Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the work being done by the Department of Defense regarding the threat of climate change, and to reinforce congressional intent on this important issue.

Last year's National Defense Authorization Act expressed the sense of Congress that climate change is a direct threat to national security. We have studied a number of readiness factors when it comes to our Armed Forces, but for too long, we have not given this major, multifaceted threat the attention that it deserves.

Current and former military leaders and members of the intelligence community agree that climate change poses a security challenge that has the potential to affect our tactical and strategic readiness.

Secretary Mattis was correct when he stated: `` . . . the effects of a changing climate--such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others--impact our security situation.''

Naval bases, such as Norfolk or Key West, are already at risk for flooding. In fact, Norfolk frequently deals with nuisance flooding, and that risk will only increase as storm surges increase in magnitude and tides continue to rise. Inland bases will experience other weather volatility, such as extreme heat and wildfires, all of which can impact their ability to train, and ultimately impacts readiness.

The displays of dominance in the Arctic will grow, where new sealanes will connect continents more directly than ever before. The changing global climate, Mr. Speaker, will also lead to greater instability in the form of economic migration, increased competition over resources, and possibly more failed states, which we know to be breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that a changing climate will alter our joint battle space. So when the U.S. Congress instructs the Department of Defense to take these threats seriously and evaluate the risk posed to our national security by climate change, we need exactly that. Our intent is clear, and there can be no room for misinterpretation.

Last week, The Washington Post reported that during revision of the Department's January 2018 Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey report, Department of Defense officials omitted information pertinent to how our military installations report their vulnerability to sea level rise, how climate change is affecting the operating environment in the Arctic, and the potential risk to the Department's ability to conduct training and testing activities that have important impacts on our readiness.

While I appreciate the need to update reports when it is appropriate and necessary, it is unacceptable to attempt to bend congressional intent for political convenience. The Department of Defense must answer tough questions as to what motivated these changes, if not a skewed political narrative. In fact, the issue of climate change and its impact on national security has become more bipartisan over the last several years.

In fact, last year, in the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress instructed each service within the Department of Defense to assess the top 10 military installations likely to be affected by climate change over the next 20 years. We also instructed combatant commanders to incorporate the effects of a changing climate into their strategic battle plans.

Forty-six Republicans joined with Democrats to support this language on the floor of the House, and I expect that when this report is delivered to Congress later this year, it will make candid assessments in line with the clear language we supported in that floor vote and that was signed into law by the President.

Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that the Department remains resilient and is prepared to address the effects of climate change on threat assessments, resources, and readiness, as well as to conduct operations both today and in the future. Congressional oversight plays an undeniable role in that process.

Mr. Speaker, the dangers of climate change on our national defense are real, and we support the researchers on the front lines of these critical threat assessments. Together, we can continue to craft a sane and sober strategy to defend the United States from a variety of threats, including climate change.

That is the expressed intent of Congress for the upcoming climate report, and is a necessity as we prepare for our Nation's future.

Mr. Speaker, today National Security Advisor John Bolton eliminated the position of special assistant to the President and cybersecurity adviser. I could not more strongly disagree with that decision.

As the co-chair of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, I have followed the work of the executive branch very closely on this issue over many years. I have had my critiques of President Bush, of President Trump, and, yes, even of President Obama.

But always, from President Clinton through the current administration, I have always felt that we are moving in the right direction in better protecting the country in cyberspace--even if too slowly and with a few bumps along the way

Today, we took a giant step backwards.

Cybersecurity, Mr. Speaker, is the economic and national security challenge of the 21st century, and as such,

we need to be increasing our focus on it, not weakening it.

I have respected and admired the work of our three cybersecurity coordinators, the late Howard Schmidt, Michael Daniel, and President Trump's pick, Rob Joyce. I am sorry that their legacy is being tarnished today.

I have introduced legislation with my friend, Mr. Lieu, to reinstate and empower the coordinator position, and I hope that the House moves to take it up quickly. Our national security demands no less.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc package, which includes my amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Act relating to air passengers with disabilities. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including an air passengers with disabilities bill of rights in the manager's amendment.

The Air Carrier Access Act was enacted in 1986 to prohibit discrimination based on disability in air travel. Despite progress, travelers with disabilities still encounter significant barriers. My amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to review and, if necessary, revise regulations issued under the act. In particular, it focuses on providing timelier and more effective assistance to people with disabilities, including by improving hands-on training for airline personnel.

