate or to build a new fire station. In response to the hazardous conditions caused by the fire, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command simply put up some drywall and told the firefighters that the building was now ready to reoccupy. The firefighters work 48-hour shifts and sometimes longer. They are worried about the carcinogens they are being exposed to, not just when they enter burning buildings, but when they breathe the air inside their own firehouse. This is happening at the fire station that responds to emergencies on an installation that is home to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the most prominent military hospital in America. The men and women working there serve our military and our Nation's wounded warriors. Many of the firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics are themselves former soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and coastguardsmen. One of my constituents said: ``I served 4 years in the Army and was deployed overseas. The conditions in the firehouse are, by far, the worst conditions I have seen or lived in.'' Another told me that he lived in better conditions when he was serving in Afghanistan. This is shocking and unacceptable. The men and women working at the fire station deserve better. They need funding to build a new, safe, clean, fire station. In a Defense budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, we should be able to have money for essential projects like this one. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my colleague who has been a real leader on this issue and is the chairwoman of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman to secure funding for projects like the one in my district. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, the NIH, of course, is a national treasure, which sets the standard for cutting-edge biomedical research in our country. Its breakthroughs have saved the lives of countless Americans and remains a source of hope for millions more across the country. While the NIH does, indeed, under this bill, receive the necessary funding increase for scientific research and medical treatments, NIH's buildings, the places where the scientists conduct their research and where medical professionals provide patients with their treatments, have fallen into alarming and embarrassing disrepair and decay. There have been significant issues with flooding, broken fire sprinklers, deteriorating plumbing systems, and massive water pipe ruptures. A steam pipe leak flooded a basement where expensive equipment is stored. Last year, a clinic was evacuated when antifreeze began leaking from the ceiling. A corroded pipe had caused a flood of glycol--that is antifreeze--in the mechanical room, which can be seen in chart one. And in chart two, this is the flood that resulted from the gushing from the ceiling into the clinic below. This presented a very dangerous situation. So when I say that the NIH desperately needs funding for maintenance and repairs, we are not talking about minor aesthetic quibbles; we are talking about very serious structural renovations that are needed. $5 million is just a drop in the bucket in terms of what NIH actually needs, but we have to start somewhere. Having spoken with Ms. DeLauro, I will actually withdraw the amendment. I understand that we are able to receive consideration from the subcommittee. I want to thank her very much for her willingness to work with us. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2740 to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, located in Bethesda, Maryland. It would provide a modest $5 million increase to NIH's building and facilities account. Mr. Chair, this amendment would increase funding for the NIH, which is proudly housed in the Eighth Congressional District of Maryland, and it would constitute a $5 million increase to the NIH building and facilities account to begin to address an estimated $2 billion backlog in maintenance and repairs. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chair of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) on H.R. 2740 and H.R. 4340, and I do urge all of our colleagues to support this rule for this legislation. I do hope my friend from Oklahoma will tutor some of his colleagues, like the last speaker, who referred to the ``Democrat majority.'' Democrat is the noun. Democratic is the adjective for our party, and I think that would be a basic gesture of interparty civility if they would follow that fairly easy grammatical device. Mr. Speaker, one of the other Members from the other side, I think from Oklahoma, talked about some education matters, so I want to go to some statistics that actually mean something to the American people. I think we can refute all of the statistics that were advanced by my friend from Oklahoma, as I said. There are more than 100 amendments that we are going to be bringing up today, and we are going to be adding more of them, and we certainly don't want to endure lectures from people who belong to the caucus that ran the most closed Congress in the history of the United States. But here are some figures that actually mean something to the American people. Our bill provides a total of $75.9 billion in appropriations for the Education Department, which is $4.5 billion above the 2019-enacted level, and $11.9 billion beyond what the President asked for. So that means dramatic increases in everything from IDEA special education spending, to education, innovation, and research programs, to spending for teacher professional development evidence-based models and so on. We are also increasing money for student financial assistance for Pell Grants for higher education, because it has become too difficult for our young people to make their way through college, and they are graduating, basically, with a mortgage of 100 or $150,000, but they don't have a house to go with it. So this majority is committed to alleviating the burden on America's college students. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to make progress, under very difficult circumstances with this President, for the American people in the realm of education, healthcare, scientific and medical research. We are making that progress, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 431 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, H.R. 431, providing for consideration of H.R. 2740, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, and H. Res. 430, authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas and, also, for other purposes. