Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Ms. Carrie Patterson Thomas on the occasion of her 100th birthday.

Carrie was born on August 5, 1918 in the town of Ninety-Six, South Carolina to Wince and Ida Dean Patterson. In 1923 at the inquisitive age of five, she moved with her parents and six siblings to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She worked various jobs from picking vegetables and later worked as a domestic until she retired. Carrie met and married her late husband Mr. Harvey Thomas and have two lovely children, Earl Thomas and Betty DeVaughn.

Carrie has been a resident and community leader of Broward County for over 90 years. I am truly grateful for her selflessness and tireless service. She is a beloved life-long member of the New Mount Olive Baptist Church,

where she served on the mission society and often volunteered to help feed the homeless. She has worked hard under harsh conditions and unfair practices. She lived to witness many epic eras and events in history. And yet, through it all she has remained steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, and we know her labor is not in vain.

Mr. Speaker, on this momentous occasion, please join me in wishing Ms. Carrie Patterson Thomas a happy and wonderful 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate this rule, but I would urge my colleague from Texas to be mindful that this ain't going nowhere, so we really are, when all is said and done, wasting our time. This is not likely to be taken up by the Senate in August, and why we are not doing other things, I simply cannot understand.

The Protect Medical Innovation Act and the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health Savings Accounts Act are worth considering. The gentleman from Texas certainly is an expert in this area and is most sincere. It is regrettable that the legislation, ultimately, that will pass the House of Representatives ain't going nowhere.

Taken together, these measures do nothing to ameliorate the Republican attempt to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, do nothing to curb rising drug costs, and do nothing to curtail skyrocketing premium hikes. Instead, H.R. 6311 continues the Republican majority's destructive path of undermining and destabilizing our health insurance markets.

This package of six bills will likely lead to fewer choices and competition for moderate- and low-income families who do not have the disposable income to pay premium costs up front.

In bringing up the second measure, H.R. 184, my friends across the aisle seem intent on ignoring the pressing issues facing our country, like passing sensible legislation that will address the country's ongoing gun violence epidemic, passing legislation that will protect our election infrastructure from hostile foreign hacking, or passing legislation that will help reunite the more than 2,500 separated children with their families. Rather, the Republican majority wants to waste valuable legislative time in repealing a tax that won't even be active until 2020.

This is the last week before we go on a 5-week recess and we are doing nothing. Even worse, these bills are not offset and, taken together with tomorrow's bills, will add up to $90 billion to our deficit. They are not paid for. And I challenge my colleague on the floor handling this rule to tell me where the pay-fors are and, if there are none, why are they not paid for--$90 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities must be addressed in a comprehensive manner and without further delay. Unfortunately, our Nation has witnessed far too many senseless deaths caused each day by firearms, and that continues to rise.

Under a Republican majority, many commonsense reforms, such as the assault weapons ban--and somebody please tell me why anyone other than the military and law enforcement needs an assault weapon; I just, for the life of me, cannot understand it--were allowed to expire. I might add, flood insurance is getting ready to expire. We are not taking that measure up.

Providing nearly unfettered access to a variety of firearms does not make any sense. Someone said to me, well, there are 103 kinds of automatic weapons; and I say ban them all because they don't have any business in the hands of people in the streets at all.

While we need to preserve the rights of responsible gun owners--and I am one of them; I believe in the Second Amendment--we must focus more of our attention and efforts on keeping weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals instead of attacking and undermining the healthcare for millions of hardworking Americans.

While the present administration works to further the majority's aim of dismantling the most popular aspects of the Affordable Care Act, like keeping children on their parents' health insurance until the age of 26 and protecting people with preexisting conditions, these bills continue to balloon Federal spending and deficits.

While we were promised increased revenue from the GOP tax cuts of 2017, with the GOP falling back on tired talking points like tax cuts paying for themselves, we now have the Congressional Budget Office projecting over $1 trillion in budget deficits in 2020, even before legislation like this passes.

Whatever happened to the conservative Republicans? Where did the fiscal conservative Republicans go, who are blowing up the deficit in this country? The amount of fiscal irresponsibility demonstrated by my friends across the aisle is shocking and will be a great detriment to all Americans in the future.

Moreover, these pieces of legislation do nothing to holistically solve the most pressing concerns hardworking Americans have with healthcare: ever-increasing premiums, unstable health markets, and exploding drug costs. In fact, in the last year and a half, the majority has gone out of their way to destabilize health markets as much as they can.

Instead of encouraging Americans to enroll in health insurance, the Department of Health and Human Services has created an advertising campaign explicitly undermining the individual insurance markets created under the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have cut the Department's budget for those grassroots organizations whose sole purpose is to assist folks in signing up for health insurance. How much of the budget did they cut? 92 percent.

In addition to this, HHS has threatened States that try to lower premiums, and the Trump administration has even canceled cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, which the CBO projects will leave 1 million more people uninsured, raise premiums by 20 to 25 percent over the next 2 years, and increase the Federal deficit by $200 billion.

