Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, last Friday, I sent a letter to my constituents telling the story about the violent attack on our Capitol Building, which is really like the temple of our democracy.

I have now taken the oath of office, the same oath of office that the President of the United States has taken, that all of us here have taken, and he has been the orchestrator of this attack.

It is time to hold this President accountable. It is time, and history demands that we impeach Donald Trump a second time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University as it celebrates its 50th anniversary.

The Institute was founded in 1968-1969 as the Center for Urban Affairs by twelve faculty and was renamed the Institute for Policy Research in 1996. Over its 50 years, the Institute for Policy Research has earned national recognition and respect as a premier social science research center and has produced valuable and actionable research about social and political issues facing the City of Chicago, the State of Illinois, the country, and the world.

The Institute for Policy Research's mission is to stimulate and support excellent social science research on significant public policy issues and to disseminate the findings widely--to students, scholars, policymakers, and the public. The Institute is a dynamic hub for rigorous social science research that maintains a strong community of 150 interdisciplinary scholars across the Northwestern community investigating health-related social disparities, education policy, crime, race, poverty, community development, and more.

Institute for Policy Research faculty fellows and associates have received high honors from distinguished bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Education, the National Academy of Medicine, the American Educational Research Foundation, and the Yidan Prize Foundation.

I congratulate the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University on this milestone and applaud the Institute's contribution to the improvement of people's lives through research and policy development.

Mr. Chairman, the real political grandstanding that we are hearing today is from the Republican side of the aisle, which for nearly 10 years has been fighting against the Affordable Care Act.

Over 60 times, they voted against the Affordable Care Act. Maybe it is because some people call it ObamaCare. We know that millions and millions of people have gotten healthcare because of it.

It is time to stop and to say let's work together to make the Affordable Care Act even better and extend access. The fact is that the Affordable Care Act and affordable prescription drugs are two pillars of healthcare access. They really cannot be separated.

I am proud that we have an opportunity today to do what was impossible while the Republicans were in charge of the Congress. Today, we are voting on making impactful, lasting change in lowering the cost of healthcare, including prescription drugs, for Americans nationwide.

Democrats are at the table and ready to pass this legislation.

We are ready to improve all aspects of healthcare from healthcare affordability, to prescription drug affordability. Instead of offering amendments in bad faith, we need to pass this bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to reject the amendment by Mr. Bucshon and support the passage of H.R. 987 in its entirety.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to lead a reading of parts of the Mueller report, otherwise called the ``Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.'' As I said, it is more commonly known as the Mueller report. It documents widespread and effective foreign intervention to target voters and influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

This operation, led by Russian agents, was a direct attack on our democracy. The report has not been taken seriously by the administration. Even worse, it has been ignored for fear it would somehow minimize President Trump's electoral college victory and bruise his ego.

It is critical that we set the record straight and work to address an ongoing threat that Russia poses to our future elections.

My fellow Members and I will be reading excerpts taken directly from the report, documenting the Russian campaign to secure a Trump Presidency.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), to read his quote.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) to read a quote from the Mueller report.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for reading.

Madam Speaker, I am going to read a quote from the Mueller reporter dealing with Russian interference.

``The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the Internet Research Agency''--and you will hear this evening, over and over again, the name IRA, and that is what it is--``the Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization, funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled, including Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering, (collectively `Concord'). The IRA conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system. These operations constituted `active measures'''--and it is translated into Russian--``a term that typically refers to operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing the course of international affairs.''

That is volume I, page 14.

I am going the read one more, and this is from volume I, pages 14 and 15.

``By the end of the 2016 U.S. election, the IRA''--that is that Russian organization that has influenced the media in the United States of America in our elections--``the IRA had the ability to reach millions of U.S. persons through their social media accounts. Multiple IRA-controlled Facebook groups and Instagram accounts had hundreds of thousands of U.S. participants. IRA-controlled Twitter accounts separately had tens of thousands of followers, including multiple U.S. political figures who retweeted IRA-created content. In November 2017, a Facebook representative testified that Facebook had identified 470 IRA-controlled Facebook accounts that collectively made 80,000 posts between January 2015 and August 2017. Facebook estimated the IRA reached as many as 126 million persons through its Facebook accounts. In January 2018, Twitter announced that it had identified 3,814 IRA-controlled Twitter accounts and notified approximately 1.4 million people Twitter believed may have been in contact with an IRA- controlled account.''

