Floor Statements

Mr. President, I object because people are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections.

Mr. President, even with the malfunction of 87 voting machines at predominantly African--

I have grave concerns--

Unfortunately, it is not yet signed by a Senator.

Mr. President, I object on behalf of the million of Americans, including members of the intelligence community.

Mr. President, despite grave concerns of the intelligence--

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the lifesaving impact of the Affordable Care Act.

This week, I have heard from dozens of constituents who have been calling my office and reaching out on social media to tell me their ACA stories.

I heard from one constituent whose mother had two devastating lung diseases. While she had good insurance, unfair lifetime spending caps priced her out of receiving the lifesaving treatment she needed. When the Affordable Care Act passed, we ended the cruel practice of lifetime spending caps. With these new protections, she was able to resume her treatment and stay healthy to spend time with her daughter and granddaughter.

Mr. Speaker, the ACA works. It reduces healthcare costs, enables young people to stay on their parents' insurance, and ensures low- income and struggling families that they can access the care they need.

If Republicans repeal this law without a viable replacement, there will be real consequences to real people. Let me be clear: by repealing the ACA, Republicans would end healthcare coverage for millions of families, put the insurance companies back in charge, and, yes, make America sick again.

I urge my colleagues to consider what is at stake here--real costs, real lives, not just a political football.

Let's do the right thing and protect families' health care.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his steadfast commitment to ensuring global peace and security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and H. Res. 11, which is a flawed and misguided effort as currently written. Let me be clear: H. Res. 11 would undermine longstanding and bipartisan U.S. policy on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This resolution is deeply flawed because it does not accurately portray U.S. policy on Israeli settlements. What is worse, this resolution completely mischaracterizes the United Nations Security Council resolution and the United States' abstention vote.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee shamefully rejected an alternative introduced by Congressman Price, Congressman Connolly, and Congressman Engel, which reflects current U.S. policy that would have reaffirmed our commitment to a negotiated and peaceful two-state solution. This is the only pathway to peace and security. It is appalling--but really, it is not surprising--that Republicans pushed through a closed rule and hurried this to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of a debate is a disgrace. But you know what? There are some of us here who are not going to be gagged. There are some of here who are going to speak our mind, and there are some of us here who are going to put forth our views. That is our constitutional responsibility. We have the right to debate, whether you agree or disagree. It is really, really a very sad day for our democracy when bills like this come to the floor with rules like this which don't allow debate. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Congressman Al Green, who served as president of the Houston Branch of the NAACP for more than 10 years, for hosting this important Special Order. We appreciate your leadership in coordinating this special order to honor the 106th Anniversary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

More than a century ago, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded in New York City. The month was February and would later come to mark Black History Month.

As a child of the Civil Rights Movement, I witnessed firsthand the leadership of the NAACP in fight for human rights. I vividly remember the role the NAACP played in shattering segregation in my birthplace of El Paso, Texas and in my personal life.

When I was in high school, it was nearly impossible for young women of color to become cheerleaders. At the time, I was participating in a work-study program at Pacoima Memorial Lutheran Credit Union and my boss, John Mance, was a member of the local NAACP Board. Together, he and Carl McCraven, the CEO of the credit union, worked to change the rules so anyone should try out to be a cheerleader. Thanks to them, I was able to cheer for the Tigers!

We all know their great contributions that the NAACP has made to our nation:

From their largest legal victory in Brown vs. the Board of Education, under the leadership of Special Counsel Thurgood Marshall--to their central role in the successful battles to overturn Jim Crow.

Today, the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization continues to engage in groundbreaking and critical work to combat disparity and inequality in our society.

Today, they boldly stand against repressive voter ID laws, economic inequality and mass incarceration.

We know that inequality persists--the unemployment rate among African Americans is nearly twice the rate of their white counterparts and the African American poverty rate is nearly three times the poverty rate of white Americans.

These statistics paint a clear picture of inequality in America.

The American dream of equality, freedom, liberty, justice and opportunity should be open to all and the NAACP is working day-in and day-out to ensure that all Americans have an opportunity to achieve the American dream.

I am proud that the NAACP has been a dedicated and constant partner and advocate.

I am proud to join my colleagues in honoring the NAACP's 106th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Mr. Roy L. Clay. Known throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and the nation as a computer engineer, investor, community leader and a dedicated husband and father, Mr. Clay has left an indelible mark on our nation.

