A bill to provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this restrictive rule, and I rise in strong opposition to the underlying legislation.

Because of Republican in-fighting, Congress was unable to do one of its most basic jobs last year, passing a full budget for FY17. So now House Republicans have brought this budget bill to the floor, but we all know that this is just a vehicle for them to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away health care from millions and millions of Americans.

For nearly 7 years, my Republican friends have railed against the Affordable Care Act. Their well-funded allies have spent billions of dollars distorting the ACA and lying to the American people about what it actually does. And for nearly 7 years there has not been a single comprehensive healthcare bill brought to the floor by Republicans as a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. Not one.

We have voted over 60 times to repeal the ACA on the House floor. I will be the first to admit that ACA is not perfect, but rather than work together to tweak it or to make it better, all we get from them are repeal bills, repeal bills, repeal bills. Let me again point out that not once, not once, was there a replacement bill offered.

Not only do Republicans not have a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act and protect access to health care for more than 20 million Americans who gained coverage, they can't even agree on a timeline for when they will pass their replacement. President-elect Trump says repeal and replace will be done on the same day, and he wants it to happen now. Representative Steve Scalise said Republicans will replace the ACA over the course of the next few months. Senator John Thune said it could take 2 or 3 years for the replacement to be implemented. Representative Chris Collins said Republicans have 6 months to work out the replacement plan, and Senator Mitch McConnell refused to even give a timeline, just saying that it would happen.

Well, while the Republicans fight with each other over timelines, I think it is appropriate to ask: If they did have a replacement, what would that replacement be?

Well, President-elect Trump has the answer. When asked what we should replace ObamaCare with, he said: ``Something terrific.'' When pressed for further details, and more specificity, he said: ``Something that people will really, really, really like.''

Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. It is tragic because what Republicans are trying to do is take healthcare protections away from millions and millions of families.

Now, no one in this Congress has to worry about health care if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the Donald Trumps of the world certainly don't have to worry about health care if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. If someone in their family gets really sick, they will just sell some stocks or close down another American factory or not pay their workers, as our President-elect has been known to do on many, many occasions.

But for millions of Americans, it will be a different story. Repealing the ACA would mean over 30 million Americans would lose coverage, including nearly 4 million children. More than 52 million individuals with preexisting conditions could have coverage rescinded or see their premiums dramatically increased. Millions of young adults would be unable to stay on their parents' plans until they are 26. Over 14 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid under the expansion would lose coverage, and nearly 140 million individuals with private insurance would lose access to preventive services without copays and deductibles. And millions of seniors would see their prescription drug prices increase because it would reopen the so-called doughnut hole that the ACA has begun to close.

Republicans want to slash Medicaid, a healthcare program that does a lot of good stuff and enables mothers to work their way out of poverty by providing affordable coverage for their children. As someone who represents Massachusetts, this is especially personal because Medicaid is one of the best tools we have in the fight against opioid addiction, providing real care for the addiction and underlying conditions that drive the opioid epidemic in our communities. Repealing Medicaid expansion under the ACA would rip coverage away from an estimated 1.6 million newly insured individuals with substance use disorders.

That is what is at stake, and that is what my Republican colleagues are so happy, giddy, and excited to do. It is sad. It is pathetic, but they are moving forward anyway with no replacement in sight. I suppose they can roll out their oldies but goodies, like health savings accounts or their other healthcare prescription, take two tax breaks and call me in the morning. But that doesn't do it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a complicated healthcare system, no doubt. I wish it were simpler. That is why I have always favored a single-payer system and that is why I favored a public option. But the problem with our system before ObamaCare was that it left all the decisions up to the insurance companies.

Do you remember the days when insurance companies could charge women more for health insurance because they said being a woman was a preexisting condition?

They can't do that anymore. Why? Not because of my Republican friends. They can't do it anymore because we passed the ACA.

This budget bill would also give Republicans a green light to defund Planned Parenthood. To my colleagues who are so anxious to defund Planned Parenthood just to satisfy their rightwing base, let me ask: Have you ever visited a Planned Parenthood clinic? Because if you had, you would understand why what you are doing is so wrong.

The fact is that Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in protecting and providing access to critical health services for both women and men. One in five women has relied on a Planned Parenthood health center for care in her lifetime, and Planned Parenthood serves 2.7 million patients each year. One of the most important statistics that my Republican friends like to ignore is that more than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does nationally is preventive care, including cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, and family planning, not abortion services.

Add to this fact that Planned Parenthood clinics are often one of the few affordable healthcare options available for many women. Nearly 80 percent of women using Planned Parenthood clinics have incomes at or below 150 percent of poverty. It is easy to see why a majority of Americans don't think Federal funding should be eliminated. In one recent poll, 63 percent of voters,

including 72 percent of independents, do not agree with my Republican friends that Federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be eliminated.

In fact, we also heard very little about the consequences that defunding Planned Parenthood would have for families across the country. One of the biggest myths perpetrated by Republicans is the idea that our Nation's community health centers, which I love and adore and respect, could suddenly pick up the slack if Planned Parenthood is defunded.

For the millions of low-income women who depend on Planned Parenthood clinics, defunding them would mean the loss of affordable and accessible contraceptive services and counseling, as well as breast and cervical cancer screenings. Simply put, for the many communities served by Planned Parenthood clinics, recklessly cutting funding would wipe out access to vital health services for the people who need them the most.

Let me make something very clear. Zero Federal dollars go towards the abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood--zero. The vast majority of funding that Planned Parenthood receives comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements for preventive care that they provide.

Mr. Speaker, it is a cruel thing to do, to take away people's health care. I will say to my Republican colleagues that they need to know that we are going to fight you every step of the way on this. There are some battles on behalf of the American people that are worth having and worth fighting, and this is one of them--making sure that their health care protections remain intact. I came to Congress to help people, not make their lives more miserable.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me comment briefly on the other piece of legislation in this rule, S. 84. General James Mattis has been praised by both Democrats and Republicans, but there is very real concern about civilian control over the military, the language of the underlying legislation, and the duties and responsibilities of the House of Representatives.

General Mattis has a distinguished career, but we are talking about changing the law here. Approving a waiver for him to serve in the Cabinet so soon after his military service is a serious decision. It is so serious that such a waiver has happened only once before in the entire history of the United States. Now, we should debate this. Instead, the Trump transition team canceled General Mattis' testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and now expects us to vote for him willy-nilly without us being able to ask him any questions.

Congress is supposed to be a check on the executive branch, but if the House is denied the opportunity to meet with and question the military officer who is nominated as our next Defense Secretary, how can we fulfill our duty and blindly just vote for him?