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Madam Speaker, let me just remind everyone that the IRA stands for the organization that coordinated all of the online activities dealing with interference in the U.S. election.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) to read a quote.

Reading from volume I, page 33.

``The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and members of the Trump campaign. (The investigation identified no similar connections between the IRA and the Clinton campaign.) First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump campaign promoted--typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting--pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States.''

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the great State of Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Volume I, page 35.

``Starting in June 2016, the IRA contacted different U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump campaign in an effort to coordinate pro-Trump IRA-organized rallies inside the United States. In all cases, the IRA contacted the campaign while claiming to be U.S. political activists working on behalf of a conservative grassroots organization. The IRA's contacts included requests for signs and other materials to use at rallies, as well as requests to promote the rallies and help coordinate logistics.

``While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals.''

Volume I, page 35.

``In sum, the investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election through the `active measures' social media campaign carried out by the IRA, an organization funded by Prigozhin and companies that he controlled. As explained further . . . the office concluded (and a grand jury has alleged) that Prigozhin, his companies, and IRA employees violated U.S. law through these operations, principally by undermining through deceptive acts the work of Federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in the U.S. elections.''

That is also volume I, page 35.

Volume I, pages 42 and 43.

``On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents. In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state- sponsored actors (which they referred to as `Fancy Bear') were responsible for the breach.

``Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers,'' that is, the Russian spy agency officers, ``using the persona Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including `some hundred sheets,' `illuminati,' and `worldwide known.' Approximately 2 hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.

``That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks. The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts between June 15, 2016, and October 18, 2016.

``Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized around thematic issues, such as specific States (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.''

That is volume I, pages 42 and 43.

This is now volume I, pages 49 and 50.

``Unit 26165 officers also hacked into a DNC account hosted on a cloud-computing service--redacted. On September 20, 2016, the GRU began to generate copies of the DNC data using--redacted--function designed to allow users to produce backups of databases (referred to--redacted-- as `snapshots'). The GRU then stole those snapshots by moving them to-- redacted--account that they controlled; from there, the copies were moved to GRU-controlled computers. The GRU stole approximately 300 gigabytes of data from the DNC cloud-based account.''

That was volume I, pages 49 and 50.

This is volume I, page 50.

``In addition to targeting individuals involved in the Clinton campaign, GRU officers also targeted individuals and entities involved in the administration of the elections. Victims included U.S. State and local entities, such as State boards of elections (SBOEs), secretaries of state, and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for those entities. The GRU also targeted private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.''

``The GRU continued to target these victims through the elections in November 2016. While the investigation identified evidence that the GRU targeted these individuals and entities, the office did not investigate further. The office did not, for instance, obtain or examine servers or other relevant items belonging to these victims. The office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the States have separately investigated that activity.''

This is volume I, pages 51 and 52.

``The Trump campaign showed interest in WikiLeaks' releases of hacked materials throughout the summer and fall of 2016--redacted.

``On June 12, 2016, Assange claimed in a televised interview to `have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,' but provided no additional context.

``In debriefings with the office, former Deputy Campaign Chairman Rick Gates said that,--redacted. Gates recalled candidate Trump being generally frustrated that the Clinton emails had not been found.''

``Gates recalled candidate Trump being generally frustrated''--again it

says--``that the Clinton emails had not been found.''

Again, that is volume I, pages 51 and 52.

I am hoping that some more Members come down, but if not, I am going to read just a couple more things.

``Many IRA operations used Facebook accounts created and operated by its specialists--redacted.

``IRA Facebook groups active during the 2016 campaign covered a range of political issues and included purported conservative groups (with names such as `Being Patriotic,' `Stop All Immigrants,' `Secured Borders,' and `Tea Party News,'), purported Black social justice groups ('Black Matters,' `Blacktivist,' and `Don't Shoot Us'), LGBTQ groups ('LGBT United'), and religious groups ('United Muslims of America.')

``Throughout 2016, IRA accounts published an increasing number of materials supporting the Trump campaign and opposing the Clinton campaign. For example, on May 31, 2016, the operational account `Matt Skiber' began to privately message dozens of pro-Trump Facebook groups asking them to help plan a `pro-Trump rally near Trump Tower.'

``To reach larger U.S. audiences, the IRA purchased advertisements from Facebook that promoted the IRA groups on the news feeds of U.S. audience members. According to Facebook, the IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000.

