Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 232.

Mr. Speaker, if today's vote on the previous question fails, we will have the opportunity to vote on my bill, H.R. 1868, Restoring American Privacy Act of 2017, which will reverse last night's disastrous action by President Trump when he signed a partisan congressional resolution allowing internet providers to sell their customers' personal information without their knowledge or consent.

Before my time in Congress, I started my career as a systems analyst. I have firsthand experience writing code, and I can tell you that the first thing to protect vulnerable and sensitive data is to make sure it is kept private.

S.J. Res. 34, which the House passed last Tuesday, unraveled those vital protections for sensitive information belonging to millions of Americans nationwide.

The resolution negating essential protections for private citizens was signed by President Trump last night. The October 2016 FCC rule was the only rule that required internet service providers to obtain consumers' permission before selling their private internet browsing history and other sensitive information.

I am simply shocked that my colleagues across the aisle would vote for a measure that violates American privacy by selling your most personal and intimate information, including your email content and your app usage, all without your consent. Not only is this wrong and a blatant violation of policy, but it jeopardizes Americans' personal data and puts them at risk of hacking.

Repealing the FCC rule with S.J. Res. 34 allows broadband providers to turn over your info to the highest bidder or anyone else they want, including the government, without a warrant, without ever telling you. That is right. I will repeat it. Repealing the FCC rule with S.J. Res. 34 allows broadband providers to turn over your private information to the highest bidder or anyone else they want, including the government, without a warrant, without ever telling you.

Even worse, S.J. Res. 34 also tells providers they no longer have to use reasonable measures to protect consumers' personal information. This is absolutely unacceptable. We are living in a time where identity theft and internet hacking has become the new norm. We must provide consumers with these protections. No American wants their most personal information to be up for grabs.

Eliminating this rule prevents the FCC from publishing rules that are substantially the same absent additional legislation, establishing a very dangerous precedent for private citizens. Americans should have the right to decide how their internet providers use their personal information.

What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is simple. This bill makes clear that the American people's browser histories are not for sale. The American people's health information: not for sale. The American people's financial information: not for sale. And the American people's location data: not for sale.

It is a simple concept and one I hope my colleagues across the aisle will recognize and support. The American people don't want the legislation that was signed last night. In overwhelming numbers, they are calling Congress and letting it be known that they want to keep their private information private.

I am proud to stand up for the American people by introducing the Restoring American Privacy Act of 2017, which reverses this misguided resolution and says, once and for all, that ISPs cannot sell customers' personal information without their knowledge, without their permission. This bill says that your privacy is not for sale, period.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and introduce my friend, Rabbi Sanford Akselrad. As leader of Congregation Ner Tamid, he has been a friend, a mentor, and my rabbi for 25 years.

His vision for a campus, a spiritual hub, has been realized in his nearly 30-year career at Congregation Ner Tamid. He has led us with strength, with poise, and with wisdom as he has shared in the sorrows and joys--from the simchas to the shivas--of our entire community.

His work in both the outreach and interfaith communities has left impact and meaning on so many lives across the Las Vegas Valley and beyond.

May he continue to serve us all with grace, compassion, and strength.

Mr. Speaker, as leader of Congregation Ner Tamid, he has been a friend, a mentor, and my rabbi for 25 years.

Since moving to Las Vegas in 1988, Rabbi Akselrad has served as the spiritual leader of Congregation Ner Tamid.

His vision for a campus, a spiritual hub has been realized in his nearly 30-year career at Congregation Ner Tamid.

He has led us with strength, with poise, and with wisdom and has shared in the sorrows and joys from the simchas to the shivas of our entire community.

His work in both the Interfaith and Outreach communities has left impact and meaning on so many families across the Las Vegas Valley.

His unwavering commitment to building a strong community as our Congregation's spiritual leader and in creating a vibrant Jewish community in Southern Nevada has not gone unnoticed.