I would also say to my Republican friends, this is an early warning sign of the disregard that this new administration has for the House of Representatives. General Mattis was willing to testify, but the Trump team said no. They said no to the House of Representatives. Caving in on this issue will only mean continued disregard for the people's House in the future, and I think that that is regrettable.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things.

First of all, according to the Brookings Institution, without the ACA, insurance premiums would be 44 percent higher.

And the other fact I point out for my colleagues is that healthcare costs are growing at the slowest rate in the last 50 years. Families are spending over $3,500 a year less than they would have because of the ACA. I would say to my colleagues, yeah, we want to do better, but let's work to address some of the shortcomings of the ACA rather than repeal it and put in danger all these healthcare protections that people have.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for the consideration of Representative Pocan's amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor, to create a point of order against any legislation that would cut benefits under Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid or that would attempt to privatize Social Security. All are things that my Republican friends have advocated for in previous budgets.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of the amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me respond to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, by saying that I don't know what he is talking about. The Pocan amendment is pretty clear. It says that there will be a point of order against any legislation that would cut the benefits under Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid or would attempt to privatize Social Security.

Now, I know my Republican friends want to privatize Social Security, because they tried that in the past; and I know they want to privatize Medicare and turn it into a voucher system, because that is what their budgets continually do. I mean, that is what we are trying to prevent.

If you want to privatize Social Security, if you want to privatize Medicare and turn it into a voucher system, then stand with them. But if you want to protect these programs--and the vast majority of Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents want to protect the integrity of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--then oppose this budget.

By the way, this budget, basically, is the green light to go ahead and destroy the protections that people value in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to help the gentleman understand the benefits of the ACA in his home State of Georgia:

There are 468,000 individuals in the State who have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented, and now they could lose it if he gets his way.

478,000 individuals in the State who were able to purchase high- quality marketplace coverage now stand to lose that coverage if the gentleman gets his way.

In 2016, 427,000 individuals in the State have received financial assistance to purchase marketplace coverage; they are at risk of losing that.

65,000 kids have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented in the State of Georgia.

74,000 young adults are able to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 26 because of the ACA.

That is all in Georgia. So I would hope the gentleman would understand what is happening in his own State before he votes to repeal it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts. The facts with regard to the process in which the Affordable Care Act was developed, I think, are worth repeating here.

In the House of Representatives, we held nearly 100 hours of hearings and 83 hours of committee markups. The House heard from 181 witnesses, both Democrats and Republicans. 239 amendments were considered in the three committees of jurisdiction, and 121 of them were adopted. The bill was available for 72 hours before Members were asked to vote on the floor.

In the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee held more than 53 hearings. The committee also spent 8 days marking up the legislation, the longest

markup in the 22 years of the committee. The Senate Health Committee held 47 bipartisan hearings, roundtables, and walkthroughs on the healthcare reform bill.

So to say that this was not a thoughtful process is just wrong.

Compare that to the way this budget bill is being brought to the floor. There is no committee consideration, no deliberation. It is just given to us. In fact, most of the committees aren't even organized yet in the House of Representatives.

So there is a contrast there, and I stand with the way we approached the Affordable Care Act as opposed to the way the Republicans have approached this budget deal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have been willing to work with our Republican friends to try to improve the Affordable Care Act for nearly 7 years. They have been unwilling to work with us in a bipartisan way. Instead, they just want to repeal, repeal, repeal.

Now, I don't know what their motivation is. Maybe it is because they don't like President Obama. Judging from some of the rhetoric that we have heard on this House floor over these years, I think some of the Members over there actually hate the President of the United States, and this is all driven by this personal animosity.

Let me just say to the gentleman that the Affordable Care Act may have started out with a different bill number, but the facts remain that there were hundreds of hours of hearings on the Affordable Care Act, 181 witnesses testified; hundreds of amendments were considered in committee.

The process of using a different bill number is very common in both Chambers. In fact, the House Republicans have done it several times in the past 3 years. Regardless of the bill number, the work that went into forming this legislation was one of the most open processes in the history of the Congress, and it has resulted in providing protections and health care for millions and millions of people in this country. All of that is at risk with this budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, we believe healthcare protections ought to be enshrined in the law and not left up to insurance companies.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Medical Association, a letter from 120 interfaith groups, a letter from the Consumers Union, a letter from the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association, a letter from a number of labor organizations in my home State of Massachusetts, and a letter from UMassMemorial Community Healthlink, which is a provider of comprehensive health care in my district. They are all opposed to undoing the Affordable Care Act.

American Medical Association,

Chicago, IL, January 3, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles E. Schumer,

Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker

Ryan and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the physician and

medical student members of the American Medical Association

(AMA), I am writing regarding our ongoing commitment to

reform of the health care system and potential legislative

actions during the first months of the 115th Congress.

The AMA has long advocated for health insurance coverage

for all Americans, as well as pluralism, freedom of choice,

freedom of practice, and universal access for patients. These

policy positions are guided by the actions of the AMA House

of Delegates, composed of representatives of more than 190

state and national specialty medical associations, and they

form the basis for AMA consideration of reforms to our health

care system. (A summary of key AMA objectives for health

system reform is attached.)

Health system reform is an ongoing quest for improvement.

The AMA supported passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

because it was a significant improvement on the status quo at

that time. We continue to embrace the primary goal of that

law--to make high quality, affordable health care coverage

accessible to all Americans. We also recognize that the ACA

is imperfect and there a number of issues that need to be

addressed. As such, we welcome proposals, consistent with the

policies of our House of Delegates, to make coverage more

affordable, provide greater choice, and increase the number

of those insured.

In considering opportunities to make coverage more

affordable and accessible to all Americans, it is essential

that gains in the number of Americans with health insurance

coverage be maintained.

Consistent with this core principle, we believe that before

any action is taken through reconciliation or other means

that would potentially alter coverage, policymakers should

lay out for the American people, in reasonable detail, what

will replace current policies. Patients and other

stakeholders should be able to clearly compare current policy

to new proposals so they can make informed decisions about

whether it represents a step forward in the ongoing process

of health reform.

We stand ready to work with you to continue the process of

improving our health care system and ensuring that all

Americans have access to high quality, affordable health care

coverage.

Sincerely,

James L. Madara, MD,

Executive Vice President, CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and that would allow us to vote on an amendment by Mr. Pocan which would create a point of order against any legislation that would cut the benefits under Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, or attempts to privatize Social Security.

So if you want to protect those programs, and if you are against privatizing Social Security, then vote against the previous question so we can bring this up.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this is a sad day because what we are doing here by voting for this budget is setting in motion a process to deny millions of people healthcare protections. I can't imagine why anybody would want to do that.

Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No, and we are the first to admit it. We want to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen it, to make it better, and to make it less onerous on certain businesses. But my colleagues don't want to do that. They are determined just to vote for an outright repeal, and that is going to hurt countless people in this country, people who have now benefited from no preexisting conditions, people who have benefited from allowing their kids to stay on their insurance until they are 26, and senior citizens who have benefited from closing the doughnut hole. I could go on and on and on. All of that is about to be eliminated.

We are told that there will be replacement someday, somehow. For 6 years--over 6 years--you have been talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act and a replacement, and you haven't brought one bill to the floor--not one.

Now, we believe that health care ought to be a right; I know you don't. We believe that healthcare protections ought to be in law; you believe they ought to be up to the insurance company. But this is a lousy thing to do. As I said in my opening statement, we are going to fight you on this. This is a fight worth having. Protecting people's health care is something that we all should be dedicated to, and we're going to fight you on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend, 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 48 provides for consideration of S. Con. Res. 3, the FY17 budget resolution, as well as consideration of a bill to move forward on the process of confirming our civilian Secretary of Defense, former General Mattis.

Mr. Speaker, the rule is a structured rule today to move expeditiously on both of these measures, and in the time we have gotten to spend together, Mr. Speaker, you know I am a fan of the festival of democracy that can be the Committee on Rules process, particularly the appropriations process. But there are times where moving expeditiously is required, and today is one of those days.

You are not going to see a rule like this come very often because we are considering the FY17 budget resolution today. Historically, as you know, in this Chamber, when we get ready to consider budget resolutions, Mr. Speaker, we are considering every single one that any Member of Congress would have an opportunity to write. That process takes place every spring to meet the statutory deadline of passing budgets by April. This is not that budget today, Mr. Speaker.

This is a budget, as you know, to move us forward on a reconciliation process to finish up the FY17 budget process, and rather than considering all the amendments that one might have to offer, we have made in order just one. It is the Democratic substitute. It is offered by my good friend, the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, Mr. Yarmuth, and it is absolutely worthy of the Membership's consideration. But it is not going to be a vote-a-rama on every budget known to mankind. It will be the underlying budget from the House Committee on the Budget as well as one substitute from the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to consideration of the measure to waive a statutory prohibition on naming a civilian Secretary of Defense who has been out of the military for less than 7 years, we are also offering that under a closed rule today. No amendments are going to be made in order. You may not know, Mr. Speaker, but that is the

only statutory change that has passed the United States Senate in 2017.

When we talk about having to move expeditiously, when we talk about whether or not we are going to have an open process or a closed process, understand that while this body has passed dozens of statutory changes in just these first 9 days of legislative activity, the Senate has passed but one. This is in anticipation of an inauguration of a President on January 20. This is in anticipation of trying to fill out a Cabinet. This is in anticipation of trying to make sure that civilian leadership is in place on day one to lead and to serve the men and women of the United States military.

This is not the time to have that vote-a-rama. This is the time to move expeditiously, again, with a bill that has passed in a bipartisan way in the other Chamber. I look forward to getting back into the business of leading the Senate, not following the Senate. I look forward to getting back in the business of voting on absolutely every idea that Members bring to this floor.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we can move expeditiously on two of our priorities: passing that FY17 budget resolution and ensuring the speedy confirmation of the civilian leader of the Department of Defense.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who probably knows more about the Health and Human Services Appropriations bill than anyone else in this Congress, the cardinal from that committee in the 114th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to thank my colleague for her admonition to reject divisive and self-serving rhetoric because I think that is absolutely something we should take to heart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee and a new member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Reluctantly I recognize that we are, apparently, not going to have an end to divisive, self-serving rhetoric. I am still optimistic, as it is a long year ahead of us.

What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) is suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we ensure the failure of Social Security going forward. The only guaranteed benefit in Social Security is that it is guaranteed to fail. Those are not my words. These are the words of the actuaries who are in charge of protecting Social Security. The nonpartisan actuaries who govern Social Security say that there is not enough money today to pay the benefits that folks are expecting. The law of the land, as it exists today, requires that, when that day comes, benefits will get cut dramatically. Only a 75 percent realization of benefits is what the law requires that befalls our senior citizens. If we pass the amendment that is suggested by my friend, we would be prohibited from considering any solutions to that problem. Means testing, which my colleagues have advocated for years, is off the table under that scenario.

Mr. Speaker, to suggest that anyone on this side of the aisle wants to undermine the commitment that this country has made to our seniors is ludicrous; but to suggest that I go to a 22-year-old, whose polling today suggests he or she believes they are more likely to see a UFO in their lifetime than a Social Security check in their lifetime--to suggest that going to that 22-year-old and my thinking that maybe his retirement age would be a year or two higher than his great- grandparents' since he is now living decades longer--I will remind my colleagues we came together in a bipartisan way to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 in 1983, not because one of us hated seniors and one of us loved seniors, but because we all believed in our commitment to seniors.

Mr. Speaker, don't let the Record reflect anything other than that this budget resolution provides the framework to begin this discussion, to begin the discussion of what comes next. There is not a single line of authorizing language in this budget resolution. Any suggestion that the law will change tomorrow because of this budget resolution is false. The law will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. The difference is we have begun a path--we will have created a framework; we will have provided the tools--to have a discussion about how to solve very real problems in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Massachusetts said in his opening statement that he didn't come to Congress to hurt people; that he came to help people. I want to stipulate that that is 100 percent true. There is no one in this Chamber who I believe has a bigger heart for men and

women than the gentleman from Massachusetts, which is why I know that he does not support what I see happening to my constituency.

He says people are paying less for their health care today. I dispute those numbers writ large, but I know it is true in my district because the free healthcare clinic has doubled since the passage of ObamaCare. Folks once had access to small plans that they chose for their families. Those plans were outlawed. Now they have high deductible plans that are worthless to them, so they seek care at the free clinics. I know that ripping the plans out from under those men and women in my district was not the gentleman's intention when he passed the Affordable Care Act, but it is absolutely the result.

I know that when the gentleman set up those exchanges, which all Americans were supposed to be able to go to to buy their healthcare plans, he did not intend for those plans to get canceled year after year after year after year, because they were unsustainable. We all know, of the constituents in our districts who did what the government told them to do, they lost the plans their employers used to provide; they went to the exchanges to buy a plan; and, 1 year later, those plans were canceled. They went through the process again: they picked out other plans; they went through the exchanges and paid their money; and, 1 year later, those plans were canceled again and again.