Listen, people, when we started this business of the Affordable Care Act--as much as my friends on the other side who have the prerogative, in the majority, to be in disagreement with this measure as well as any others and to offer this thing that ain't going nowhere here today--the simple fact of the matter is, some few years back, we had 42 million Americans who were uninsured. We now have more than 42 million Americans uninsured, and that is wrong.

I said yesterday in the Rules Committee, all of us, 535--the Senate and the House--and the six delegates, ought to be locked up up here until we come up with a sensible solution for the American people with reference to a crisis.

It was said yesterday by the chair of this committee that the plan that is going to be offered--that we did offer and then they voted against--would be the best healthcare plan in the world. Well, it ain't the best healthcare plan

in the world. The best healthcare plans in the world are in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, and a whole bunch of other places other than America.

And while the Trump administration has pushed junk healthcare plans, even the organizations that originally lobbied the administration for access to these plans now say they no longer want to use them.

All in all, as a result of these policies, as I have indicated, 4 million fewer Americans have health insurance than when Donald John Trump took office, and healthcare costs continue to rise unabated.

I need not remind my colleagues that people in the United States pay far more for healthcare than in any other industrialized nation on Earth, and, in most cases, they get far less. We spend over 18 percent of our gross domestic product on healthcare, compared to most other countries, which spend less than 10 percent, with much of the disparity occurring thanks to higher drug prices and administrative overhead.

Despite the money we pour into our healthcare, the United States has the shortest life expectancy and highest infant mortality of any modern industrialized nation--let me repeat that--the shortest life expectancy, and the highest infant mortality of any modern industrialized nation.

We have far fewer physicians--and we had better do something about that; not in this measure, not in the Affordable Healthcare Act. We had better get busy trying to figure out how to provide more physicians, more nurses, more research for a variety of measures that are oncoming that our Nation is going to be confronted with.

We have fewer hospital beds and, in perhaps what is the most depressing statistic of all of U.S. healthcare, the United States is one of only 13 countries in the world where the rate of maternal mortality, defined as the death of a mother in the year after she gives birth, is now worse than it was 25 years ago.

And here we are, continuing to jaw jack about something that ain't going nowhere, and we have situations in our country that all of us know something about, all of us care about. There is no Republican in the House or Democrat in the House that doesn't care about their constituents and their healthcare. And at the very same time, what we are winding up doing is arguing with each other and nothing is getting done, and that is just dead wrong for this country.

Black women, in particular, are three times more likely to die from health-related issues to their pregnancy. How can we seemingly pay for more healthcare now than at any point in our Nation's history and, yet, at the same time, be getting worse care than we were decades ago?

We have a fundamentally broken system. The majority doesn't seem to have any way of fixing it, and I am not even sure that they want to fix it. Indeed, they seem to be going out of their way making it somehow worse.

Now I hear all of the voices out there. I had a constituent call the other day to tell me that I wasn't as liberal as his people were, liberal, and that I didn't understand this whole healthcare system.

And I told him: Listen, man, in 1992, when I ran for office, I ran on the premise of universal healthcare for every American, period. And when we did the Affordable Healthcare Act, it ultimately got called the ObamaCare Act.

I have said in the Rules Committee repeatedly, it probably should have been called the Hastings/ObamaCare Act, or perhaps we would have done what Dr. Burgess asked us to do and it would be called the Burgess Healthcare Act.

I don't care what it is called. It needs to be called something that is going to help every American, and not just a handful, and certainly not the richest people in this country who don't even need any healthcare. They have been at the socialized healthcare business for all of their lives and, therefore, people like Donald John Trump don't need to worry about this kind of thing.

It is those people that are vulnerable. It is those people on Medicaid in Florida and other States that didn't expand Medicaid, 900,000 of them in my State, that are left to the mercies of the system.

And what do they do? All of us know what they do. When they have healthcare, they go to the hospital, to the emergency room, generally speaking, they are treated, and then those taxpayers in those respective jurisdictions wind up paying for it.

So why don't we get our act together and try to do something about it now?

I have proudly advocated for multiple pieces of legislation that will improve and strengthen the Medicare system, including H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, which will provide all individuals residing in the United States and the United States territories, with affordable healthcare, including that which is medically most necessary, such as primary and preventative care, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care. Underscore preventative care. And if we did more in that arena, we wouldn't have as much of a problem as we do today.

Medicare for All will save taxpayers hundreds of dollars a month. Now, I firmly believe that we must focus priorities in the interest of the American people to ensure that our citizens have continued access to healthcare services.

So when we come back here in September, when we finish all of our fighting in November, and we have somebody that is going to get elected, 435 of us will return here and be sworn in in January. Let's all make a commitment that we are going to work together, together, to get all of the resources, the tremendous minds, the incredible staffs that work here in this institution together, and try to make sure that we do the right thing by the American people and pass a measure that will cause everyone to have affordable care.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule that would change the rules of the House to prevent any legislation from being considered that would reduce the guaranteed benefits for individuals enrolled in either Medicare or Medicaid programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat

the previous question so that we may protect these critical programs for this generation and the next.

Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared now to advise my colleague from Texas that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close when, and if, he is.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this place, the people's House, should be about approaching our congressional responsibilities and daily activities in a manner that is fair and respectful to all Americans; in a manner where the appropriate committee of jurisdiction holds hearings and markups; in a manner where experts in the field are respected and consulted; in a manner where Members of both political parties have the ability to offer amendments and debate the contents of bills that come to the House floor.

Unfortunately, in this historically closed-off, Republican run House, that is not the case. And let me make it very clear. Even though in the Ways and Means and the Appropriations Committee, as a matter of practice, we allow for closed rules, we now have, with these three rules that are likely to be finished today, we have 95 closed rules. This is 2018, and not in the history of the people's House has the process been as closed.

When the Speaker of the House of Representatives began this session, he indicated that it would be the most open session that we would have. And yet, it is not the case.

I spoke earlier about immigration, and I saw this morning where the majority leader has determined, even though having promised his own conference that he would have a vote on immigration, he ain't gonna do it.

Now, something is wrong with this process and it needs to be corrected, and we can correct it going forward. We will make 100, and then we will be historically referenced as the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

What we see are my friends across the aisle, bending over backwards to reward a very specific and elite constituency. Week after week, the powerful gun lobby is rewarded as Republican leadership refuses to bring up even the most commonsense gun violence prevention legislation.

The next week, like today, the powerful medical insurance lobby chalks up a win as this Republican-led Congress votes in favor of special interests over the interests of hardworking Americans.

Some other people that make out like bandits that we never talk about are the insurance companies. I could spend a whole hour talking about how they are benefiting while we are about the business of tying each other in knots with verbiage rather than with substantive legislation.

Mr. Speaker, while there is no quick fix to any of these measures, not to gun violence, opioid addiction, the immigration problems, and ongoing foreign cyber attacks on our election system's infrastructure, we simply must engage in the complicated and difficult process of improving our country's current policies.

I, as well as my colleagues on this side of the aisle, stand ready to work with Members of Congress to bring commonsense legislation to the floor that will benefit all Americans and not just the rarified few.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the previous question. This measure we are debating here today ain't going nowhere, and 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, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2069, the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mr. Nathaniel Reed. Nathaniel was a stellar supporter of national parks, a staunch environmental advocate and co-author of the Endangered Species Act. Nathaniel was a powerhouse of Florida politics, but more than that, he was a dear friend and a mentor to me, as well as to countless others.

In a long career spent both in and out of government service, Nathaniel played a role in stopping construction of the world's largest airport in Big Cypress Swamp, helped establish a national park in Biscayne Bay, and assisted in preserving more than 100 million acres of parks and wildlife refuges in Alaska.

During his six decades of activism, he was a tireless crusader for the environment and the Everglades. Nathaniel inspired generations of conservationists, and what he did for America's River of Grass is immeasurable.

Mr. Reed is survived by his wife of 54 years, Alita, three children, Adrian, Nathaniel Jr. and Lia, and five grandchildren. I offer my thoughts and prayers to Alita, his family, and all who called Nathaniel a friend during this great time of sadness. I am so pleased to honor his life and legacy. He will be dearly missed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for this measure, the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019.

Today's bill comes to us through a process that is marginally better than that which we saw last year. As many of you may remember, last year, it took my friends on the other side a couple of tries to get the Intelligence Authorization Act to the floor.

Though that one was, unlike today's bill, cosponsored by the ranking member, Republicans raised the ire of many of us on this side of the aisle by trying to move this bill under suspension of the rules. After that move fell flat, the Republican-led Rules Committee reported the bill under a closed rule, blocking no fewer than 13 amendments. That bill, though passed, never saw sunlight in the Senate.

Today's bill avoids some of those avoidable self-inflicted wounds and is indeed better for it. But unfortunately, drama of some kind or another seems to follow Intelligence Authorization Acts, no matter what.

Last night at the Rules Committee, we witnessed, in my view, the unprecedented silencing of one of our colleagues. Congresswoman Norma Torres had just begun her first question of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Nunes, when she was gaveled down by the chairman of the House Rules Committee. Subsequently, he abruptly recessed the meeting.

It is, in my view, Congresswoman Torres' unquestionable right, based on longstanding committee practice, to question a witness. And it is absolutely unbelievable and, in my view, a great shame that she was not able to continue her line of questioning.

When the hearing reconvened after a near 20-minute recess, rather than answering questions, Chairman Nunes was permitted to leave. He had made the request, indicating that he had matters before the Ways and Means Committee.

This was not just unfortunate for Mrs. Torres, but also for the rest of us on the committee, because during that short recess, the Trump administration issued its Statement of Administration Policy on today's underlying bill. Frankly, the administration's statement raised more questions than it answered.