During this time, the Synagogue grew from approximately 60 to over 600 families, becoming the largest Reform Synagogue in the State of Nevada. In his nearly 27 years of service to our Congregation, Rabbi Akselrad has served on a wide variety of community boards including the Humana Hospital Pastoral Advisory Board, the Jewish Federation of Las Vegas, Jewish Family Services and the National Conference of Community and Justice.

A firm believer in K'lal Israel and building a strong Jewish community, Rabbi Akselrad has spearheaded many community-wide boards, commissions, and organizations that have helped shape the Jewish community we live in today.

In the wake of the Great Recession of the late 2000's, Rabbi Akselrad envisioned Project Ezra, a partnership between the Jewish Federation of Las Vegas, the Board of Rabbis, and Jewish Family Service Agency. Project Ezra helps people of all faiths secure new employment in this changing economic climate.

Rabbi Akselrad is currently a board member of the Anti-Defamation League of Las Vegas and the Interfaith Council of Southern Nevada. Rabbi Akselrad has served on the National Commission on Jewish Living, Worship and Music for the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ) since 1999. He has also served on the Outreach Committee (to interfaith families) of the URJ.

Rabbi Akselrad's community contributions and leadership are the best example of Congregation Ner Tamid's commitment to Tikkun Olam and Social Justice.

May he continue to serve us all with grace, compassion, and strength.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, last night, in an effort to secure more votes to pass the so-called American Health Care Act, the GOP made another last- minute attempt to modify its replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act--a replacement that I can only describe as a disastrous piece of legislation--by offering a short-term fix to try and regulate the massive rise in premiums that Americans over the age of 50 are expected to incur under their current plan.

H.R. 372 is a measure that simply ends health insurance antitrust exemption. What is ironic is that the proposed legislation is being messaged by the GOP as a bipartisan bill, a no-brainer. But Republicans have never lifted a finger to end the antitrust exemption. For years, Congressman John Conyers and the Democrats have advocated ending health insurers' special treatment.

The reality is, while this is an unobjectionable bill on its own, H.R. 372 has nothing to do with reversing the extraordinary damage that the GOP plan will unleash on this country. The fact is this will not help us solve the fundamental issues underlying the GOP's repeal-and- replace bill. Yet, instead of fixing what we know is not working under the current law, the GOP has offered this Band-Aid to help mend a bill that needs major surgery. H.R. 372 is simply a complement to help fix our healthcare system, not an alternative.

One of the worst aspects of the GOP's repeal is the fact that it implements an age tax. Americans over the age of 50 will be forced to pay up to five times more than what young Americans would pay for coverage. In my district alone, we have roughly 89,000 people between the ages of 50 and 64 who would see their premiums and the cost of their insurance rise significantly.

I recently heard from one of my constituents within that age bracket. He is a retired firefighter who served our country for 29 years and is now disabled. So after many years of service, Ted is worried that if the GOP plan becomes the new law, he and his wife would be kicked off their insurance plans simply because their insurance would become unaffordable.

If this is what the GOP has offered to fix their disastrous repeal, then I am sad to say, my friends, you have missed the mark once again. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if the GOP repeal is enacted, 14 million Americans nationwide will be kicked off their insurance coverage by the end of this year alone.

So let me be clear. The problem with the GOP repeal is that as Americans age, they get less and less coverage. We need to protect those Americans who are fast approaching their Medicare-eligible years but who, for now, are still bearing the heaviest cost of private insurance.

My motion to recommit makes this possible by turning this Band-Aid of a bill into something that actually helps drive down costs for older Americans. It does this by allowing insurance companies to take part in the bill's safe harbor protections only if they charge individuals over 55 less than three times as much as younger Americans. Since insurance companies consider these safe harbors critical for their survival, this will reverse one of the worst parts of the Republican health plan, allowing insurance companies to charge older Americans five times or even more for health insurance.

I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to show that they aren't tone deaf and that they haven't lost touch with the needs and wants of their constituents, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to recommit so that we can protect our seniors and the most vulnerable of Americans among us.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act.