Mr. Roy L. Clay was born in Kinloch, Missouri on August 22, 1929. Even at a young age, Mr. Clay was inspired to learn. In 1947, seven years prior to the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Mr. Clay was granted an academic scholarship to attend Saint Louis University. He graduated in 1951 with a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and, by 1956, he was among the first modern computer programmers.

After serving as a computer programmer in what is now the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, Mr. Clay was invited to join David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett-Packard Co., to build the first reliable computer. Mr. Clay established software development, directed research and development of all computer products, and served as the General Manager of the computer division. By the time he left Hewlett-Packard, he was the highest ranking African American employee in the company.

Mr. Clay's contributions to the information technology sector continued to grow. In 1971, Mr. Roy L. Clay consulted with Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Byers, a venture capital firm, to evaluate their investments in computer related firms such as Tandem Computer Company, Compaq Computer Company, and Intel. Then, in 1977, Mr. Clay founded ROD-Electronics to develop the first electronically controlled Dielectric Withstand tester. This test ensured that a product is safe from fire or electrical shock. Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM, AT&T, and Xerox adopted his Dielectric Withstand tester and added it to their production lines. In 2003, in recognition of his many accomplishments in Silicon Valley, Mr. Clay was inducted into the Silicon Valley Engineering Council's Hall of Fame.

Beyond his contributions to the information technology sector, Mr. Roy Clay has been a dedicated member of his community. He was the first African American to serve as City Councilman and Vice Mayor for the City of Palo Alto in 1973. Mr. Clay is also a Founder and Emeritus Board Member of the Olympic Club of San Francisco Foundation; founded with the purpose of generating funds to support underprivileged children in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Today, California's 13th Congressional District salutes and honors an outstanding individual, Mr. Roy L. Clay. His dedication and efforts in the information technology sector have impacted so many lives and helped to break the barrier for many African Americans throughout California and the nation.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 71-76 due to a family emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted no on #71, no on #72, no on #73, yes on #74, no on #75, and yes on #76.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 79-80 due to a family emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted yes on #79 and no on #80.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 69-70 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on #69 and yes on #70.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 65-68 due to a family emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted yes on #65, yes on #66, yes on #67, and no on #68.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Congressman Donald Payne, Jr. and Congresswoman Robin Kelly for hosting this evening's Special Order. I appreciate your leadership in organizing this important discussion.

Today we ask: where we were, where we are, and where we are headed. This year, we celebrate 50 years from the March in Selma. 50 years from the signing of the pivotal Voting Rights Act. Over that last 50 years, much has changed. But the work remains unfinished.

Fifty years ago, civil rights leaders and concerned citizens marched in Selma for freedom. The freedom to vote, to assemble, to petition their government--the Constitutional protections enshrined in our nation's Constitution.

It was a fight to end legal, Jim Crow segregation in the South that actively and systemically suppressed African Americans. But it was also a fight to protect all Americans--as Dr. King wrote in his famous letter from the Birmingham Jail: ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

We are still fighting to end injustice in our nation--we are fighting for economic justice and justice under the law.

Nearly 50 years ago, Dr. King outlined the two Americas that still exist today.

In a speech on April 14th, 1967 at Stanford University, Dr. King explained: ``there are literally two Americas. One America is beautiful for situation. And, in a sense, this America is overflowing with the milk of prosperity and the honey of opportunity. . . . tragically and unfortunately, there is another America. This other America has a daily ugliness about it that constantly transforms the ebulliency of hope into the fatigue of despair.''

Ladies and gentlemen--tragically, there are still two Americas.

Systemic and institutional disparities and inequality are endemic at every level of our society--a legacy born in the suffering of the Middle Passage, nurtured through slavery and preserved with Jim Crow.

Today, we see this legacy in African American unemployment that is more than twice the unemployment rate of whites.

We see it in poverty rates for African Americans that are nearly three times the rate of white Americans.

We see it in the faces of the 1 in 3 black men who will have spent some time of their life in jail.

Mr. Speaker--In many ways, we are still living in two Americas. One of poverty, unemployment and injustice.

Mr. Speaker--too many are being left behind.

Sadly, Congressional leadership has decided to pursue partisan gridlock instead of acting for the millions of struggling Americans.

Tragically, many of the rights we fought for 50 years ago we are still fighting today. Congress has reauthorized the Voting Rights Act four times, with large bipartisan support. However, there has been no Congressional action since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Not one hearing, not one vote and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has made clear, on this floor, that he has no intentions of taking up this matter.

Likewise, the deaths of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Oscar Grant--one of my constituents--and many others illustrate that there are still two Americas.