It would have been helpful to have Mr. Nunes at the hearing so that we could ask him important and relevant questions about the administration's statement and what that statement meant for his bill.

Now, I look forward to our meetings returning to normal next week, and I look forward to them being run as they have been in the past, with witnesses staying before the committee until all of our members have been able to ask all of their questions.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is also not without its laudatory provisions. As my friend from Georgia has mentioned several of them, let me proceed to add to that particular observation of his.

It increases pay for professionals in the intelligence community who have expertise in the cyber arena or have extensive knowledge in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--all areas that are crucial to the success of the intelligence community's core mission.

Footnote there: I served for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee, and I know full well, firsthand, the importance of this particular aspect of the committee's duties and the agency's duties.

The bill, at the insistence of Democrats on the committee, addresses Russian meddling in our elections by requiring the intelligence community to brief key congressional leaders and committees on threat assessments related to foreign meddling in our Federal elections. The bill also requires the Director of Intelligence to publicly post a report on foreign counterintelligence and cybersecurity threats to Federal election campaigns.

Although these provisions are welcomed, it is beyond any doubt that more must be done to strengthen our defenses against any foreign interference in our Federal and State elections and to rebuild Americans' confidence in the democratic process and in its institutions.

Mr. Speaker, there has also been good bipartisan work on a matter that has been, for years, as it is today, near and dear to my heart, and that is increasing diversity hires and promotions within the intelligence community. Indeed, I have not stopped championing these twin causes since leaving the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as its vice chair.

Diversity is a mission imperative for the intelligence community. Three of my predecessors, two of whom are deceased--Lou Stokes from Ohio and Julian Dixon from California--as well as my classmate and colleague Sanford Bishop, who served on the committee as well, worked assiduously in an effort to increase minorities and give them opportunities to climb the ranks.

We also, in my view, now need to recruit who will be able to blend in, speak foreign languages, and understand the cultures in countries that are now central to our foreign policy interests. At the end of the day, such diversity is achieved through the hiring process; and, therefore, we need to ensure that we are hiring more Arab Americans, Iranian Americans, Pakistani Americans, Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, and many other Americans from diverse backgrounds as we confront a myriad of threats and work hard to better understand our adversaries wherever they may lurk. We do not seek this diversity in the name of political correctness but, rather, in the name of national security.

Mr. Speaker, even with these sensible additions, I can understand why some of my colleagues are reluctant to support today's bill.

When we live in the shadow of a President who is bent on denigrating the brave men and women of the intelligence community in a brazen attempt to undermine the crucial work they do on a daily basis; when we live under the shadow of a President who has, as a candidate for the highest office in the land, compared those in the intelligence community to Nazis; when we live under the shadow of a President who is quicker to take the word of an authoritarian dictator like Vladimir Putin over the studied and sober word of his own intelligence community--all positions, by the way, that not only undermine our own intelligence community, but also the relationships that we have with allies and the world over--one would be right to pause and consider whether he or she should vote in favor of handing over immense and powerful authorities to such a person.

I certainly understand the great cause for concern in handing such authorities over to this administration. In fact, last night at the Rules Committee, I offered a sensible amendment, in my view, that would have reinstated the cybersecurity coordinator on the National Security Council.

As many may remember, in the not too distant past we had such a coordinator. Why? Because this country faces, on an hourly and, indeed, minute-by-minute, second-by-second basis, attempted and sometimes successful attacks on our Nation's cyber infrastructure, both private and public. It made sense to President Bush's and President Obama's administrations to have a person who could coordinate the complicated responses to these myriad attacks.

The now-President and his national security adviser, on the other hand, had the inspired idea to jettison the position of cybersecurity coordinator from the ranks of the National Security Council. Now, the optics alone of the current administration canning a cybersecurity coordinator are enough to make one shake one's head, but the real-world effects of such a misguided and reckless action should be cause for great concern.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will tell us that sacking the cybersecurity coordinator was done in the name of bureaucratic efficiency, when what the Trump administration has really done, in yet another misguided decision, is make protecting our country more difficult and more cumbersome.

It is time that Republicans take these threats seriously and stop aiding and abetting an administration that puts its own personal interests ahead of those of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), who is my and Mr. Collins' distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I invite, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia to show me an example of where we shut down a Member that was asking a question.

And I might add, Chairman Nunes did not send a designee. He came to the committee himself, and then Mr. LoBiondo, which is not unprecedented, as you have outlined the numbers, took his position at that time.

But I know of no time that we have failed to allow a Member of the committee to ask questions. Can the gentleman give me such an example?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will take that as my colleague doesn't have an answer. I will take that as my colleague's nonresponse to my question with reference to show me a precedent in that regard. There was none.

I have been on that committee for 16 years, and we talk all over each other all the time and back and forth, but in an orderly manner, and yesterday's example was not orderly.