``During the U.S. Presidential campaign, many IRA-purchased advertisements explicitly supported or opposed a Presidential candidate or promoted U.S. rallies organized by the IRA (discussed below). As early as March 2016, the IRA purchased advertisements that overtly opposed the Clinton campaign. For example, on March 18, 2016, the IRA purchased an advertisement depicting candidate Clinton and a caption that read in part, `If one day God lets this liar enter the White House as a President--that day would be a real national tragedy.' ''

That was a quote from the ad that they paid for.

``Similarly, on April 6, 2016, the IRA purchased advertisements for its account `Black Matters' calling for a `flash mob' of U.S. persons to `take a photo with #HillaryClintonForPrison2016 or #noHillary2016.' IRA-purchased advertisements featuring Clinton were, with very few exceptions, negative.''

Again, this is a Russian agency, Russian corporation.

``IRA-purchased advertisements referencing candidate Trump largely supported his campaign. The first known IRA advertisement explicitly endorsing the Trump campaign was purchased on April 19, 2016. The IRA bought an advertisement for its Instagram account `Tea Party News' asking U.S. persons to help them `make a patriotic team of young Trump supporters' ''--I will say that again: ``make a patriotic team of young Trump supporters''--``by uploading photos with the hashtag #KIDS4TRUMP. In subsequent months, the IRA purchased dozens of advertisements supporting the Trump campaign, predominantly through the Facebook groups `Being Patriotic', `Stop All Invaders' and `Secured Borders.'

``Collectively, the IRA's social media accounts reached tens of millions of U.S. persons. Individual IRA social media accounts attracted hundreds of thousands of followers. For example, at the time they were deactivated by Facebook in mid-2017, the IRA's `United Muslims of America' Facebook group had over 300,000 followers, the `Don't Shoot Us' Facebook group had over 250,000 followers, the `Being Patriotic' Facebook group had over 200,000 followers, and the `Secured Borders' Facebook group had over 130,000 followers. According to Facebook, in total the IRA-controlled accounts made over 80,000 posts before their deactivation in August 2017, and these posts reached at least 29 million U.S. persons and `may have reached an estimated 126 million people.' ''

That is Volume I, pages 24 to 26.

Madam Speaker, I am going to yield back my time.

I think it is worth people taking a look at the Mueller report. You can get it in book form. You can also download it for free. It can be downloaded for free from--I think it is the Justice Department, isn't it? The Justice Department website.

I think, seeing the extent and reading the words that talk about the extent of Russian interference in our elections is really important, especially as we head into a new election cycle where Americans want to have confidence that their vote really matters, that the messages that they are getting are legitimate ones from inside the United States of America, and that Russian or any other foreign influence is not using the internet, using names that are supposed to sound like they are American organizations and American websites and American Facebook pages.

I think it is very important for people to learn about that. It is worth the read.

Actually, if you consider all the redactions, it is not as long a read as you might think. And then all of us would be informed.

About 3 percent of Americans have read the Mueller report, and I would certainly encourage more.

One of our colleagues, Mary Gay Scanlon, I know, is going to begin at noon tomorrow with a full reading. It is going to be done in one of the House rooms here, upstairs in the Rules Committee, a reading of the Mueller report.

Otherwise, I think people have misguided information about what is in it and the idea that there is really nothing at all that is important.

Those Americans who are interested in the sanctity of our elections, I would very much encourage. You could even watch the reading that is going on starting at noon tomorrow of the full Mueller report. And consider the threat to our elections and that we have to do everything we can to make sure that there is no outside interference.

Madam Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to condemn the Trump administration's dangerous final rule that allows healthcare workers to discriminate against patients based on their personal beliefs.

Too often, healthcare in this country is riddled with inequality, and while Democrats in the House are working to address this, the administration is trying to make it worse.

This policy will be most harmful to our sisters of color who often live in areas with hospitals that may refuse comprehensive reproductive healthcare, including abortion and birth control.

Refusals have already threatened the life of women with pregnancy complications. This rule could make the maternal mortality crisis among African American women even worse.

This is yet another attempt by the Trump administration to impose their beliefs and take away our healthcare and our rights, and I will continue to fight to ensure that healthcare is equal for all Americans.

Dr. Lawren, from my home state of Illinois, wrote to the Trump Administration in response to this rule.

