Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening representing the Congressional Progressive Caucus in this Special Order hour, and I will be joined by colleagues as we will examine what our future appears to look like as we plan for the transition which is taking place. We are 8 days away from a new President and administration that continues to refuse to put Americans first and complicit with Republican- controlled Congress that will help them execute that mission.

At 1 a.m. this morning, 51 Republican Senators voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act with no replacement. After 6 years of hollow grandstanding, Republicans now know that their plan to repeal the ACA would dump massive costs on families, businesses, and the Federal budget. The facts are clear, Mr. Speaker.

Republicans' repeal of the ACA would result in the loss of 2.6 million jobs and more than 250 billion--that is billion, B--of gross State products in 2019 alone. Family budgets and State budgets alike would be rocked by the reverberations of the repeal. And we cannot forget about our healthcare providers.

The repeal of the ACA will crumble our critical healthcare infrastructure, decimating hospitals' and healthcare systems' ability to provide services, weaken local economies that hospitals help sustain and grow, and result in massive job losses of healthcare professionals. While Republicans claim to champion reducing the deficit, OMB calculates that the Republican budget

resolution and repealing of ACA would lead to significantly larger deficits in each year and add more than $2 trillion in debt over the next decade.

Taking away 30 million Americans' health care, blowing a hole in our budget, and saddling future generations with debt is the height of irresponsibility. It is important to note that just 20 percent of Americans support this repeal and delay plan.

In fact, the American people want Congress to focus on raising wages and creating good-paying jobs for everyone everywhere in America. The American people want to be assured that their Federal Government is working for all of their interests. That is what I want to do as well. I stand ready to work with anyone who is serious about these priorities.

Mr. Speaker, the nominees that this President-elect has put forth are focused on everything but the true interests of the American people. Maybe they are focused on the personal interests of the President- elect. Today, the nominee to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Dr. Ben Carson, could not even promise that not one decision or dollar would go to benefit the President-elect or his family. This is a problem.

Maybe they are focused on rolling back hard fought freedoms or protections. Yesterday, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker reminded us that the nominee for the Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions, has not demonstrated a commitment to the central requirement of the job, that is to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all. This, Mr. Speaker, is a problem.

Perhaps maybe they are not even interested in siphoning money from children and public schools. Nominee Betsy DeVos, the nominee for the Secretary of Education, has made a career of advocating for the shutdown of public schools and supporting legislation that has reduced oversight and accountability in Michigan charter schools. Her life work is the very antithesis of everything that the Department of Education represents.

This is a problem, and to speak to this problem I would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who has experience in standing up for public education for our children.

I want to thank my colleague for coming and taking the time and speaking on behalf of public education and students everywhere. We talked about it before, and I am happy to announce that we will be working as part of the House Public Education Caucus and looking very closely at those issues that are being brought forth and those plans that are being offered.

I know if you look at my district in my State of New Jersey, you see some of the finest public schools in the country. At the same time, just 12 miles away, you see some of the most challenging. I know in my district that, if Elizabeth DeVos would take a look at what is happening in my district, she would see schoolteachers anxious to teach but have textbooks in what is considered advanced placement classes that don't even have the cover on the top of the book that those children are using. I know this because I have seen it for myself.

So higher education is, indeed, that issue, that opportunity, that difference between living a life of poverty and being able to educate yourself and prepare yourself for a future that we must stand up for, and we will. I thank the gentleman for the time that he has given us.

By nominating Tom Price as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, President-elect Trump will continue his assault on the health of Americans. The HHS nominee has made a career on lining the pockets of insurance companies at the expense of the sick, on behalf of the rich, and his unwavering support of cuts to Medicaid and Medicare are forever known.

This signals yet another broken promise by the incoming President to pledge to leave the essential Federal programs alone, and he is doing the opposite. This is, indeed, a problem.

Defending the sanctity of American democracy is more important than any

partisan consideration. Yet, after reports of Russia's attack on our democracy were confirmed, Rex Tillerson, nominee for Secretary of State, wouldn't say if he would support sanctions against the country. In fact, Mr. Tillerson admitted that he had not yet spoken with the President-elect about the conflict. This is a huge problem, not the least of which is one whether or not we can believe it.

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a champion for all progressive needs and for all families.

I thank the Congresswoman. It is true. As we see the unfolding of some of the drama that is taking place, including that which affects us and is associated with Russia, it is even more important than ever that the President show us that he is not hiding anything regarding his relationships that potentially present a contradiction of his first and foremost responsibility to us and show us his tax returns.