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Nadler's bill, H.R. 6135, the Keep Families Together Act. This important proposal would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from separating children from their parents, except in extraordinary circumstances, and limit the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee, to further discuss our proposal for the previous question, and I apologize for botching his last name.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is left on both sides of the aisle?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), who is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Small Business, to further discuss our proposal for the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we consider today's important bill as we approach the hour of our President, Donald John Trump's, private sit down with President Vladimir Putin in Russia. We don't know what will come of this meeting, but if past is indeed prologue and we look to the President's handling of his negotiations with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, or his steadfast denial of the obvious, namely Russia's meddling in our elections, or his policy of tearing toddlers away from their mothers and fathers, then we can assume that nothing good will come from this upcoming get together.

And I would urge those traveling with him to sweep the room with Vladimir Putin because he will certainly be being listened to.

We can assume that there will be further concessions that benefit Russian interests. We can assume that the President will further insult our friends and allies, as he did yesterday morning in Brussels. We can assume that he will further erode the institutions created by the greatest generation, institutions that have made and kept the United States the dominant power in an uncertain world, institutions that have kept war off of western European soil for more than a generation, institutions that have kept at bay those nation-states that champion oppression and fear rather than freedom and the rule of law.

Finally, I will say this. In the current environment, it is more important than ever to stand united against those forces that wish to see us divided. It is more important than ever that we support the difficult and brave work of those individuals who make up our intelligence community. And the latter can be achieved, quite simply, by Republicans in this Chamber taking a note from our Republican friends on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and learn how to call a spade a spade.

The assessment that the Russians meddled in our election; that the Russians concertedly attempted to undermine Secretary Clinton's chances to be elected the first female President of the United States; that the Russians did this work to favor the election of the current President are all trustworthy and well-founded assessments.

And remember, that it is not Alcee Lamar Hastings saying that, though I do. That is the assessment of the entire Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That is the assessment of the intelligence agencies of this community.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and 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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my staff and I worked with Democratic staff members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and received input from the majority staff to craft what I believe is a commonsense amendment that will increase diversity throughout the intelligence community.

Mr. Chair, I just want to depart from my prepared remarks to say a word about the young man who is seated with me, Tony Matthews. It is a good indication of what the Brookings Institution does when they send us fellows from either the Democratic or Republican side, and I am very pleased that he has been with my office and, in many respects, is the author of this amendment.

The amendment directs the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to, in consultation with heads of other intelligence community agencies, create and implement a plan that will successfully expand the intelligence community's recruitment efforts so that rural and underserved regions in the United States are more fully represented in these efforts.

It is my belief that this amendment will provide a unique opportunity for the intelligence community agencies to actively join forces in order to broaden their respective recruitment efforts and, by so doing, increase the diversity among their ranks. Although we have seen improvement in some areas--for instance, an increase in minority hiring for fiscal year 2017 over that of fiscal year 2016--we have also seen a disappointing decrease in the percentage of women hired over that same period of time. I believe that we can do better in both metrics, and I think one smart way of doing that is getting agencies to broaden their searches geographically.

This country's strength is born from its dedication to the rule of law, the belief that the best form of government is one that is of the people, by the people, and for the people--and from its diversity.

It is time for our intelligence community agencies to more fully commit to reaching all American people in an effort to let them know that inspiring and important work awaits them in the intelligence community. Indeed, by more fully tapping into this diversity, we can be assured of at least one result: the strengthening of our intelligence community. If the intelligence community is to succeed in its global mission, it must have a global force.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished ranking member with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Intelligence Committee when I was there some 100 years ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to rise today and recognize the achievements of Dr. Lenora Peters Gant, current Senior Executive Academic National Security Fellow at Howard University School of Business through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Revered for her U.S. security and intelligence expertise, Dr. Gant's profound leadership speaks to her devotion to public service and the impact she has made throughout the intelligence community.

Dr. Gant holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Business Education and Management from Florida A&M University, a Master of Education from the George Peabody College at Vanderbilt University, and a Ph.D. in Education/Technology Learning & Human Resources Management from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In addition, Dr. Gant furthered her academic pursuits by obtaining certificates in Executive Development and Leadership Development from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and a certificate in 21st Century Leadership from the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania. Her tenacious desire to pursue her education is truly inspiring.

Dr. Gant's phenomenal leadership expands numerous roles that include the U.S. Department of Defense, where she managed a multi-million dollar budget for human resources management, education, and technology-based diversity training initiatives. From 2004 to 2012, Dr. Gant served as Director of the ODNI Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence, which is comprised of over 30 colleges and universities across the United States. Under her leadership, IC-CAE became a standard bearer for government partnerships with academia. In 2014, she was appointed as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Senior Executive for Academic Outreach and STEM where she directed, planned, and executed approaches to originate, develop, and formalize NGA corporate academic outreach for Geospatial Sciences and Scientific and Technology. In 2016, Dr. Gant led the ODNI Office of Policy and Strategy's Career Mobility Program Initiative, where she oversaw and directed over fifty senior leaders and managers across five ODNI Directorates.