Inadequate assistance for people with disabilities can lead to unacceptable delays, missed flights, and even passenger injuries. We can and must do better. Mr. Chairman, I have traveled all over the world, and I have dealt with those airlines who do things the right way and treat people with disabilities with respect and have good processes in place and other airlines that need more improvement and need to work harder at this.

These amendments and this bill will help us to get there. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Autism Awareness Month.

Right now, the CDC estimates that 1 in 68 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder, but a recent parent survey indicated that as many as 1 in 45 children may be affected.

As a proud uncle of a young man with autism, I understand the challenges that families across the country are facing and the need for more resources to support this in this area. But I am also aware of the positive opportunities that we can create by working together to build a better future for our loved ones with autism and the families that care for them.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a proud participant in the Rhode Island Autism Project's annual Imagine Walk, which highlights the importance of research, screening, interventions, and education for the entire Ocean State community and also helps to raise resources.

I look forward to continuing my work in Congress to support the Autism Project and other great organizations that help foster a more tolerant, inclusive society.

Mr. Speaker, today the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, published its first major update to its heralded cybersecurity framework. Since its release 4 years ago, countless organizations have used the framework to voluntarily assess their cybersecurity risk posture, identify gaps, and implement best practices. This update adds timely guidance about managing supply chain cybersecurity risks, like those Russia exploited to damaging effect with the NotPetya malware.

Since President Obama first directed its creation, NIST has employed a collaborative approach to developing the framework with diverse stakeholders from government, private industry, academia, and civil society. The revision process reflects this public-private partnership, and I thank the NIST team for their hard work drafting this update.

I firmly believe that cybersecurity is not just an IT problem, and the framework's approach reflects a broader risk-based decisionmaking process. However, an understanding of the economics of controls is essential if we expect companies to adopt them voluntarily, and I look forward to continuing my work in this Chamber to deepen that understanding.

Mr. Speaker, we need to address the crisis of our federal debt. We need fiscal responsibility. As Members of Congress, we are entrusted by the public to be wise stewards of taxpayer dollars. The deficit is a long-term threat to our country's stability, but this proposed amendment is not a realistic solution to that problem. We need a bipartisan, adult conversation about the need for both budget cuts and additional revenue to bring our country's finances into balance. This shouldn't be rocket science.

A Balanced Budget Amendment would be worthy of consideration if properly crafted to provide flexibility in times of war, recession, or national emergency. However, this rigid amendment fails to anticipate these unfortunate, but inevitable, contingencies. Instead, it is a cynical attempt to paper over the enormous cost of the Republican tax bill that disproportionately benefits wealthy and corporate interests in the United States. That's not a solution for serious investment in our country, nor is it a plan for smart growth.

We need to have responsible discussions about how to fund our military, provide support to Americans in need, and invest in infrastructure, research, and other ways to improve Americans' lives. In short, we need to have a budget that works for its citizens. A balanced budget cannot just mean cutting for the sake of cutting. Responsible budgeting must include the revenue side as well.

It's not too much to ask the wealthiest Americans and major corporations to pay their fair share, to give back to American society and help build our country up. This serious conversation about both revenue and spending has been notably absent from our recent debates.

Congress has all of the legislative tools it needs to fix the deficit, it just requires making the tough choices to create real solutions. As we saw during the Clinton years, we have the potential to balance the federal budget, and even run surpluses. We simply need to join together in a bipartisan effort and muster the will to enact responsible fiscal policies that address both revenue and spending.

If we see fiscal responsibility as consisting of only spending cuts, or only revenue adjustments, then we are doing a disservice to the nation, and we are not living in the real world. Our looming debt is a serious issue, and it needs to be discussed seriously.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this Balanced Budget Amendment, and I implore my colleagues to join me at the table for a responsible discussion on deficits, revenue, and spending. We need to have broad- based, if difficult, conversations about our budget process. Only then will we come up with budget compromises that work for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely need to address the crisis of our Federal debt. And we do it by coming together in a bipartisan way, having the adult conversation, the difficult conversation, addressing both revenue and spending. This is not rocket science.

A balanced budget amendment would be worthy of consideration if properly crafted to provide flexibility in times of war, recession, or national emergency. In fact, I have cosponsored such a resolution. However, this rigid amendment fails to anticipate these unfortunate but inevitable contingencies.