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2740 under a structured rule, self-executes Chairwoman Lowey's manager's amendment, and makes in order 106 different amendments. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally and divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and provides that they may offer up to 15 pro forma amendments, each for the purposes of debate. The chair of the Appropriations Committee may also offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments made in order by the rule and not earlier disposed of. Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 430 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally and divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, this rule pairs two bills which demonstrate the commitment of the House majority both to making strong progress for the American people in the areas of health, labor, and education, at the same time that we defend the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law against the obstructionism and the lawlessness of the executive branch of government. Let's start with H.R. 2740, which is designed to make government work for our people. It provides $189.9 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services. It increases investment in the National Institutes of Health, our country's preeminent medical research agency, a national treasure, which is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, in my district, to support research for Alzheimer's disease, HIV/Aids, breast cancer, colon cancer, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, childhood cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, mental health, suicide prevention, and the Cancer Moonshot initiative. The people of NIH and their network of allied entities and agencies and supported universities and research labs across the country are making profound progress in the struggle to uplift the health of the people against all of the killer diseases of our time. And for the first time in more than 20 years, this bill contains funding to support gun violence and firearm injury prevention research, and we are proud of that. This legislation increases funding for Department of Education programs to help America's children succeed, providing critical resources for elementary and secondary schools, special ed programs, and Federal student aid. Importantly, the bill increases the maximum Pell grant to help America's college and graduate students keep pace with inflation and the high cost of living. H.R. 2740 also provides $56.4 billion in funding for the State Department, USAID, and the U.S. Institute of Peace. We are making major strategic investments in diplomacy, global health, and international basic education, the crucial ingredients for maintaining peace and security around the world. This legislation provides essential humanitarian assistance and critical funding to improve maternal and child health, to fight diseases like malaria, and to support women's reproductive health and literacy across the globe. We know that the key to improving social and economic development around the world is the education of women and the investment in family planning programs and literacy about procreation. This legislation renews our Nation's commitment to addressing the climate crisis by investing in directives on adaption and renewable energy. It also prohibits the use of any government funds to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Now, on the other legislation, which deals with contempt, Mr. Speaker, we know from Special Counsel Mueller's report that there was a sweeping and systematic assault on America's elections in 2016. There was a conscious effort and plan by Vladimir Putin and the GRU to undermine and destabilize the American elections by interfering and hacking into the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Hillary Clinton's offices to inject poisonous ideological propaganda into the body politic of America through Facebook, through Twitter, through YouTube and other social media entities and then to directly hack into the State boards of election. The Department of Justice launched a special counsel inquiry. It was a Republican Attorney General who named a Republican special counsel, Mr. Mueller, to do it. The President of the United States, according to Special Counsel Mueller's report, engaged in at least 10 different episodes of efforts to interfere with that investigation, to obstruct justice. We received that report a couple of months ago from the special counsel. In the aftermath of it, President Trump said, ``We are fighting all subpoenas,'' and declared that there would be no cooperation from the executive branch with legislative branch subpoenas, with our demands for documents, with our demands for witnesses, with our demands for testimony from the executive branch. He said: ``I don't want people testifying,'' and, ``There is no reason to go any further.'' And since then, they have drawn a curtain down over the executive branch of government and defied the lawful orders of the Congress of the United States. The Trump administration is stonewalling, from pillar to post, congressional investigations, defying validly issued congressional subpoenas. So, for example, Attorney General Barr is refusing to produce the full unredacted Mueller report and the related underlying evidence to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Every other independent special counsel had simply turned their report over to Congress and Congress did the redactions, but Attorney General Barr engaged in a series of games with the Congress of the United States and confused the American public, as Special Counsel Mueller complained in a letter that he sent to the Attorney General. He is also defying a House Intelligence Committee subpoena directing him to turn over documents and materials related to Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, including all counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials produced during the investigation. Don McGahn, the former White House counsel, has defied a subpoena issued by the House Committee on the Judiciary without any substantial legal basis at all. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is defying a subpoena from the House Ways and Means Committee directing him to produce the President's tax returns under a statute that makes it crystal clear that Congress has a right to obtain the tax returns of the President or any other citizen of the United States. Commerce Secretary Ross and Attorney General William Barr are refusing to comply with duly authorized bipartisan subpoenas from the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which is investigating the administration's shadowy and illicit efforts to add an illegitimate citizenship question to the 2020 Census completely outside of the Administrative Procedures Act process. Several District Courts have struck that down. But, in any event, the administration is refusing to turn over evidence, relevant evidence, to Congress about this effort to impose the citizenship question on the census. The administration is refusing to turn over documents, witnesses, and testimony relating to the corruption of the security clearance process in the White House personnel office. There were 25 different individuals who were denied a security clearance by the professional staff in the White House personnel office, who were then overruled by President Trump or political appointees. We are trying to get information as to what was the basis for the original denial. It was, likely, conflict with foreign governments or financial conflicts of interest. It might also have been drug or alcohol problems. But we want to get the details of each one, and then we want to know if there is any written documentation of why the President and his subordinates overturned those. In all of these cases, Mr. Speaker, the executive branch of government has followed President Trump's orders to say, simply: We are not going to turn anything over to Congress. Now, understand, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that it is an essential and integral aspect of legislative power to engage in investigation and factfinding. That is how the people's Representatives are able to legislate: We are able to get information. But if you shut down our ability to get information, we cannot engage in lawmaking. For that reason, we have begun to win in all of these Federal District Court cases where we are going out to try to get this information. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot tie up the floor of the House of Representatives every time the executive branch decides to follow the order of the President and simply deny us the information that we seek. My friends across the aisle know from the Fast and Furious investigation, the Hillary Clinton email investigation, the Benghazi investigation it is Congress' right to investigate and to obtain the documents that it wants. They obtained millions of documents in those investigations. We had a right to get them then, and we have a right to get all of these documents now. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will give the power, first of all, to the Committee on the Judiciary to follow through on the subpoenas that it has issued. It will also empower and authorize each chair of the House of Representatives to enforce their lawful subpoenas that are being dishonored and violated by the executive branch of government. So we are very proud to bring forward these two pieces of legislation, one which makes good on our commitment to the American people to continue to make progress in the fields of education, healthcare, labor, and scientific and medical research while, at the same time, we defend the Constitution, the rule of law, the prerogatives and powers of Congress against the lawlessness and the obstructionism of this administration. We are the preeminent and primary branch of government. The very first sentence of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure 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 for the United States of America.'' The second sentence that follows is all legislative power is vested in the Congress of the United States. The sovereign power of the people comes right through the preamble into Article I, establishing us as the representatives of the people. Then you get dozens of paragraphs setting forth all the powers of Congress: to declare war, to raise revenues, to write budgets, to impeach the President or other executive branch officials who commit high crimes and misdemeanors and to remove them in the Senate, to set up a post office, to govern the seat of government, and to establish a capital city. Those are the prerogatives and powers of Congress. Then you get to Article II, and Article II fixes the powers of the President. What are the President's core responsibilities? To take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That is the President's job: to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. It is even in Article II that the President can be impeached, in Section 4. Just to make it clear, the President works for the Congress; the Congress doesn't work for the President. And we, the Congress, work for the people. That is what it means to have a representative democracy. We work for the people. Now, we have a President who is in an unprecedented, wholesale, categorical defiance of the powers of Congress by denying us the information that we seek to obtain, which is our right and which is our need. We are going to get it, and we are going to get it by empowering Congress to go to court to enforce our subpoenas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear from my friend from Oklahoma about both of these bills. We were here together last night until around midnight, working on the rules for these bills. On H.R. 2740, the appropriations package that we have together, we have authorized more than 100--I think the number is 112--bipartisan amendments. In fact, I think the first amendment is one that is from the gentleman from Oklahoma. We have made that first. I won't be voting for it. I won't be supporting it, but he has the opportunity to make his case on the floor of the House of Representatives and to present it to colleagues. We are proud of the fact that there are more than 100 amendments. In fact, I think we are meeting again this afternoon, and we might adopt dozens more amendments, for the consideration of the full House. But on the question of H. Res. 430, which is to empower the Judiciary Committee and the other committees in Congress to enforce our right to obtain information that we seek, I think that this should be an overriding, bipartisan commitment within the Article I branch, within the Congress of the United States. We simply cannot tolerate a posture from the President of the United States--and it is hard for me to think of any other Congress that would tolerate it from any other President--of noncooperation and absolute, comprehensive, and wholesale defiance of the will of Congress in trying to seek information. My good friend from Oklahoma says that the President does not work to enforce the laws of Congress; he works for