I thank the gentlewoman from California very much for being here.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

I thank my colleague for sharing his insights and his experience with us. We have a lot of work to do, and we are ready to do it.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to those that my colleague has mentioned, I would like to bring attention to some of the other nominees that we should be considering here.

We haven't mentioned the Department of Energy and the nominee, Governor Rick Perry, who disregarded this agency so much that he couldn't even remember that he wanted to eliminate it when he was running for President, or even Linda McMahon, who is the wife of a billionaire. It seems to me that this litany of nominees belongs to the millionaire-billionaire club. They know each other well, and the one thing that they are committed to is ensuring that their interests and the interests of this President-elect, in his private life, are advanced. I think that the people in this country need to understand how troublesome this is.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), the co-chair of the Caucus on Black Women and Girls and a fighter for the rights of all working families and all vulnerable families.

I thank my friend and my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, defending the sanctity of American democracy is more important than any partisan consideration. We are at a juncture at which we will experience a President-elect who has displayed breathtaking ignorance about the powers and the basic functions of government and who has identified the nominees for these cabinet positions who, if confirmed, will dismantle equality, equity, and opportunity at every turn, capped off by a Republican-controlled Congress that would rather make good on divisive rhetoric instead of working in the best interests of Americans.

There is just so much at stake as we go forth in the next couple of weeks and as the President-elect identifies and puts forth his nominees. Whether it is in the Department of State or in the Department of Education or in Energy or in HUD or in Health and Human Services or in Justice or in the Environmental Protection Agency--where a nominee, as Attorney General, spends his time dismantling and litigating against the Environmental Protection Agency--or whether it is Labor, where the Labor Secretary doesn't seem to care about working individuals and protecting workers' rights, or whether it is an SBA administrator who doesn't have any idea what it is to be a part of a working class or a middle class, or whether it is even the Treasurer of the country, who comes from massive wealth and Big Business, each of these illustrations, in combination with there being the decisions already to dismantle--to take health care away from millions of families, to create the loss of jobs as a result of dismantling the Affordable Care Act without placing anything in its place--represent the dismantling of the democracy that we have fought so hard to sustain.

If we are going to watch these serious attacks on the equality and opportunity for all people, then we must make sure that the people in this country see these things. I have a question for all of us to answer. As we look toward all of these issues, either individually or collectively, at what point do we conclude with the question: Is what is happening in America un-American?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is more important than being the President of the United States? For all of us here, that is a no- brainer; but, each day, I find myself asking that of the President- elect.

Last night, we watched President Obama say farewell to the country he served. For the past 8 years, parts of our country disparaged him, and some of our colleagues fought him tooth and nail at the expense of their constituents; but, each day, we were assured that our outgoing President put this country and our interests first.

President-elect Trump seems to serve himself. Yesterday, several news sources reported the possibility of a continuing exchange of information between Russia and Trump campaign officials during the election; so, in the face of yet another troubling revelation that further sullies the ground on which his loyalty to America stands, I have questions:

Is our President-elect willing to sacrifice his personal gain for the good of this great Nation?

When will we find out if he has fulfilled his legal obligation to pay taxes like millions of Americans do?

How can we be sure that our interests will take precedence if we don't even know that they ever have?

Will this White House serve as ``Trump Tower South''?

The actions and words of the President of the United States have a loud and reverberating effect through the world economy and the international political system.

To date, President-elect Trump's promises to America have been hollow and his actions self-serving. President-elect Donald Trump does not merely offer an alternative direction for our Nation; he, it seems, offers to use the Presidency primarily for his personal benefit.

When given an opportunity to set these concerns aside, he scoffs at his critics and embraces our Nation's enemies. Instead of making reasonable attempts to reassure the American public, whom he will soon swear to protect, he gaslights us with tweets, mockery, and lies.

In the past, we have seen the term ``un-American'' used to indict members of the public executing their civil liberties. Antiwar advocates protesting for peace have been called un-American. Civil rights leaders standing against discrimination have been called un- American--just ask Senator Jeff Sessions. Professional athletes taking a knee to acknowledge sordid realities within our justice system are deemed un-American, and comedians and pastors, alike, for using their microphones to criticize our Nation.

But, quite frankly, dissent is American; protest is American; criticism is American. Healthy skepticism toward our national intelligence is American. Disparaging and discrediting it is not.

Working with foreign powers to ensure peace is not only American, but also Presidential; inviting a foreign power to compromise the cybersecurity of private citizens is not.

Empowering Americans to become involved in the political process, to take action, and to even be critical of you is American; attacking them when they call untruths and inciting your supporters to do the same is not.

For these reasons and a host of others, I simply ask the question: At what point do the actions of our next President--President-elect Donald Trump--meet that threshold of un-American?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who have spoken this evening.