We all know those constituents; so to suggest that the only reason someone would come to the floor today would be to solve a nonexistent problem is ridiculous. We all know that there are problems. What is ridiculous are the folks who would come and defend the status quo. The status quo is indefensible, Mr. Speaker.

When we get together, we can do amazing things. There are vast experiences of the Members in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and our bringing those to the table leads to better solutions. We have spent 6 years being stuck in the status quo, and this bill represents an opportunity to turn the page on that status quo, and I know every single Member has constituents in his district who will welcome it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was not in Congress at the time the Affordable Care Act passed, but I remember it, watching from home. We talk about this as if it was some sort of thoughtfully crafted piece of legislation that folks are so tremendously proud of. I happen to have the numbers here, Mr. Speaker.

It was H.R. 4872 that moved through the House, that was the authorizing part. We had three votes in the U.S. House of Representatives on that bill. We had a motion to recommit, as it was not actually a healthcare bill to begin with, and a vote on final passage.

Then it went over to the U.S. Senate where they worked their will on it. They had 43 votes on it, amendments offered, ideas, and changes.

Then it came back to the House where we changed it not at all. There was one straight partisan vote on the Affordable Care Act. Not one idea from the U.S. House of Representatives added, not one change from the U.S. House of Representatives, not one alteration of any kind.

As you recall, Mr. Speaker, they had a filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate, so Democrats could work their will any way they wanted. When they lost that filibuster-proof majority--they only had 59 votes out of 100 instead of 60--they ended debate, they ended discussion, they ended collaboration and jammed what they had passed at midnight on Christmas Eve right on through the U.S. House of Representatives. I can't imagine who defends that as the proper outcome of the legislative process. We have a chance to change that, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that my friend from Connecticut has some constituents that have benefited. I have some constituents that have benefited. But I have constituents who are being failed, and I know my friend from Connecticut does, too.

I am glad that my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about all of their success stories, but I want my friends to join me and grapple with all of the failures.

I will not deny the way the conversation about health care has changed since the passage of the Affordable Care Act--folks talking about preexisting conditions, folks talking about lifetime caps, folks talking about keeping young kids on their policies until they are 26.

I just don't understand why my colleagues would deny that folks who used to have care, now don't. Folks who used to have affordable plans, now don't. Folks who used to be able to take care of their employees through their small business plans, now can't. This is undisputed, and we have an opportunity to do better. I hope my colleagues will join me in doing that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to share with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that one is not entitled to their own facts, but one is also not entitled to share just half the story and leave it as if it is the entire story.

Everything the gentleman from Massachusetts said was true, until the U.S. House abdicated any responsibility whatsoever and passed exactly what the Senate did with no amendment whatsoever. All of the work product the gentleman talked about, all of the work that the gentleman talked about went for naught in this U.S. House of Representatives.

To deny that this is not the bill that folks wanted to have crafted is to deny reality. To deny that this is not the bill that folks wanted to have crafted is to deny the nine different times the Republican House and Senate sent to the President repeals of ObamaCare, things that were so broken even the President couldn't live with it and he signed those repeals into law.

Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to denigrate any of the motives of my friends on the other side of the aisle. I just can't understand, for the life of me, why they don't want to try to do better.

That pride of authorship, that arrogance, it has a real impact on the men and women that I serve, and I am asking my friends to partner with me to help me fix it. But if they won't partner with me, I am going to move forward and fix it anyway.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say absolutely none of that is true. Absolutely not one word of that is true. This bill does not one of those things. This bill does, in fact, nothing to change the law at all in any way, shape, or form. It is not true. This bill provides a process for debating the law, and I certainly hope we will pass it so we can have that debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Massachusetts I do not have any further speakers and would be happy to close when he is prepared.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am fond of telling folks back home, Mr. Speaker, when they tell me they know exactly what is going to happen over the next 2 years, that I don't think they are telling me the truth. Because I confess to you, I have absolutely no idea what is coming over these next 2 years. I think these next 2 years are going to be unlike any we have seen in the history of self-governance in this land; and, candidly, I am excited about that because the status quo isn't working for the 700,000 people that I represent.

I don't know what's going to happen over these next 2 years, but I believe that, for the first time, we are going to grapple with some really, really, really hard problems that folks on both sides of the aisle have been ignoring for too long.

Mr. Speaker, I don't question the commitment of my friends on the other side of the aisle to the American people. I question the legislation that they use to deliver it. You heard my friend from Oklahoma talk about premiums going up 67 percent for his constituents. That is indefensible. It is not okay. We can do better, and, with the passage of this budget resolution, we will have the tools to do that. I say again, the law will be the same tomorrow as it is today, but we will have the tools to grapple with these problems.

Eight million Americans were so failed by the Affordable Care Act that they paid a tax penalty instead of accessing care. That is not okay. I don't believe a single Member on the other side of the aisle decided they just wanted to tax young people instead of provide young people with quality care. This budget will give us the opportunity to have the tools to fix that problem.

Billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, have gone into State-based co-ops that have failed, gone bankrupt, and terminated all of their plans which not only ripped health care out from under the American people, Mr. Speaker, but threw billions of dollars away in administrative costs at the same time. That is not okay. That is indefensible. We can do better. Passing this budget resolution will give us those tools.

Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment in the Rules Committee last night to do everything I could to stop poisoning the well of public discourse. Then I re-

upped for the Rules Committee, and I realized that is going to be a tough promise to fulfill. We have difficult work to do, and we are passionate about the quality of that work.

But, Mr. Speaker, we all know the status quo has failed. We all know that we have the opportunity to deliver, and we all know that a vote of ``yes'' on this budget resolution will give us more tools to deliver that success than we have today. We need to do this. We need to celebrate doing this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the rule and support the two underlying measures that it will bring to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman, and I want to thank the members of the Armed Services Committee. I think we had a very excellent debate on this issue yesterday in committee. A lot of very well thought-out opinions on both sides were expressed in a respectful way.

I also want to thank the chairman because the second that it was said that General Mattis was going to be the President-elect's selection for Secretary of Defense, he joined me in saying that we wanted General Mattis to appear before our committee to answer our questions. This is something that has only happened twice, and the first time in 67 years; and our committee members wanted the opportunity to do our job as the House Armed Services Committee and hear from the nominee about how he felt about the civilian control of the military, which is the reason that this law was put in place back in 1947. So I thank the chairman for that. Unfortunately, it didn't happen.

The one thing I would correct, we do have to pass this piece of legislation in order for General Mattis to become the Secretary of Defense. We do not have to do it now. I will explain more on how we can do that in just a second. But the problem of where we are at right now because of the actions of the transition team, we basically, certainly on the House Armed Services Committee and, to some extent, in the full House, are being treated as irrelevant.