In addition to Dr. Gant's professional pursuits, she has received numerous awards in honor of her achievements and contribution to her line of work. In April 2010, Dr. Gant was awarded Harvard University Donald M. Stewart Alumni Achievement Award for leadership and public service. In May 2016, she was awarded the Vanderbilt University's Peabody College Distinguished Alumna Award. Furthermore, the former Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) George Tenet appointed Dr. Gant as the international community's representative to the President's White House One America Initiative.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Lenora Peters Gant is more than deserving of recognition for her service to our country. I am pleased to take this moment to celebrate her dedication and unwavering contribution to the intelligence community. I want to congratulate her once again for her many years of distinguished service to our nation. I wish her well as she embarks upon her retirement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, my friend from Wyoming, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I will proceed to debate the rule for H.R. 2083 and H.R. 6157.

The first measure, H.R. 2083, in my opinion, is an overly broad bill that will lead to the needless slaughter of more than 1,000 sea lions without addressing the serious problems facing our country's endangered salmon stocks.

Thirteen populations of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River are listed under the Endangered Species Act, with their greatest threat to extinction coming from deadbeat dams, habitat loss, and climate change. This bill does nothing to address those issues and will not lead to the recovery of the salmon populations.

Mr. Speaker, in a change of pace for this Republican-controlled Congress, H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019, is a largely bipartisan bill. Totaling $674.6 billion, $20 billion above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level, H.R. 6157, as my colleague said, increases military pay by 2.6 percent and funds military procurement, readiness, and research and development.

The legislation, in a break from the strategy implemented by the Republican Trump administration, actually works to keep our commitments to our allies and provides resources for the

European Reassurance Initiative to counter Russian aggression, continues our support for Ukraine, and fulfills our obligations to Israel with funding for the U.S.-Israel joint anti-tunneling research technology initiative and the Israeli Missile Defense Cooperative program.

H.R. 6157 also provides new funding for Department of Defense schools and Historically Black Colleges, Universities, and Minority-Serving Institutions, partnerships that are critical for preserving readiness into the future by investing in our servicemembers today.

I was also pleased that the committee included parts of the Families of Fallen Servicemembers First Act in this bill, which will ensure that families of fallen servicemembers can always access the immediate death gratuities they are entitled to, even in the event of a lapse of government funding.

Politics should never be a factor during such an unimaginable time, and yet that has been the case in each of the last three government shutdowns. I commend my colleagues, Representatives Gerry Connolly and Tom Rooney, for taking on this critically important issue.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this bill does a lot of good. I wish that bipartisan legislation like this was the norm. I congratulate the committee for working together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that our country's security needs are met without needlessly injecting partisan fights into the process.

I would, however, be remiss if I did not mention the omission of any language pertaining to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, known colloquially as the 2001 AUMF.

We continue to give Presidents a blank check to wage war. Let me repeat that: We continue to give Presidents--not President Trump, not President Obama, not President Bush, not President Clinton--a blank check to wage war. Since the 2001 AUMF was enacted, it has been cited as the statutory authority for military actions more than 40 times in at least 18 countries. That is 18 countries, Mr. Speaker, using an authorization passed 17 years ago.

I and other Members, like Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Jim McGovern, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, have been relentless on this issue, relentless on the need for this body to take its constitutional duties seriously and discuss how and if we will authorize the executive branch to wage war.

In fact, last year, the Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment by Congresswoman Lee to begin the process of repealing and replacing the AUMF with an updated measure. In an underhanded move, the Rules Committee stripped the provisions in an undemocratic and underhanded way. Since then, Congress has done nothing to reassert its constitutional authority to decide when and where to commit our troops overseas.

I don't know why it is that this continues, and I don't know what it is going to take for us to have a vote on a new AUMF, but I think that the people of this great country deserve to know why House Republicans are protecting the President's ability to wage unchecked war around the globe. I felt the same way when President Obama was in office, as well as previous Presidents.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Ranking Member Nadler's bill, H.R. 6135, the Keep Families Together Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. This much-needed proposal would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from separating children from their families, except in extraordinary circumstances, and limit the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we may protect these innocent children.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have no further speakers and am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to go forward now with my closing.

Last week, we saw Republicans fail to protect Dreamers. These are young people who, in many cases, have known no other country than the United States. It is, like it is for you and for me, quite simply, their home. They are, but for one piece of paper, just as American as anyone in this room. Yet my friends across the aisle take pains to denigrate and belittle Dreamers.

We witnessed Republican leadership bring anti-immigrant legislation to the House floor that did nothing to solve the heartbreaking situation for children and their parents on the southern border. In fact, the bills pushed by my Republican friends would perpetuate child detention, further tarnishing our Nation's values.

Democrats have put forward multiple bipartisan proposals to address the need for immigration reform in our

country and, now, for the need to address the completely self-made Republican crisis at our border involving the separation of infants and toddlers from their mothers and fathers. All of them have been dismissed out of hand.