the people. Well, we all work for the people. That was my point. His job is to take care that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed. We work directly for the people. At least until we get a national popular vote for President, the President is not elected by the people, as we know from the 2016 election itself where the popular vote winner, who gained several million more votes than Donald Trump did, lost the election because of the workings of the electoral college. The Presidency was set up as an indirect mechanism, and that is something that I think that we should be replacing. But I think it is not appropriate to claim a popular mandate for the President when the President emerges from the electoral college. In any event, the President's job is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed and also to be the Commander in Chief in times of actual conflict, but it is up to Congress to legislate. That is what we do. That is why it is so problematic when the President of the United States says: I will not accept a bipartisan congressional rejection of billions of dollars in funding for my border wall; I am going to declare a national emergency and then reprogram money from other lawfully appropriated purposes. That is a violation of the spending power of the Congress of the United States. It is just like the President rejecting a bipartisan repudiation of his involvement with the Saudi Government in the Yemeni civil war. We have not declared war with Saudi Arabia against Iran or anybody else in the Yemeni conflict, and so we don't want to be involved in it. We don't want our money going to that bloody humanitarian catastrophe, and yet the President simply rejects the majority will of both Houses of Congress. That is a decisive rejection in defiance of Congress' power to declare war. Now what we are getting is this complete defiance of our ability to get the information that we need. The President said it very clearly. He basically said: No subpoenas, no witnesses--enough--and no do-overs. So he is not going to allow us to investigate the compromised security clearance process and the White House is not going to allow us to investigate the completely suspect corruption and distortion of the constitutional mandate for a Census which we have got to do by virtue of the Constitution every 10 years, and he is not going to cooperate with any investigation into the matters that were covered by Special Counsel Mueller; the organized, systematic comprehensive, sweeping attack on our elections by the GRU and Russian agents or the more than 100 contacts they had with the Trump campaign or the 10 different episodes of Presidential obstruction of justice that were set forth by Special Counsel Mueller in his report. We can't accept that. So this legislation in H.R. 430 will give us the opportunity to go to court right away to enforce our subpoenas against this unprecedented defiance of congressional power by the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all of us, of course, embrace and uphold the First Amendment and the rights of religious freedom, the right to not have government establish a religion and to participate in the free exercise of religion and to worship or to not worship exactly as you please. There is nothing in any of our legislation that would interfere with anybody's right to exercise precisely their religious preference to worship exactly as they please and to belong to whatever religious faith or denomination they want. I am not quite sure exactly what the gentleman was referring to. We know that the idea of a religious freedom to discriminate has been asserted ever since the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where the hotel and motel, lunch counter and department store owners said that they had a religious right to only serve the customers that they wanted and that it violated their religious faith to have interracial parties seated in restaurants or at the lunch counter. Our Supreme Court rejected that, and this Congress has rejected that. There have been similar efforts to say we have a constitutional right not to serve gay and lesbian customers. That has been rejected, and I hope that this Congress will also reject it. We passed the Equality Act very proudly to add protection for LGBT people to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I hope that the Senate will go along with it. In any event, there is nothing in any of the legislation before us and none has been cited which violates any of the free exercise rights of the people. So with that, unless I hear anything further, I am not moved by how anybody is affected by this appropriation negatively. My other good friend from Oklahoma referenced the phrase checks and balances, and that does appear in the Federalist Papers. I think it is in Federalist 51. It actually refers to the relationship between the House and the Senate. That was the design of the Framers of the Constitution that the House and the Senate would check and balance each other. But the Framers were very clear that we were overthrowing monarchy. We didn't want monarchy. That is why we got rid of the king. The revolutionaries and the rebels who gave us America and who wrote the Constitution were trying to institute a new form of government representing We the People. That is why we are so proud to be able to serve in the people's House here along with our friends in the Senate. But the President's core job is to take care that our laws are faithfully executed. We have no kings here; we have no monarchs here. That is why we have the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution which says that none of us who serves in Washington can accept any present-- any emoluments, which just means a payment--any office or title from a prince, a king, or a foreign government without the consent of Congress. That is a cardinal principle in the Constitution. It is our original anti-corruption principle because the Framers did not want the President or Members of Congress selling out the country. They wanted complete, undivided loyalty by those of us who come to Washington, who aspire and obtain the public office to have complete, undivided loyalty to the American people and not to lobbyists for foreign governments, agents, and saboteurs. So that is another real problem that this President seems not to recognize. That provision obligates him whenever he receives any money from a foreign government through his hotel or his office towers or any of his going businesses that he has kept going in the course of his tenure, whenever he receives any of that money, he