It was mentioned during our committee that General Mattis received an 81-17 vote on this legislation in the Senate. That is true, it was bipartisan. He appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee was given the respect to do their job, and they heard him, and they asked him questions. It didn't take very long. He was done by 12:30, and they voted. That didn't happen for us.

Really, it is sort of a two-step process in which the legislative branch--in this case, the House--was basically ignored and treated as irrelevant. First was in the continuing resolution that we passed to keep the government open where, with guidance from the transition team, they insisted on very specific language in the CR to set it up so that General Mattis could be confirmed, and that was stuck into the CR. Now, we, on the Democratic side objected to a couple of things in that at the time, but those objections were ignored, and it was put in, and we were not prepared to shut down the government over this issue since it was put into the CR.

The chairman has mentioned one of the problems with it, and the biggest one, and that is in the past, in the case of General Marshall, they exempted him from this provision that retired officers are subject to the UCMJ. They did not exempt General Mattis. When we are talking about civilian control of the military, if you have a retired military officer who is still subject to military law, that, without question, blurs the line between his being a military officer and his being a civilian. It is something we easily could have fixed. But the way they wrote it into the CR there was no way for us to do that.

Then, second, and more--I can't think of the right word--second and worse, let's just put it that way, as we said, we agreed. We were going to have General Mattis come and talk to us. Both the chairman and I spoke to General Mattis on the phone. He was very anxious to come testify. In fact, 3 days ago, we noticed in our committee that we were going to have a public hearing with General Mattis before us answering our questions and addressing whatever concerns we might have. Then, the next day, 24 hours before he was supposed to appear, the transition team--and as I was led to believe, it was some low-level person on the transition team--said: Nah, we are not going to let him come.

Reporters have asked me many times: Why did the transition team do that? The best answer to that question is because they could, because they just really didn't feel like it. Some people have said: Well, it would be a lot of effort, a lot of work.

Like I said, General Mattis testified before the Senate committee. Most of us watched it on television. He was done at 12:30. We were scheduled to have him at 2:30. He could have had a nice lunch, walked over to the House, sat down for an hour, and the House Armed Services Committee could have been permitted to do its job.

The reason this is important--and I have heard for 8 years endless complaints from the Republican side of the aisle about how President Obama has ignored the legislative branch, how executive authority is making irrelevant the people's House, and how wrong that was. On a number of occasions I've actually agreed with them. I think that has happened.

But here we are before this President is even in office, at the very first opportunity, he is choosing to completely ignore us for no reason. You cannot tell me that General Mattis couldn't handle an hour- and-a-half's worth of questioning in the House Armed Services Committee. He has done it before countless times.

So what we can do and what I think we should do, what I think we should

have done at the time when the transition team called up and said that, is we should have said: Okay. We appreciate your opinion, but you need us to pass this law in order for General Mattis to be Secretary of Defense. We have been told that he is going to appear before our committee. We have told our members of the committee and everybody else that he is going to appear; and until he does, we are not going to pass that law.

Now, I am of the opinion that if we had said that, if we had shown some backbone and stood up for what is our right as the legislative body, that all of a sudden General Mattis would have been available and we could have avoided all of this.

Even today, I submit that if we defeat this bill on the floor, we couldn't get him in by January 20. I grant you that. But we are back January 23 and 24. We were scheduled to be here January 25. I gather that got canceled because the Republican retreat is going to be a bit longer than expected.

But we could certainly take that day back. We could wait 3 or 4 days, which I don't think would be the end of the world, and assert our authority as the legislative branch. Because, let me tell you something, if we set this precedent now, if you think President Obama exercised executive authority in a highhanded way, ignoring the legislative branch, there is every indication that President-elect Trump is going to have an even greater approach in that direction. So if we don't stand up for ourselves now, we are going to be rolled over countlessly.

We all want to support General Mattis. We want that bipartisan vote. The way to get that bipartisan vote is to do what we said we were going to do, have him come before the Armed Services Committee and simply address the issue we want to raise. That is why I would ask this body to reject this motion now, so that we can actually have the Armed Services Committee do its job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is not a vote against General Mattis. I think I made that very, very clear. I think it is very important that

the House have the opportunity to hear from him, as we said we were going to do.

Now, yes, he has appeared before the Senate. But, as all of us on the Armed Services Committee know, after the transition is over and the new Secretary of Defense is in place, one of the first things they do is come up and report the budget to us. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs will come up. They go to the Senate, too.

Are we just going to say we can watch the television? Why does he need to go to both places? Why would we bother to have him come all the way over to the House and have our members have the opportunity to ask him questions? I don't want to set that precedent.

So, as passionate as the previous speaker was, please understand--and I have expressed this directly to General Mattis--this is not a vote against General Mattis. In fact, I have said: if we have the opportunity to do our job as the House Armed Services Committee, if we simply do not roll over for the transition team, we would be more than happy to support General Mattis in a bipartisan way. We have plenty of time to do this right, instead of doing it in the rushed way that disregards the power and importance of the House Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I have an enormous amount of respect for the gentleman from California. I have enjoyed traveling with him to Afghanistan and elsewhere.

I think what he said in the first part of his remarks was, basically, the Trump administration is going to ignore us, and we just need to get used it. That is not my interpretation of our jobs. I think we were elected as well, particularly on the Armed Services Committee, and, in our elections, we even got more votes than our opponents. That is how we were able to get here.

So I don't think we should simply roll over for the Trump administration because that is the way he is likely to behave.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), a new member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that, because of the way this law is written, General Mattis actually will not be going back to civilian life after he leaves. He is still subject to the UCMJ and, therefore, is still, in some ways, a military officer while he will be the ``civilian head'' of the Defense Department.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say, not to be a stickler for detail, but we are actually not giving a waiver here. We are changing the law, and that is what makes this appointment different. When you confirm someone to the Cabinet, the gentleman is absolutely right, the Senate, that is their authority. It is in the Constitution. We don't get involved in that. But when you are changing a law, the House has a say in that. It is the Senate and the House.

This debate actually makes me even more strongly opposed to this bill as I continue to hear about: We just don't matter. The Senate has got it. Trump has got it. What do we need to do?

We have a responsibility as the House, and when you are changing a law, it has to go through the Senate and the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I thank the folks for the debate. I think it has been very good, as it was in committee. But it is disturbing to hear this described as politics, or we feel slighted and we should rise above that. This isn't what this is about. It is about our exercising our constitutional authority as Members of the House and our constitutional authority as members of the Armed Services Committee. It is about us being relevant in the process and doing our jobs, as I said in the opening.