As I have said, I would have liked to have spent this transition period working with the President-elect on ways to solve our Nation's issues. I would have liked to have been reassured that, despite disparaging and divisive rhetoric, his actions would have worked to unite us all. Instead, we are battling against a nominee who has already been deemed unfit for a Federal judgeship. So what can possibly make him fit to serve as our Nation's top law enforcement officer?

The definition of justice is the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. Synonyms include equity, objectivity, and neutrality. Senator Sessions has built a reputation and a voting record that does not align with justice. I do not wish to relitigate the past, and while it cannot be ignored, we don't have to look too far back to identify Senator Sessions' priorities. In 2006, he voted to renew the Voting Rights Act. In 2013, he supported the Supreme Court decision to strike key provisions of that law.

Following being denied a Federal judgeship, Senator Sessions cosponsored legislation to honor Rosa Parks with a Congressional Gold Medal while also voting against legislation in 2009 to extend Federal hate crime protections against people targeted because of their sexual orientation. Further, he has been the ringleader to immigration reform.

How can we in good faith recommend, nominate, or confirm a person to a post that is solely responsible for protecting the civil rights of all Americans, including those who are vulnerable, disadvantaged, and discriminated against?

This administration is continuing to ask us to put aside our intellect and to trust their intentions. I refuse. This administration would like us to support a man who, throughout his career, has determined the rights of those who look like me, like constituents I serve, as inferior. I refuse, and I ask the Senators to please consider this as they listen to whether or not this gentleman deserves to be confirmed.

Mr. Speaker, as I've said before, I would have liked to have spent the transition period working with the President-Elect, Trump, on ways to solve our Nation's issues.

I would have liked to have been reassured that despite disparaging and divisive campaign rhetoric--President-Elect Trump's actions would work to unite us all.

Yet, instead we're here battling against the nominee for the 84th attorney general of the United States who was already rejected as a federal judge.

His disqualification was rooted in allegations that he called a black attorney ``boy'' and his suggestions that a white lawyer working for black clients was a race traitor.

Not only that but Senator Sessions found humor in his only issue with the Ku Klux Klan was their drug use, and accused civil rights groups as being ``un-American'' organizations trying to ``force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them.''

So what could possibly make him fit to serve as our Nation's top law enforcement officer at the Department of Justice?

The definition of justice is the quality of being just, impartial, or fair.

Synonyms for justice include equity, objectivity and neutrality.

Senator Sessions has built a reputation and, most importantly, a voting record that does not align with that definition.

I do not wish to re-litigate the past as I would not want to be judged on my actions and thoughts of 30 years ago. However, Senator Sessions' growth and commitment to inclusivity--even 30 years later-- remains to be seen.

Following being denied a federal judgeship, in the early 90s, Senator Sessions co-sponsored legislation to honor Rosa Parks with the Congressional Gold Medal, while also voting against 2009 legislation that extended federal hate crime protections to people targeted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

While in 2006 he voted to renew the Voting Rights Act, just years later in 2013 he supported the Supreme Court's decision to strike key provisions of the law.

Furthermore, he has been the ringleader of opposition for immigration reform.

How can we in good faith recommend, nominate, or confirm this person to the post that is solely responsible for protecting the civil liberties of all Americans--including those who are vulnerable, disadvantaged, and discriminated against.

This administration is continually asking us to put aside our intellect and to trust their intention. I refuse.

This administration would like us to support a man who throughout his career has determined the rights of those who look like me and the constituents I serve are inferior. I refuse.

This administration would like us to sit idly by as Donald Trump tries to overwhelm us into tacit submission to his dangerous agenda. I refuse.

A Trump-Sessions Department of Justice would be not only an attack on our civil rights and equality; it would be an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

Article II, section 1:

``The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President chosen for the same term, be elected as follows:''

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank my colleague, Mr. Pocan, for yielding back and giving me this opportunity to address the people of the United States of America.

I am new around here, and so I like to generally listen and evaluate before I speak, and I only try to speak when I might have something to add of value.

If you drive through my district, which is the 12th Congressional District of the State of New Jersey and includes a lot of highways, byways, and bridges, you will see this iconic sign in the capital of New Jersey that says, ``Trenton Makes, The World Takes.''

It is a sign that points out the legendary industrial past of our community. However, this industrial revolution, it has passed us by, and it is a reminder of the employment that the city used to have.

Yes, the city of Trenton was once the place that you found employment. The Trenton Iron Company produced the wrought iron beams for the dome on this U.S. Capitol Building where we stand today. Trenton's John Roebling's Sons Company produced wire rope that was used to build the Brooklyn Bridge, the now-famous George Washington Bridge, and the Golden Gate suspension bridge in California.