Recent events forced us to ask ourselves do Black lives matter? Yes-- black lives matter. Brown lives matter. White lives matter--all lives matter.

Our institutions must reflect this core value that all lives matters. We in Congress have a duty to get serious about reforming our broken criminal justice system. We need to repeal unfair sentencing laws, increase police force diversity, improve racial sensitivity training, end the school-to-prison pipeline and work to re-integrate ex-offenders back into society.

The Black Lives Matter movement parallels the Civil Rights Movement's call to action, a movement to that calls us to end economic despair, drives out hate and fear and embrace love, and unseats the unjust status quo.

While Americans from all walks of life continue to protest and demand for change, Congress must hear their call and work to enact real change.

Like Congress acted 50 years ago after Selma, we were sent to Washington to address the issues facing our nation--let's start working on the structural and racial biases that pervades and poisons our institutions.

That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the Grand Jury Reform Act, which authorizes an appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation and present the results to a judge in a probable cause hearing, open to the public, whenever a police officer kills an individual while acting in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker--We must pass this bill.

I have also introduced the Half in Ten Act to create a national strategy to cut the poverty rate in half over the next decade and lift 22 million Americans into the middle class.

Mr. Speaker--We must also pass this bill.

As a nation, we have made progress against racism and injustice. But we are backsliding.

We cannot lose the prize that our forefathers and mothers fought, bled and died to obtain and preserve. The soul of our nation is at stake.

Today, we carry the banner of Dr. King, Rosa Parks, and Medgar Evers. We have a duty to continue the fight for freedom, equality and justice.

This means Congress working together--Republican and Democrat--to pass important legislation to address unemployment and poverty and protect the voting rights of all.

The American dream of equality, freedom, liberty, justice and life must be more than just words. It must be a promise to all Americans, regardless of race, gender, place of birth, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, nationality or religion.

Together, we can continue the unfinished work of creating a more perfect union.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 59-64 due to a family emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted no on #59, no on #60, no on #56, yes on #61, yes on #62, yes on #63, and no on #64.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 54-58 due to a family emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted no on #54, no on #55, no on #56, yes on #57, and no on #58.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 51-53 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on #51, yes on #52, and yes on #53.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 46-50 due to a family emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted no on #46, yes on #47, yes on #48, yes on #49, and no on #50.

Let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also for being very vigilant in protecting women, women's right to privacy, and alerting us as to the dangers in this very terrible rule and terrible bill.

Madam Speaker, first of all, once again, as I said yesterday, this is just downright wrong. This is a horrible bill. This takes away a woman's right to privacy. Again, I thought in our country we prided ourselves on the right to privacy.

Women have a right to determine their own health care decisions. They can make these decisions with whomever they deem appropriate. There is no way that Members of Congress should intervene, direct, or superimpose views and government policies on women's health care and women's right to privacy.

Once again, the Hyde amendment was passed, I believe it was--what--in the seventies. We should be providing access to women's health care so low-income women would have the same opportunities to determine their own health care decisions as other women who have the access, but Federal funds haven't been allowed for many, many years now.

I don't know why these bogus arguments are being made on this bill because we don't have Federal funding of abortions, and I think women know that and see this as a real sinister move to, once again, deny women their right to health care and their right to privacy.

Also, once again, we are seeing how another bill further undermines D.C.'s home rule. This bill prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own funds to provide abortions. Why would we do this?

D.C. has a right to determine how they want to provide health care for women and have their own ability to determine their own destiny; but, once again, for low-income women in Washington, D.C., they are under assault with this bill.

It is really a shame and disgrace that, once again, we have to get up here and debunk the argument that Federal funds are being used for abortions because they are not. Today, the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we should really be talking about expanding access to a full range of reproductive health services for everyone, including low- income women.

We should be talking about expanding reproductive health services for all women, including low-income women. We should be talking about pay equity. We should be talking about child care. We should be talking about paid family medical leave. We should be talking about creating jobs.

But rather than that, here we go, once again, trying to get in the middle of a woman's decision to move forward with her own life based on the decisions that she and her physician and her family members make.

The right to privacy, once again, is being undermined by this bill. You can't have a right to privacy and keep government out of your private life on one hand and, on the other hand, say government has got to interfere with your personal and private business.

Health care is too important for women. Women need to be able to make their own health care decisions, and this bill would do the exact opposite. It would move our country backwards. It would move women's health care backwards.

I hope that Members will vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the bill. We need to be expanding access to women's health care.