Again, there is every opportunity to confirm and then also pass this change in the law that is necessary to make General Mattis the next Secretary of Defense. We can simply insist with the transition team that he appear before our committee. As I have pointed out, if we had done that in the first place, we could have met the January 20 deadline; and even now we could still do it by January 23 or 24. I don't think a few days would make that big a difference compared to the institution of the House actually mattering.

Now, I will say that, as I listened to the debate today, I become even a little bit more disturbed, as we have heard some of the reasoning behind supporting this change in the law to allow General Mattis to become the Secretary of Defense. As was said, basically, the Trump administration is going to do this kind of thing quite frequently, as one Member of the opposite party said, so we should just get used to it.

I really do think that makes it all the more important at this point, at this moment, that we assert our authority. Again, we can do that and have a bipartisan vote and approve General Mattis. We just have to insist upon it instead of rolling over and accepting what the transition team has said. That was my original argument. I will not belabor it or restate it. I think it is compelling. I think we should stand up for our rights here in the House and on the Armed Services Committee.

The final thing I will say is, while I have an enormous amount of respect for General Mattis--and like many who have spoken, I have not served in the armed services, I didn't work with him there, but I certainly have worked with him on the committee--I will point out that General Mattis is not God. As we listen to the people talk here about how we absolutely have to have somebody from the warrior class lead us in the military, that we have to have him in there in order to protect us from this dangerous world, that sort of language kind of makes me a little nervous.

That is the point of civilian control of the military. We do not want to be run by the warrior class alone. Now, absolutely we have many Members on both sides of the aisle who have served in the military, and I think that is terrific. That perspective is enormously important. It is not the only perspective that is important to running a representative democracy. We have heard comparisons to the Roman Empire. Again, another analogy that is somewhat troubling. That is not what we want. But more than anything, what we don't want is we don't want a president who thinks that he can roll over the House Armed Services Committee and the entire House any time he feels like it, frankly, as in this case, for no reason.

General Mattis, as everyone has admitted, was perfectly prepared to testify, perfectly prepared to come before us, and they simply decided not to send him. I don't think it was mere pettiness or anything like that. I have watched the way President-elect Trump conducts himself, and he is, shall we say, aggressive. I think they wanted to make it clear that they are going to be running things and that we better get the heck out of the way.

Well, that is not what I was elected to do as a member of the House Armed Services Committee or a Member of the House. We are not here simply to get out of the way of President Obama or President-elect Trump. We are here to stand up for the people who elected us and for the country and to do our jobs. In this case, for no good reason, we were denied the ability to do that.

So, again, I will urge Members to vote down this bill today so that we can assert our authority, hear from General Mattis, get him approved, go forward, but do it in a way that shows that the House of Representatives and the House Armed Services Committee actually matter. We cannot set the precedent that the President of the United States can simply ignore us on a whim.

So I would urge us to vote ``no'' on this matter.

I, again, thank the chairman for his leadership on this. We have worked very closely on this issue, amongst many others. To echo the comments of the freshman colleague from California, this is a very bipartisan committee. It will continue to be. We have done a bill for 55 straight years, and I am hoping we will make it 56 this year. I look forward to working with Chairman Thornberry, all of the members of the committee, and all of the Members of the House to achieve that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senate is holding hearings on each of President-Elect Trump's nominees to his Cabinet. Traditionally, Presidents are accorded a very high level of deference on assembling their own team, in part because these nominees are directly accountable to the President. But they are accountable to the American people too.

No Cabinet member is more powerful or has more impact on the day-to- day lives of Americans than the Attorney General of the United States.

The Attorney General is, indeed, a general, in command of an army of thousands of lawyers whose words carry enormous weight and power. It is the weight and power of the people of the United States. He speaks for us. He charges defendants in our name. He has sweeping authority to bring criminal charges in all Federal offenses, enormous unreviewable discretion in cases ranging from minor misdemeanors to the most serious felonies. In every sense, as capital penalties can be sought for some of these crimes, he wields the power of life and death.

The Attorney General's authority is not only sweeping, it is uniquely independent of the President's Cabinet. His decisions must supersede partisan politics. In most cases, there is no recourse to overrule his decisions unless there is political interference. He is not just another government lawyer or even just another member of the President's Cabinet. He is the Nation's lawyer, and he must be the Nation's legal counsel and conscience.

The job of U.S. Attorney General at stake here is one that I know pretty well. Like some of my colleagues in this body, I served as U.S. attorney, the chief Federal prosecutor in Connecticut.

I reported to the U.S. Attorney General. For years afterward as a private litigator and then as attorney general of the State of Connecticut for 20 years, I fought alongside and sometimes against the U.S. Attorney General and the legal forces at his disposal. I have seen his power, or hers, firsthand. The power of this Attorney General is awesome, as is that of any Attorney General.

In the best of cases, they are inspiring too. Even as he protects the public from vicious and violent criminal offenders, his role is also to protect the innocent from unfounded charges that could shatter their lives even if they are acquitted. As Justice Robert Jackson, a former Attorney General himself, once said: His job is not to convict, but to assure justice is done.

So this job requires a singular level of intellect and integrity and nonpartisan but passionate devotion to the rule of law and an extraordinary sense of conscience. That is because he is responsible for so much more than prosecuting and preventing crime and ensuring public safety. He is responsible for aggressively upholding our Nation's sacred constitutional commitment to protecting individual rights and liberties and preventing infringement on them, even by the government itself, maybe especially by the government.

This responsibility for safeguarding equal justice under the law is particularly important today, at a time when those civil rights and freedoms are so much in peril. This historic moment demands a person whose life work, professional career, and record shows that he will make the guarantee under our Constitution of equal justice under law a core mandate of his tenure.

Having reviewed the full record and recent testimony, regrettably and respectfully, I cannot support the President-elect's nominee, our colleague and friend Jeff Sessions, for this job.

At his confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions simply said he would follow the law and he would obey it, but the Attorney General of the United States must be more than a follower. He must be a leader in protecting the essential constitutional rights and liberties. He must be a champion, a zealous advocate. He must actively pursue justice, not just passively follow or obey the law.

Senator Sessions' record reflects a hostility and antipathy--in fact, downright opposition--to civil rights and voting rights, women's health care and privacy rights, antidiscrimination measures, and religious freedom safeguards. He has prided himself on his vociferous opposition to immigration reform legislation, a measure that passed this body with 68 bipartisan votes, and a criminal justice reform bill that has attracted a group of 25 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans. He even split with the majority of his own party to vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. He opposed hate crime prohibitions. Senator Sessions' views and positions on these issues and others, which are critical to protecting and championing rights and liberties under our Constitution, are simply out of the mainstream. There is nothing in Senator Sessions' record, including his testimony before the Judiciary Committee this week, that indicates he will be the constitutional champion the Nation needs at this point in its history.