Trenton was also known for its potterymaking, and even today, Trenton pottery can be found on display in museums around the world because of its artistry and superior craftsmanship.

Trenton's booming industry is responsible for the invention of even the oyster crackers, pork roll, Bayer aspirin, and felt-tipped markers.

Yet, today, Trenton, New Jersey, has a 15 percent unemployment rate. The city of Trenton's legendary industrial past does little for the thousands of unemployed workers searching for work today. The city has had a turn for the worse since the manufacturing sector has left and took with it great-paying jobs.

We are not alone in that problem and this crisis. The same can be said for Cleveland, Ohio, or Detroit, Michigan, or Gary, Indiana, or Philadelphia--to name just a few--towns which were once thriving centers of commerce where jobs were plentiful and unemployment was rare. Today, these same towns face an unemployment crisis where securing work that enables a mother or a father to support a family is an elusive proposition.

At the same time we experience this employment crisis, we also have a crisis in our infrastructure. New Jersey has 39,213 total miles of road. We are small, but we have a lot of concrete, but 35 percent of the major roads are in deprived condition.

New Jersey has 6,566 bridges, but 36 percent of which are underfunded, considered structurally deficient, or functionally obsolete. Over 200 million trips are taken daily across deficient bridges in the Nation, but in total, one in nine of the Nation's bridges are rated as structurally deficient.

You may recall, in 2007, the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis--which had been categorized as structurally deficient-- collapsed, killing 13 and injuring 145 people.

Mr. Speaker, our bridges are crumbling, and we need to invest in building and fixing them. The Nation's estimated 100,000 miles of levees can be found in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. The reliability of these levees is unknown in many cases, and the country has yet to establish a national levee safety program.

In 2005, New Orleans' levees failed to hold back the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina, claiming the lives of more than 1,800 people and causing at least $125 billion in economic damage. Public safety remains at risk from these aging structures, and the cost to repair or rehabilitate these levees is roughly estimated to be $100 billion by the National Committee on Levee Safety.

Mr. Speaker, these numbers are reflective of what America has become. I take a look at our communities today, and I see the vestiges of our past.

I ask that we, as Congress, stop playing games, that we get to work for real this time, that we recognize that here we will have the opportunity to not only create safe infrastructure, not only to create safe bridges, not only to protect communities that are subject to flooding from levees, but we will also be able to create jobs.

There is no more meaningful social action program than a good job, and we know that government has a history for creating those jobs in times of need that help not only to build the strong infrastructure of this great Nation, but to put families back to work, to make sure that they are earning a wage for which they can take care of their children, help provide opportunities for their families, take care of their elderly, ensure that their children have access to quality education, and ensure that our future is strong and stable, based upon the fact that they have had good, predictable, dependable, decent-paying jobs with decent wages.

I look to our Congress, as many people do in this country, and I know who we really are, and I know that if we put our foot to the pedal, that if we decide that we are going to put this country back on a strong footing--metaphorically, as well as literally--I know that if we are understanding that if we build out and support that middle-income layer, those people, the working people of this Nation, that we will create an economy that will grow and prosper everyone from the very, very top to the very, very bottom.

That is what we need to do right now in this country, from a bipartisan perspective, is to introduce, to advocate for, to debate, discuss, design, and develop an infrastructure bill with bipartisan support that signals to the working families and all families in this country that, A, we want to make sure that you are safe as you travel our highways and cross our bridges, that you are safe when you live near waterways and need to be protected with levees, and that you are given the opportunity to give back to your country, to build it, make it the strong country that it should be and, at the same time, create the kind of jobs that we need in order to grow our economy for everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to the American people today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Alabama for bringing us together around this important issue.

It is my honor to be a cosponsor of this endeavor, to take this opportunity to demonstrate our appreciation and our respect for the sacrifices that were made by the foot soldiers who marched in the three marches. It is my honor always to be a part of this wonderful body that serves along with John Lewis, who happens to be one of my personal heroes.

This Congressional Gold Medal is not just simply an award. It is emblematic of a selflessness that was demonstrated by people who stood up and did the right thing and put their lives in jeopardy to ensure that we, as a democracy, had an opportunity to participate at the very highest level, and that is the level of voting.

As I stand here and thank each and every one of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this initiative, I rise also to remind us that we have work still to be done, that the battle that was before us that we thought we won is still there to be won, and that we need to correct the actions of the Supreme Court and follow through on the actions of giving people the right to vote.

Mr. Chairman, thank you to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member, for this opportunity to speak.