Instead, this resolution is a cynical attempt to pay for all the enormous costs of the Republican tax bill, the one that we recently passed and the one that was passed under George W. Bush, enacted to the benefit of special interests and the wealthy--overwhelmingly in their favor--and to clear the way for wholesale cuts to critical programs for children and seniors like Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has all the legislative tools that it needs to fix the deficit, as we saw during the Clinton years, when they had the adult conversation, when they did the tough work addressing revenue and spending in a bipartisan way. Then the Federal Government ran budget surpluses as far as the eye could see when President Clinton left office.

Now, we simply need to muster the will to enact responsible fiscal policies that address both spending and revenue, and the sooner we do it, the better, but it has to be bipartisan. We have to make the difficult choices on spending and revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and work with me, work with our colleagues across the aisle in a bipartisan way to enact comprehensive budget solutions that work longterm for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Stephen Hawking, who passed away last week at the age of 76.

Stephen Hawking was a brilliant student of the universe, a giant of the world stage, an inspiration to me personally and to us all. Through his discoveries about black holes and quantum mechanics, Professor Hawking challenged humankind to ponder the mysteries of the cosmos. He was curiosity personified, having once remarked: ``My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.''

Yet Professor Hawking, who was diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, at the age of 21, also personified the unconquerable human spirit. He took on the challenges of his disability with unparalleled tenacity and a trademark sense of humor, all the while reminding us ``to look up at the stars and not down at your feet.''

Mr. Speaker, in short, he was a force of nature. He made a difference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly condemn the March 4 chemical attacks conducted by the Kremlin in Salisbury, England, against former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, the first on the scene, has also been hospitalized.

Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin continues to display a pattern of interfering with and undermining the democratic processes and institutions in contravention of the rules-based international order. We have seen that in Russia's frequent disruptive cyber operations and now chemical warfare.

How far will they push things?

Mr. Speaker, that is why I, along with Representatives Meeks, Wilson, Cole, Holding, and Sires, introduced a resolution this afternoon condemning this attack, calling for accountability for this and all chemical and biological attacks and standing in firm partnership with our friends and allies in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important statement of solidarity in condemnation and also in praying for the health of Sergei, Yulia, and Nick.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 102, and YEA on Roll Call No. 103.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague from the First Congressional District of Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline, for sponsoring this bill in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a Rhode Island hero and to support the designation of the United States Postal Service facility at 515 Hope Street in Bristol, Rhode Island, as the First Sergeant P. Andrew McKenna Jr. Post Office.

First Sergeant McKenna had served with distinction for 17 years when he was killed on August 7, 2015, during an insurgent attack on Camp Integrity in Afghanistan.

That previous summer, I had the privilege of meeting First Sergeant McKenna at the Bristol Fourth of July parade.

Mr. Speaker, he was only 35 years old, and he died running toward incoming fire, saving the lives of his fellow soldiers.

A member of the 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group out of Eglin Air Force Base, First Sergeant McKenna saw six deployments, five to Afghanistan and one to Iraq, and his extraordinary service was recognized throughout.

Among his many medals are five Bronze Stars, one of which was awarded with a valor device for his actions during a mission that resulted in the death of a senior Taliban commander.

Following First Sergeant McKenna's death, he was awarded a Purple Heart and Silver Star, decorations he richly deserved.

In my time as ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, I have heard the stories of many of our special operators and the heroic deeds they perform to keep us safe here at home. They are the consummate quiet professionals, never far from danger, yet shying away from the spotlight.

First Sergeant McKenna was ``the best of us,'' his fellow Green Beret, Sergeant First Class Tim Kennedy, remarked.

He gave his life for his country, and naming the post office at 515 Hope Street in his honor is just a small way that we can thank him for his remarkable service and ensure that his memory lives on.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Cicilline, and our two Senators, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, for coming together to offer this legislation.

First Sergeant McKenna has made his parents, Peter and Carol McKenna, his friends, the town of Bristol, and the entire State of Rhode Island extraordinarily proud.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring his courage, his service, and his sacrifice today.

Mr. Speaker, no one should experience what the students of Parkland, Florida, did last week. My heart breaks for that community, for the lives of the lost, for those who were injured, and for the families that were affected. No family should ever have to bury a child because of gun violence in school.

Mr. Speaker, we need sensible gun violence prevention legislation to finally begin to address these tragedies, but I want to say I cannot support the President's frightening proposal to put more guns in our Nation's schools, in our Nation's classrooms.