If my Republican colleagues can move past throwing red meat to their base and are willing to work in a serious and bipartisan manner to address the issues in our immigration system, then know that Democrats are ready to work with you. All you need to do is stand up to the extreme faction in your party and finally work with us.

Let me say something else, finally, about that. The current occupant of the White House continues to say that Democrats believe in open borders and crime. I know I don't believe in open borders, and I know that I have spent a career in the field of law in trying to assist, not only my community, but here in our Congress, countless communities, to avoid criminal elements and crime in a variety of places throughout our country.

I don't think it is right just to make political points at the expense of something that is so critical, and I deem it wrong that it is said that Democrats favor open borders and crime. That is just the farthest thing from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and 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, I am honored to rise today and recognize the Dillard Center for the Arts Jazz Band on their May 12, 2018 first place win at the 2018 Essentially Ellington High School Jazz Band Competition in New York City.

Dillard High School, located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida has a long history of excellence in the arts. In 1948, Dillard's well-known jazz program attracted one of the greatest musicians in history, Julian Edwin ``Cannonball'' Adderley.

Under the leadership of Director Christopher Dorsey, Dillard's Jazz Band performed on stage at Lincoln Center for the Essentially Ellington Competition. They were judged by an esteemed panel of jazz musicians, lead by composer and trumpeter Mr. Wynton Marsalis, and deemed to be worthy of the first place prize out of fifteen band finalists. Additionally, Ms. Summer Camargo, a member of the band, won the Composition/Arranger Contest.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of the Dillard Center for the Arts Jazz band. I wish Director Dorsey and the entire jazz band ensemble a hearty congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind Mr. Burgess that he has the levers of power now, and I predict that today, the two measures that we are going to be dealing with are not likely to reach the President's desk.

But none of this was happening 4 months ago. None of this was happening 2 months ago. But a policy that was announced by Jeff Sessions is what brought us to this, and that had to come through the President.

Last night, at our Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for certain long-term temporary protected status holders. Not surprisingly, in this historically closed Congress, my amendment was not made in order.

Let me repeat that. This historically closed Congress--89 closed rules. Never in the history of this body have we had as many closed rules.

As we discussed the need for Dreamers to have a path to citizenship, which they must, I wanted to make sure that those who are in our country under temporary protected status are not passed over and forgotten. They are from El Salvador. They are from Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, and Haiti.

These individuals are hardworking taxpayers, many of whom have U.S.- born children or U.S. citizen spouses, and they contribute to our economy and our communities. They pay taxes, and in myriad and dynamic ways they work at our airports and our service industries, in our healthcare sector, and on our construction sites.

They are fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers. They are members of our faith-based communities. And every single one of them, to a person, hails from a country still recovering from natural disasters, internal violence, or both.

I will give you just one example.

On January 12, 2010, Haiti was devastated by a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. 1.5 million people were displaced, 300,000 buildings were destroyed, and 8 years on, tens of thousands of people remain in camps.

Mr. Speaker, then they had a hurricane. The hurricane was the first category 4 hurricane to hit Haiti in over half a century, claiming 1,000 lives and displacing more than 2 million people.

Haiti, quite simply, continues to climb out from the rubble of the earthquake, cholera outbreak, and Hurricane Matthew, and we in the United States have tried to help them to do so, as we should.

In its wisdom, the Trump administration has decided to end TPS for Haiti and many other countries. Not only does this conclusion fly in the face of the facts as we know them, but it needlessly inflicts countless wounds on our communities and our families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the City Commission of the City of Lauderdale Lakes located in Broward County, Florida.

This area has long been a retirement location for people from New York and in particular those of the Jewish faith. Those with Caribbean and African American ancestry began to settle there in the late 20th century, making the City a true American success story of diversity, which is now home to over 35,000 people.

In 2014, the City voted to alter the structure of its governing body by establishing a city commission that would be composed of five individuals. In November 2016, the City's residents elected five women of color, making them the only city in Florida to have a commission entirely comprised of women.

Mr. Speaker, to the residents of Lauderdale Lakes, and especially to its Mayor Hazelle Rogers, Vice Mayor Beverly Williams, and City Commissioners Sandra Davey, Gloria Lewis, and Veronica Edwards Phillips, I offer my sincere congratulations on this historic achievement and wish the City many years of continued success.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, let me say at the outset to the chairman and ranking member, that I do not intend to ask for a recorded vote on this measure. I thought earlier today that I would withdraw the amendment, but in light of the fact that we are here in the middle of the night, I decided I may as well make my point.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase funding for cybersecurity of the electric power grid by $5 million, offset by reductions in fossil energy research and development.

Like almost everyone in this body, I am deeply concerned about the cybersecurity of our Nation's electric power grid.

I don't know how many of you know that yesterday there was a major outage--that hadn't reached the news, for some reason--of the Comcast telephone network. I don't think there was anything untoward with reference to it, at least it hadn't been reported.