I will be the first to admit that ObamaCare has its flaws, but we should mend the law, not end the law. Because of the ACA, we have seen the uninsured rate in Nevada and in my district reduced by half.

The GOP replacement would not only drop 15 million Americans from their insurance and raise healthcare costs on hardworking Nevada families, but it would end funding for Planned Parenthood, taking away affordable healthcare services that so many women in my district rely on.

Recently I received a letter from a constituent whose family has a history of breast cancer. She is so concerned that she and her daughter will stop receiving the regular cancer screenings that they need to survive.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable for us to vote on a bill that would create a life-or-death situation for millions of Americans across the country.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I rise to voice my full support for the fiscal year 2017 Defense Appropriations bill. This legislation supports our Armed Forces by helping pay our troops and provide care for our men and women in uniform and their families, and it gives our military the resources necessary to combat terrorism, deter our adversaries, and support our allies.

The Defense Appropriations bill includes a 2.1 percent pay raise for our servicemen and -women, which will help our military families like those who are currently struggling in Nevada to make ends meet.

One of the most important investments proposed is increasing our military readiness, which helps strengthen our national security. The legislation fully funds troop number increases authorized and provides an additional $6.8 billion in procurement spending. This is especially important for helping modernize our Armed Forces by fulfilling unmet requirements for additional ships, weapons, and aircraft, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at Nellis Air Force Base and unmanned aerial vehicles flying counter-ISIL operations missions from Creech Air Force Base.

Finally, the NDAA helps support programs that strengthen relations with our allies. I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on February 14th on roll call vote 89, I was not present because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 89.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

In the aftermath of World War II, leaders from both parties, who many in this House revere to this day, developed the principle of civilian control of our Armed Forces and codified it into law. They had seen the rise of fascism and communism, and held this principle dear because they believed it was necessary for the safety of our democracy. It was the outgrowth of a long tradition of thinking about civil-military relations, as old as our Republic itself, going back to the Founders.

Yet, almost all of these same leaders and legislators made an exception for General George Marshall; but when they did so, they did not take the action lightly. The exception in 1950 did a number of things that this legislation does not, which my colleagues have spoken about. All are serious, but I want to highlight one.

The exception in 1950 named General Marshall by name and applied the exception only to him. This bill does not name General Mattis, and it is written more broadly. The principle of civilian control of the Armed Forces was important to the Greatest Generation and it was an exception in every sense, an exception for an exceptional individual.

This matter should not be rammed through Congress. There are serious issues to discuss. I believe civil-military relations remain vitally important to the American people and to the health of our democracy.

I believe that General Mattis is an excellent general officer. He has served our Nation well, and he will be a capable Secretary of Defense. My opposition to this legislation is not about General Mattis' capacity to serve in this role.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why is this legislation written so that it could apply to other individuals and does not name General Mattis and state that this is only for him?

We are being asked to rush, without conducting proper oversight, without holding a hearing, and after being prevented by an unelected transition team to hear from General Mattis himself.

This is the people's House. The House should have a proper hearing before a decision of this magnitude is made. General Mattis should have been allowed to testify before our committee, as I am told was his desire. If today's legislation addressed these concerns, which could have been achieved, my vote would likely be different today.

But I cannot, given this process and this language, vote for this legislation today in good conscience.

``. . . the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, . . .''

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today in support of this resolution and to lend my name as a cosponsor. The United States alliance with Israel is absolutely critical, and this is not the time to sow uncertainty about the state of our relationship.

This resolution does a number of important things, but the most important is that it reaffirms Congress' longstanding support for a bilateral settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and objects to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. Paragraph 5 of that resolution is reminiscent of a recent U.N. Human Rights

Council resolution that established a database of companies in the settlements, facilitating a boycott.

The UNSC resolution does nothing to advance the cause of peace and is, in fact, an obstacle to it. Strongly ensuring the security of Israel is the only pathway to a lasting settlement.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this resolution.