I wholeheartedly agree that we must make our schools safer places for students to learn, but arming teachers will do just the opposite. I know firsthand that accidents can happen even when guns are in the hands of highly trained firearms experts.

I speak from this wheelchair today because, when I was 16, a stray bullet hit my spine and left me paralyzed. This was at the hands of two weapons experts on the police SWAT team. My accident occurred as a police cadet in the police department among trained experts. Just imagine what could happen in a school filled with children with people who are handling firearms who are not as well trained.

Mr. Speaker, we must do more to keep our students safe. More guns around them is not the answer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act. This misguided piece of legislation is being sold to my colleagues and the American public as a measure that will help people with disabilities, help businesses come into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and help reduce drive-by lawsuits in States that have gone beyond the ADA to allow for monetary awards. In actuality, H.R. 620 doesn't accomplish any of these objectives.

What is worse, if passed, this ill-considered bill will not only decimate the protections that people with disabilities rely on, it will turn back the clock to a more segregated society, and it will unravel the core promise of the ADA that a disability, visible or otherwise, can never be grounds to justify or tolerate discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, I am angry. I am frustrated. I am insulted. But more than anything, I am disappointed. Further, neither Mr. Peters nor Mr. Poe ever even approached me to sit down and have a discussion about this bill, to try to find some common ground to try to actually fix the problem if it is about drive-by lawsuits.

Has the Congress really become so divorced from the human experience of the disability community that we are willing to sacrifice their rights because it is easier than targeting the root of the problem? Are people with disabilities, people like me, so easily disregarded?

I am here to say enough is enough.

Mr. Chairman, whether someone is born with a disability, develops a disability, or becomes disabled due to an accident or from having served in our Armed Forces, the fundamental truth is that it happened by chance, certainly not by choice.

As the first quadriplegic elected to the United States Congress, I overcame many obstacles to sit beside you as a Member of this Chamber, but I would never have had the opportunities that I cherish today without the tireless efforts of those who came before me to fight for the rights of people with disabilities.

Mr. Chairman, I was injured in 1980, at just 16 years of age, a full 10 years before the passage of the ADA, and I certainly remember what life was like before the ADA became law. I remember that I couldn't go inside a public building that didn't have a ramp, couldn't travel without accessible transportation, and was excluded from gatherings in restaurants and libraries, movie theaters and sports venues that couldn't accommodate a wheelchair.

I struggled to wash my hands at a sink, access a restroom, and enter a classroom. I even declined matriculation at my first-choice college because the challenge of getting around the campus would have been too difficult, if not impossible.

Mr. Chairman, the ADA brought more than just the recognition that disability rights are civil rights. It brought hope and opportunity to millions of people, and it brought dignity.

Mr. Chairman, after all, having a disability should not limit opportunity, and it is with opportunity that people with disabilities can lead more active, productive, and independent lives.

The ADA was passed nearly 28 years ago, and instead of holding people accountable to correctly implement the law, especially when free resources and technical information are readily available, H.R. 620 weakens Federal protections under the ADA, protections that prohibit discrimination on the basis of a disability.

The ADA does not allow people to sue for compensatory or punitive damages, only injunctive relief. Yet some States have gone beyond the Federal law to permit monetary awards.

H.R. 620 seeks to address the issue by including a notice and cure period.

Well, the idea that places of public accommodation should receive a free pass for 6 months before correctly implementing a law that has been a part of our legal framework for nearly three decades creates an obvious disincentive for ADA compliance.

People with disabilities, Mr. Chairman, still face immeasurable obstacles, despite the progress of our great Nation since the passage of the ADA.

This past year, the disability community has had to fight to preserve access to healthcare, the long-term services and supports that are a lifeline for so many under Medicaid, and the ability to maintain certain protections and credits under the Tax Code.

Mr. Chairman, they are tired, and I am tired, of defending against efforts to weaken our rights. I urge my colleagues to see past the smoke and mirrors and irresponsible claims that H.R. 620 is anything but an appalling effort to strip away the civil rights of a protected class of Americans.

Mr. Chairman, every vote in support of H.R. 620 will be a message to people with disabilities that we are not worthy of inclusion, acceptance, or deserve the same civil rights protections as others.

Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, Americans with disabilities look upon us to defend their rights. Let us not vote to eliminate them. Let us make them proud and reject H.R. 620.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with my colleague and fellow Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus co-chair, Representative Gregg Harper. I want to mention that it is the only bipartisan amendment being offered to H.R. 620, and I think it is important to stress this point.