The mere fact is that we are more reliant than ever on this Nation's power grid to provide electricity to the massive amount of technologies that contribute to our country every single second: cellular communications equipment; heating and cooling to our workplaces-- especially cooling in this particular workplace that seems to be overused, in my opinion--and homes; lights to guide us at night on highways; and on and on.

While we have never been more dependent on electricity, our electric energy grid has never been as vulnerable as it is today.

With the rise of nation-state-supported computer hackers in countries like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and the rogue hackers, the computers that control our power networks are increasingly seen as the most impactful targets for those who wish to do us harm.

Outages from such attacks will cause harm not only to our national security, but our economic stability as well. They will hurt, to name just a few, hospitals, banks, factories, financial networks, water systems, telecommunications, and military bases.

I believe that we must work with those who operate our grid to give them the tools they need to detect and prevent malicious actors from causing damage to our electric system and critical infrastructure.

This funding of $5 million that I would request, and will again somewhere, is just a fraction of what is needed, but it sends a signal at least that we are serious about addressing this vulnerability, and that is my purpose here this evening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a resolution that I have introduced with my good friends, Congressman Gregory Meeks of New York and Congresswoman Gwen Moore of Wisconsin. Our resolution recognizes the history and current situation of People of African Descent living in Europe and Black Europeans, and encourages the Secretary of State to take a number of steps to ensure their situation is improved following recommendations from the People of African Descent Week (PADWEEK) held by our colleagues in the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium from May 13-17, 2018.

As European Parliamentarian Cecile Kyenge has noted, ``The People of African Descent Week reaffirms European values by developing strategic and coherent responses to make our society more inclusive in the face of rising racial prejudice and violence across Europe.'' Recommendations from the week included a European Black History Month and Remembrance Day for Victims of Colonialism and Enslavement, a fund for Black European led initiatives to address continuing disparities and discrimination and support empowerment initiatives, European-wide strategies for the inclusion of People of African Descent, and support for transatlantic exchanges on common issues of racial prejudice and discrimination.

The need for recognition of Black populations in Europe became clear ten years ago when I chaired a U.S. Helsinki Commission hearing entitled, ``The State of (In)visible Black Europe: Race, Rights, and Politics,'' where we learned that the situation in Europe is very similar to the one in the United States. While the presence of Blacks in Europe can be traced to enslavement, colonization, military deployments, voluntary or forced migration, the movement of refugees and asylum seekers, or educational and other professional exchanges, the story of Europeans of African Descent and Black Europeans still remains

largely untold, rendering many of their past and present contributions to the very fabric of Europe unseen or forgotten, which is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, on May 14, 2018, Congressman Meeks, Congresswoman Moore, and I had the pleasure of being U.S. Honorary Hosts during PADWEEK. I include in the Record, the statement we made to our friends in the European Parliament. It is my hope that when we gather in the years to come to review the efforts of the United Nations designated International Decade for People of African Descent, we will not only speak of how our efforts resulted in our respective nations publicly recognizing the injustices and long-term impact of slavery and colonialism, but also of how our societies reconciled these issues in a manner that ensured equal opportunity, access, and justice for all People of African Descent.

Statement of U.S. Honorary Hosts: Honorable Alcee L. Hastings--

Honorable Gregory Meeks--Honorable Gwen Moore

Mr. Speaker, 2 Timothy 4:7-8 says, ``I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day--and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.'' Reverend Joe C. Johnson, senior pastor of Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church in Hallandale Beach, Florida, finished the race with his passing on May 25, 2018. He will certainly be missed by his loved ones and those of us honored enough to call him a friend.

I had the pleasure of witnessing the profound impact that Reverend Johnson had throughout his four decades as pastor to one of the oldest churches in Broward County. His ministry was a cornerstone of a rich and vibrant faith community. Reverend Johnson bridged the gap between Hallandale Beach and Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church by hosting community events at the church. These events were so meaningful for his flock, and the larger community, that they were recognized for special commemoration on the occasion of Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church's 101st Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, Reverend Johnson was a pillar of the community he loved, and his ultimate goal was helping people in all areas of their lives. He not only served as a leader to the members of his church, but as a counselor to local politicians, judges, and anyone who had the honor of knowing him. He also served as a chaplain for the Hallandale Beach Fire Department. Along with his extensive community engagement, Reverend Johnson sat on the board for the Hallandale Ministerial Association; the Florida East Coast Baptist Association; and Vision to Victory Human Services Corporation.

Though no words can ease our sorrow, I offer my deepest sympathy to Reverend Johnson's wife, Emma Inez, his three children, four grandchildren, and countless friends who were impacted by the magnitude of his ministry. The legacy of Reverend Johnson will continue to live on throughout the countless individuals who were impacted by his calling to serve.

Mr. Speaker, Reverend Joe C. Johnson is deserving of honor for his service to Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church, and his dedication to the mentoring, and personal development of leaders within the greater Hallandale Beach area and Broward County. His service and commitment exemplify the positive contribution an individual can make to their profession and community. Reverend Johnson was a very

dear friend. Words cannot express how much he will be missed.