Equally important, the Attorney General must speak truth to power. He must be ready, willing, and able to say no to the President of the United States and ensure that the President is never above the law. Senator Sessions' record and testimony give me no confidence that he will fulfill this core task.

When I asked him about enforcement of cases against illegal conflicts of interest involving the President and his family, such as violations of the emoluments clause or the STOCK Act, he equivocated. When I asked him about appointing a special counsel to investigate criminal wrongdoing at Deutsche Bank, owed more than $300 million by Donald Trump, he equivocated. When I asked him about abstaining from voting on other Presidential nominees while he is in the Senate, he equivocated. Those answers give me no confidence that he will be the independent, nonpolitical law enforcer against conflicts of interest and official self-enrichment that the Nation needs now more than ever--at a moment when the incoming administration faces ethical and legal controversies that are unprecedented in scope and scale.

Senator Sessions' record over many years and his recent testimony fail to demonstrate the core commitments and convictions necessary in our next Attorney General.

Back in 1986, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Senator Sessions' nomination to a Federal judgeship due to remarks he made and actions he took in a position of public trust as U.S. attorney in Alabama. However, my position on his nomination is primarily based on his record since those hearings and less on what was considered at that time.

On voting rights, Senator Sessions has often condoned barriers to Americans exercising their franchise. He has been a leading opponent of provisions in the Voting Rights Act designed to ensure that African Americans can vote in places, such as his home State of Alabama, which have a unique history of racial segregation. He has advocated for needlessly restrictive and draconian voter ID laws, citing utterly debunked threats of rampant voter fraud as an excuse for curtailing the real and legitimate rights of entire groups of voters.

On privacy--very important--Senator Sessions has passionately opposed this longstanding American right, which is enshrined in five decades of Supreme Court precedent. It protects women's health care and personal decisions involving reproductive rights. At a time when these rights are facing an unprecedented assault, he has continued to condemn Roe v. Wade and the many court decisions upholding that case.

He is also supported by extremist groups like Operation Rescue that defend the murder of doctors and the vilification and criminalization of women. With him as Attorney General, American women would understandably feel less secure about those rights.

On religious freedom, Senator Sessions has advocated for using a religious test to determine which immigrants can enter this country. When this issue arose in committee, Senator Sessions was the only Senator--the only Senator--to argue forcefully for religious tests and against principles of religious liberty that have animated our Republic since its founding. With Senator Sessions as Attorney General, a Trump administration would enjoy a permanent green light for any racially or religiously discriminatory immigration policy that might appeal to him.

On citizenship, Senator Sessions has called for abolishing a time- honored tradition that dates back to reconstruction. Birthright citizenship is the distinctly American concept that anyone born on our soil is a citizen of our country. We do not exclude people from citizenship based on the nationality of their parents or grandparents. Senator Sessions disagrees, a position that most other Republicans think is extreme.

With Senator Sessions as Attorney General, the Trump administration would be encouraged in attempting to deport American citizens--who have raised families and spent their entire lives here--from the only country they have ever known.

Senator Sessions declined my invitation at his nomination hearing to exercise moral and legal leadership and demonstrate his resolve to serve as the Nation's legal conscience. He refused to reject the possibility of using information voluntarily provided by DACA applicants to deport them and their families. As a matter of fundamental fairness and due process, when a DREAMer has provided information to our government after being invited to come out of the shadows, this information should never be used to deport that person. With Senator Sessions as Attorney General, that sense of legal conscience would be lacking.

On issues of discrimination and equal protection, Senator Sessions has publicly opposed marriage equality, claiming it ``weakens marriage'' and even tried to eliminate protections for LGBT Americans contained in the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. He has repeatedly voted against steps to enhance enforcement against hate crimes--violent assaults involving bigotry or bias based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. He even defended President- Elect Trump's shocking admission on video of his pattern of engaging in sexual assault.

Senator Sessions himself has said that public officials can be fairly judged by assessing who their supporters are. Senator Sessions is backed by groups with ties to White supremacists.

He has even accepted an award and repeated campaign donations from groups whose founder openly promotes the goal of maintaining a ``European American majority'' in our society. Neither award, nor many other important parts of Senator Sessions' record, was reported on the questionnaire he prepared for the Judiciary Committee.

I gave Senator Sessions an opportunity at the hearing earlier this week to repudiate these hate groups and racist individuals who have endorsed his nomination and supported him in the past. In fact, instead he doubled down, saying that a man who has accused African Americans of excessive criminality and American Muslims of extensive ties to terrorism was ``a most brilliant individual.''

So I reach my decision to oppose this nomination with regret because Jeff Sessions is a colleague and a friend to all of us. Indeed, he and I have a rapport. I have come to like and respect

him through a number of shared experiences in this building, traveling abroad, and outside.

We have common causes. He and I both support law enforcement professionals who serve our communities and the Nation with dedication and courage. They are never given sufficient thanks and appreciation.

He and I both believe that individual corporate criminal culpability should be pursued more vigorously. Individual corporate executives should be held accountable for the wrongdoing of corporations when they are criminally involved.

This job, this decision, this responsibility is different. Here, my disagreements stem from bedrock constitutional principles. While I could envision deferring to Presidential authority and supporting him for other positions, my objections to his nomination here relate specifically to this particular, essential, all-powerful job.

At this historic moment, there must be no doubt about the ironclad commitment of the Attorney General of the United States to the bedrock principle of equal justice under law, his resolve to be an independent voice, assuring that the President is never above the law, his determination to be a champion for all people of America and our constitutional principles that protect all people, and to be a legal conscience for the Nation.

Reviewing his record, I cannot assure the people of Connecticut or the country that Jeff Sessions would be a vigorous champion of these rights and liberties. Therefore, I stand in opposition to his nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum

Mr. President, I would say that I also agree. I want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership, and I want to thank him for setting the tenor and the environment that surrounds the Armed Services Committee, which resulted in the 24-to-3 vote today in the Armed Services Committee. Because of the relationship that we have, but also because of his leadership, we have a very bipartisan committee, which is vital to maintain, considering the awesome responsibilities we hold.