I rise today also in opposition to H.R. 50, the misleadingly named Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015, which passed out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on a strictly partisan vote.

This bill neither improves nor streamlines the regulatory process. Instead, this ill-conceived bill is an assault on consumer protections, gives private industry an unfair advantage to weigh in on rules, and erects new, unnecessary barriers in the regulatory process.

H.R. 50 would require agencies to provide the private sector with an unfair advantage to influence proposed regulations. The supporters of this bill claim that it creates parity between the private and the public sectors, but that is simply not true. What it really does is provide the private sector with a sneak peek of proposed rules before they are even made public.

This bill propels regulated private sector entities to the front of the line while pushing the consumers these laws are designed to protect to the back of the line. It further gums up the regulatory process by allowing opponents to delay or invalidate rules through litigation.

The existing Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 prohibits courts from using the law to stay, enjoin, invalidate, or otherwise affect an agency rule. H.R. 50 would fundamentally change that law by eliminating this prohibition, giving regulated industries the ability to abuse this expanded judicial review and tie up rules in courts for years. For example, Wall Street banks could take agencies to court over Dodd-Frank consumer protection rules that have yet to be finalized.

Most Americans, and certainly most of my constituents that I represent, simply do not have the means to hire lawyers to sue Federal agencies if they are dissatisfied with a Federal regulation, but large corporations do. H.R. 50 would give corporations the ability to sue and to stall regulations they view as unfavorable.

By unnecessarily layering an additional, burdensome judicial review and giving private industry an unfair advantage, this bill shows that it is not working for the consumers, but it is only working for the chosen few.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey and fellow member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Mr. Payne, and obviously my senior for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Ranking Member Payne's legislation, H.R. 615, the DHS Interoperable Communications Act. This commonsense, bipartisan legislation builds upon recommendations made by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security by requiring DHS to develop a strategy for achieving interoperable communications among the Department's components.

During an emergency, be that a terrorist attack or natural disaster such as Superstorm Sandy that devastated my home State of New Jersey, it is essential that first responders are able to communicate.

It is also essential that components of the Department of Homeland Security are able to communicate with one another at all times. H.R. 615, as introduced by my colleague from New Jersey and before us on the floor today, seeks to make that aspiration a reality.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, in the 14 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we have still not reached the day where interoperable communications is a universal reality among State, local, and Federal agencies. Ranking Member Payne's bill puts us on a path to fixing that reality as it relates to the Department of Homeland Security.

Importantly, the bill clarifies and enhances the Department's Under Secretary for Management's responsibility for achieving and maintaining interoperable communications among the components of DHS. By doing so, the bill focuses this important mission and will aid Congress in conducting the oversight necessary to see that the policy goals of the bill are achieved.

As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, I look forward to conducting robust oversight of DHS' operations in many areas, including interoperable communications.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his work on this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 615, the DHS Interoperable Communications Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from Ohio for yielding to me. I want to thank both the gentlelady from Illinois and the gentleman from New Jersey for providing this opportunity here to speak tonight on something that I think is very important.

As a member of the CBC, a very proud member, I am here because we rise to commemorate a slice of American history that speaks to the spirit that is America. We rise to acknowledge the sacrifice and the forethought of a generation whose risks were ultimately America's reward. We rise to recognize the American heroes and sheroes of Selma on the 50th anniversary of this Bloody Sunday.

From Selma, we learned that sometimes protests and objections that are deemed un-American today may later be considered the greatest manifestation of American democracy.

From Selma, we learned that because of a young person's protests today, he may be called an outside agitator, a troublemaker, or even a provocateur, but that same young person, because of that same activity, may later be called courageous, a hero, or even a Congressman.

Yes, from Selma, we learned that ordinary people can do extraordinary things when they are on the side of righteousness. Selma taught us, as Dr. King suggested, that it is always the right time to do what is right.

But at the time of that fight, the likelihood that this generation of young dreamers would be successful in transforming an entire society seemed slim. They persevered anyhow. In the

face of seemingly insurmountable odds, these young people fought for what was right no matter the consequence.

Today we must learn from their example; we must persevere in the fight for working families, despite those that believe that there should be no floor for the poor and no ceiling for the rich.

We must protect the precious right to vote for all people. We must persevere despite the fact that there is little reward for fighting for people who cannot fight for themselves, and we must fight for what is right and not what is popular.

We must remember that it is our legacy to fight on the side of righteousness when we debate giving access to health care, access to education, access to the right to marry, and access to just plain old justice. I look forward to this collective will and this collective commitment of the CBC because I know that we can never forget Selma.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, I was detained in meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 6, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''