Mr. Chairman, two Members of Congress from different political parties--who represent a caucus that exists solely to inform, educate, and highlight issues impacting the disability community--have come together to say that there is something gravely wrong with this bill.

We are offering an amendment that would make it palatable. The amendment would strike H.R. 620's notice and cure requirement. As presently written, the notice and cure section mandates that someone who claims discrimination on the basis of a disability relating to an architectural barrier must provide a written notice that allows 60 days in order to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and 120 days to demonstrate substantial progress in removing the barrier before further legal action may be pursued.

That is 6 months of waiting without a guarantee that the architectural barrier will be removed and access granted. So the idea that places of public accommodation must first receive a notice before correctly implementing a law that has been part of our legal framework for nearly three decades creates an obvious disincentive for ADA compliance.

The proposal of a notice ignores the tenets of the ADA that support an indisputable right to inclusion and respect. No other civil rights law requires protected class members to hand a notice to people behaving in a discriminatory manner in order to educate them without any guarantee the situation will improve.

This amendment would keep program funding for the ADA education. It also maintains language supporting alternative mediation pathways relating to architectural barriers outside of the existing framework within the Department of Justice.

If supporters of H.R. 620 truly believe these State-based nuisance lawsuits are the result of a lack of knowledge of what the Federal ADA requires, and that businesses need less costly avenues to remedy violations, then why wouldn't they support an amendment that provides an answer to both of those claims without the harm of a notice and cure period that weakens the civil rights protections of the ADA?

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of a bill that delays justice for people with disabilities in a way that no other class protected by civil rights laws must endure when asserting their civil rights. I then urge my colleagues to consider whether the delay of a notice and cure requirement adequately addresses the underlying issue of ``drive-by'' lawsuits.

I am hopeful that doing so will result in a decision to support this amendment to remove the harmful notice requirement, while maintaining provisions that increase access to education and mediation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I proudly yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, again, I urge support of my amendment. The whole point of this amendment is to remove the notice and cure provision.

Again, the ADA law has been around for nearly three decades now. People should be proactive about understanding what their responsibilities are

to operate businesses or issues of public accommodation, to understand what their responsibilities are. Not, basically, taking that responsibility incentivizes people to say: Well, just wait and see if there is an issue, and only if we get notified will we then fix the problem.

People need to be proactive and comply with the law, and I believe, there, everybody wins.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise, again, in opposition to this amendment.

While I thank the gentleman from California for stressing the importance of providing opportunities for places of public accommodation to learn that they are in violation of the ADA, I disagree with the premise that the onus of enforcement should be placed on people with disabilities by requiring them to issue arduous and detailed notices.

There are free resources available that provide information and technical assistance to the public on the requirements of the ADA.

I can't stress this enough: when someone owns a business, they have to balance a variety of regulations and requirements at both the State and Federal Government level. Why should the requirements that their business be accessible to people with disabilities, requirements that have been in existence for decades, be weakened or viewed as less important?

Why should business owners be given a free pass until someone catches a violation before they comply?

The suggestion that we can reduce the timeframe of a notice and cure period misses the point. There is nothing that can be done to improve a notice requirement that shouldn't exist in the first place.

No other civil rights law requires people who experience discrimination to wait for justice or provide a written notice before taking legal action. Why should people with disabilities be treated any differently?

Further, what are the incentives to comply with the ADA in the first place if businesses can wait to be told what is wrong and then maybe fix the issue?

After all, even with a reduction in the notice and cure timeframe, there is still no clear requirement that a barrier actually be removed.

Again, I appreciate my colleague's desire to find a compromise, but this is not the answer.

Whether the notice and cure period is 120 days or 180 days, it does nothing to address the underlying issue of drive-by lawsuits. That is the crux of the problem happening in States that have gone beyond the requirements of the ADA and merely delays access and creates a national policy of apathy on ADA implementation.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, while I appreciate my colleague's attempt to find somewhat of a common ground on this issue, it does not address the underlying problem. The issue of the ADA being around for 30 years--it is well-known now. People are even proactive about finding out what their responsibilities are under the ADA, as opposed to just waiting until they are notified of a problem and then perhaps complying with.

No, we should not treat people with disabilities any differently than anyone else who is protected under civil rights laws. That is why we have them in the first place.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let's work together on finding a better common-ground solution. But this amendment and the underlying bill is not the answer.

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