has got to come to Congress to ask for our permission and for our consent. Mr. Speaker, we can show you records from lots of prior Presidents who came to Congress to ask for a consent because they received a Persian rug, or a shawl, or cufflinks. Yet--at least according to court reports and media reports--this President has been receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars from foreign governments. In fact, the President I think made a voluntary deposit he said of the profits from foreign government receipts of $350,000 to the U.S. Treasury without any accounting to us, without any receipts, and without asking for our consent. So even if the Constitution says that you can't accept the profits from foreign payments, which it doesn't, it says you can't accept foreign payments. That would be insufficient because Congress has got to offer its consent. Look, we need to lay down the law about all of these matters. When we ask for a document, we want the document. When we issue a subpoena from the United States Congress, you comply with the subpoena. When we ask for a witness, the witness arrives. That is what H.R. 430 is all about. We have got to empower Congress to enforce its will. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I still have not heard a single instance offered from anybody whose religious freedoms under the Constitution of the United States are threatened by any of the legislation here. I do know that the ultimate logic of the argument that we just heard here is to support legislation like what was just passed in the State of Alabama. In Alabama today--please read an article in the Washington Post this morning, Mr. Speaker--in Alabama today if this legislation is signed into law, a 15-year-old girl who is raped by her step-uncle not only would not be able to obtain an abortion, because there is no exception for rape or incest in the ban that the legislature just passed, but she would be compelled to have him involved in the raising of the child because Alabama protects the paternity rights of the rapist. So it is one of only two States in the country where a rapist continues to have parenthood rights in the child. So get this straight. If what we are hearing is actually enacted into law--and I understand my colleagues to be encouraging legislation like this around the country, like the law in Alabama--we will have a situation where girls who are 15 or 14 or 13 or 16 years old who are raped by their stepfathers or step-uncles must carry a child to term, have the baby, and in some States be forced to raise the baby with the rapist. So I don't think that is where we are today in America under Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, and certainly the majority is going to stand very strong for healthcare for women and reproductive freedom for women and men to make their own decisions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. RASKIN

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

Mr. RASKIN

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

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cathy Hughes, who was recently inducted into the National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame, making her the first African American woman to receive that honor. Cathy's world-famous business, Radio One (now Urban One), is headquartered in my district, in Silver Spring, Maryland, and I am very proud of her and the more than 1,000 people employed there by Urban One. Cathy began her radio career at KOWH-AM in her hometown of Omaha, Nebraska. In 1971, she became a lecturer at the newly established School of Communications at Howard University, and served as general sales manager at WHUR, Howard University Radio. She also became the first female Vice President and General Manager of a station in the Nation's Capital and pioneered the format known as the ``Quiet Storm,'' which aired on more than 480 stations nationwide. In 1980, Cathy purchased her flagship station WOL-AM, in Washington, D.C., and pioneered yet another innovative format--``24-Hour Talk from a Black Perspective.'' With the theme, ``Information is Power,'' she served as the station's morning show host for 11 years. In 1999, Cathy became the first African-American woman to chair a publicly-held corporation. Along with her son and business partner, she grew what was then Radio One into a multi-media company that became an urban radio market leader with more than 60 stations across the country. It became the first African-American company in radio history to dominate several major markets simultaneously, and Cathy became the first woman to own a radio station that was ranked number one in a major market. I commend Cathy Hughes for her pioneering contributions over the course of her career and congratulate her on her induction into the National Association of Broadcasters' Broadcasting Hall of Fame.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to strike a bipartisan note and invoke a Republican President who made America truly great, Abraham Lincoln, who served in this body and spoke of government of the people, by the people, and for the people--all the people. In 1964, our predecessors in the House stood here and voted 333-85 to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The vast majority of Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans voted for it, and we changed America by bringing down the walls of racial and ethnic discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and education. Our predecessors rejected the familiar hysterical arguments that equal rights for African Americans in restaurants and hotels and at lunch counters meant discrimination against the religious rights of the owners of the restaurants and the motels and lunch counters, which is precisely the argument that was made back in that day. Today, we legislate equal rights under the exact same act for millions of Americans in the LGBT community. This is a triumphant and glorious moment for the House of Representatives and for the United States of America. But our friends who now occupy the seats of Lincoln's party tell us that children will be able to get surgery without their parents' consent. This is false, and this is propaganda. Every State in the Union requires parental consent before their minor children get surgery, and nothing in this act will affect any of the States' laws in any way with respect to parental consent. Let's honor Abraham Lincoln. Let's honor the best traditions of the United States of America. Let's bring down the walls of discrimination against all Americans. Let's pass the Equality Act.