The Senator from Rhode Island has displayed time after time a willingness to work together for the good of the country. I think this is the latest example, even though he had significant reservations-- which are valid--concerning the short period of transition from wearing the uniform to holding down the highest civilian position as far as defense of the Nation is concerned. I know he didn't reach this conclusion without a lot of thought, a lot of study, a lot of--as he has displayed--references to history; reasons for the origination of this legislation, which requires 7 years before an individual is eligible to be Secretary of Defense after leaving the military.

So I just wanted to thank the Senator from Rhode Island, and I look forward to an overwhelming vote.

Mr. President, could I ask the parliamentary situation as it is right now.

Mr. President, has a time been set for the vote?

I yield to my friend from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, is it accurate to say that 2:45 p.m. is a time that is being seriously considered?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 5 minutes prior to the vote, if the time of the vote is set, and the Senator from Rhode Island be given 5 minutes prior to that, in the case of the time of the vote being set.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to modify my unanimous consent request that I be allowed 5 minutes prior to the vote.

Order of Procedure

Before I do that, however, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2:45 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of S. 84; further, that following the disposition of S. 84, the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair for the all-Members briefing.

So I would ask the Senator from Oregon how much time he needs.

Mr. President, I am asking for a ruling on the unanimous consent request I just made.

Mr. President, I add to that unanimous consent request that I be given the final 5 minutes before the vote.

Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Oregon who asked if there were not any people who were qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense, I am absolutely certain there are. Is there anyone as qualified as General Mattis? My answer to the Senator from Oregon is no. I have watched General Mattis for years. I have seen the way that enlisted and officers react to his leadership. I have seen the scholarly approach he has taken to war and to conflict.

I hope the Senator from Oregon will have at some point a chance to get to know him, and he will then appreciate the unique qualities of leadership that are much needed in these times where the outgoing President of the United States has left the world in a state of chaos because of an absolute failure of leadership, which is disgraceful. We now see an outgoing President of the United States who in 2009 inherited a world that was not being torn apart in the Middle East. The Chinese were not acting assertively in the South China Sea. The Russians had not dismembered Ukraine and taken Crimea, in gross violation of international law. All of those things have come about because of his presidency.

So now he comes to the floor and objects to one of the most highly qualified individuals and leaders in military history. I say to the Senator from Oregon: You are wrong.

I believe the overwhelming majority of this body will repudiate and cancel out his uninformed remarks.

Mr. President, in a few minutes we will vote on a historic piece of legislation. For just the second time in seven decades, the legislation before us would provide an exception to the law preventing any person from serving as Secretary of Defense within 7 years of Active-Duty service as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces. This legislation would allow Gen. James Mattis--the President-elect's selection for Secretary of Defense, who retired from the Marine Corps 3 years ago--to serve in that office.

Earlier today, the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from General Mattis. Once again, he demonstrated exceptional command of the issues confronting the United States, the Department of Defense, and our military servicemembers, but he also showed something else-- that his understanding of civil-military relations is deep and that his commitment to civilian control of the Armed Forces is ironclad.

General Mattis's character, judgment, and commitment to defending our Nation and its Constitution have earned him the trust of our next Commander in Chief, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and so many who are serving in our Armed Forces. General Mattis is an exceptional public servant worthy of the exceptional consideration. That is why, directly following the conclusion of today's hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported this legislation to the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 24 to 3--I repeat: with an overwhelming vote of 24 to 3.

I am not saying that members of the Armed Services Committee are smarter than the Senator from Oregon, but I am saying that members of the Armed Services Committee have scrutinized--both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, including the ranking member--have looked at General Mattis. Many of us have known him for years and years, as he has shown the outstanding characteristics of leadership that he has had the opportunity to display in his service to the country, and he was voted out by an overwhelming vote of 24 to 3. So obviously there are 24 people on the Armed Services Committee who believe in General Mattis and believe that this exception should be made, as opposed to 3 who share the view of the Senator from Oregon.

That is why, directly following the conclusion of today's hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported this legislation to the Senate with a vote of 24 to 3. I urge this body to follow suit.

That said, it is important for future Senators to understand the context of our action here today. Civilian control of the Armed Forces has been a bedrock principle of American Government since our Revolution. A painting hanging in the Capitol Rotunda not far from this floor celebrates the legacy of George Washington, who voluntarily resigned his commission as commander of the Continental Army to the Congress. This principle is enshrined in our Constitution, which divides control of the Armed Forces among the President as Commander in Chief and the Congress as coequal branches of government.

Since then, Congress has adopted various provisions separating military and civilian positions. In the 19th century, for example, Congress prohibited an Army officer from accepting a civil office, more recently, in the National Security Act of 1947, and subsequent revisions, Congress's 7-year ``cooling off'' period for any person to serve as Secretary of Defense. It was only 3 years later, in 1950, that Congress granted GEN George Marshall an exemption to that law and the Senate confirmed him to be Secretary of Defense.

Indeed, the separation between civilian and military positions has not always been so clear. Twelve of our Nation's Presidents previously served as generals in the Armed Forces, and over the years, numerous high-ranking civilian officials in the Department of

Defense have had long careers in military service.

The basic responsibilities of civilian and military leaders are simple enough--for civilian leaders: to seek the best professional military advice while under no obligation to follow it; for military leaders: to provide candid counsel while recognizing civilians have the final say or, as General Mattis once observed, to insist on being heard and never insist on being obeyed. But the fact is that the relationship between civilian and military leaders is inherently and endlessly complex. It is a relationship of unequals who nonetheless share responsibility for the defense of the Nation. The stakes could not be higher. The gaps in mutual understanding are sometimes wide. Personalities often clash. And the unique features of the profession of arms and the peculiarities of service cultures often prove daunting for civilians who have never served in uniform.

Ultimately, the key to healthy civil-military relations and civilian control of the military is the oath that soldiers and statesmen share in common ``to protect and defend the Constitution.'' It is about the trust they have in one another to perform their respective duties in accordance with our republican system of government. It is about the candid exchange of views engendered by that trust and which is vital to effective decisionmaking. And it is about mutual respect and understanding. The proper balance of civil-military relations is difficult to achieve, and, as history has taught us, achieving that balance requires different leaders at different times.

I believe that in the dangerous times in which we live, General Mattis is the leader our Nation needs as Secretary of Defense. That is why, although I believe we must maintain safeguards of civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, I will support this legislation today and General Mattis' nomination to serve this Nation again as Secretary of Defense.

I want to assure my friend from Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, who has very serious concerns--I want to assure him that this is a one-time deal. I know the Senator from Rhode Island had deep concerns about this whole process we have been through. Yet I think he has put the interests of the Nation and placed his confidence in General Mattis as being so exceptional that the law that was passed back in 1947--there can be made one single exception to it.

Has time expired according to the previous UC?

I object.