She said, ``As a physician, it is absolutely crucial that I provide the same level of care for every patient no matter how my own beliefs differ from theirs. I often have patients with whom I disagree about a wide spectrum of political and social causes. It would be so outrageously inappropriate for me to use that as grounds to change my medical care or to alter the level of respect and compassion I show for these patients.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation for the outstanding journalistic career of Robert Pear and to join so many who share a deep sadness over his untimely loss.

Those of us who had the chance to pitch a story to Robert or faced the challenge of responding to his questions knew he was deeply knowledgeable about health care. For 40 years, he reported on every major health care story and raised many issues that became major stories based on his reporting. He knew the laws that were in place, studied the policies being proposed to change those laws, and combed proposed legislation to get the details right. I knew that I had to know my stuff when Robert Pear called, because he would ask smart questions that demanded serious and thoughtful answers.

What always impressed me about Robert was his interest in looking at how the Congressional debate would affect real people. Health care wasn't just an inside-the-Beltway political conflict in Robert's reporting, it was a debate that had real-life consequences for everyone in every part of our nation. He would read the footnotes of GAO reports but would be even more interested in talking with my constituents about how high cost-sharing or lifetime limits affected their family budgets. He was masterful in being able to translate arcane policy into understandable language--informing both policymakers and the public. We all paid attention to a Robert Pear article.

Robert was a great reporter and he was a great and kind person. Robert always made you feel that he respected your views and was grateful for the time you gave him. He was interested in all perspectives and viewpoints. He would regularly check in with my long time Chief of Staff and health policy expert, Cathy Hurwit. He always said thank you--and you know he meant it. He would often send follow-up emails to share something that he thought might be of interest. He was the nation's preeminent health care reporter, but he was never a self- promoter. His goal was always to get the story and to get it right.

We have lost an important and astute chronicler of health care. After four decades of relying on his reporting, it is hard to imagine that we will never again read another Robert Pear article in The New York Times. My deep condolences go to his brother Douglas, his friends, and all those who got to know Robert Pear the reporter and the person.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are standing up and saying what they would like to see, and that is to protect people with preexisting conditions. The problem with what they are telling the American people is that what they are proposing does not protect people with preexisting conditions.

I know when I first came to Congress as a woman, being a woman was a preexisting condition. There were a lot of things that weren't covered because we are women, until we passed the Affordable Care Act.

While the Republicans are talking about protecting such people, they are supporting a lawsuit, right now, that, once again, would undo all of the Affordable Care Act, sweeping out with them protections for preexisting conditions.

But the other key word to listen to is flexibility. They are talking about allowing up to 4 years of policies that States could enact that do not cover the whole panoply of things that the Affordable Care Act covers and could exclude even protection for preexisting conditions. That is not flexibility. That is taking away benefits from people.

You can sign up for one of these, what we call, junk policies and you are perfectly well, and then all of a sudden you have some kind of an illness that, guess what, is not covered, and won't be covered, because then you will have a preexisting condition.

The legislation Democrats have for you today would protect preexisting conditions, no questions, period, end of story.

Madam Speaker, the report on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, more commonly known as the Mueller report, outlines efforts by the Russian Government to manipulate the United States election

system and directly attack American democracy. It outlines alleged coordination between individuals associated with one camp and Russia to influence our election.

It also documents multiple instances of potential obstruction of justice.

The report has been mischaracterized and spun in inappropriate ways in the Halls of Congress and within the media.

In reality, the report documents widespread activities undertaken by many in positions of power that were at best unethical and at worst illegal.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Instead, listen to the following examples taken directly from the report and judge for yourself.

I am going to begin with a quote from the Mueller report and then invite my colleagues to also simply read from the document, which the American people should know can be downloaded for free from the Department of Justice website.

``The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'' Volume II, page 8.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) to quote from the Mueller report.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

``The President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks of the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.''

Volume II, page 7.

``The President's position as the head of the executive branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses.''

Volume II, page 7.

``Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the special counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct.''

Volume II, page 97.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

We have talked about how shocking it is for our country, the United States of America, which is, despite any effort to change, a country of immigrants. I know the gentlewoman, herself, is an immigrant to the United States of America.

My parents, neither were born in the United States of America. But this is a place where my family was able to find refuge from the pogroms in Eastern Europe and make a good life here. And yet, today, we are seeing such horror that, if it were another country, I think we would want sanctions. We would go to the United Nations. How could a country separate families?

And it is not just at the border, as Members know. Inside our country, in my city of Chicago, we are finding families that are scared all the time, mixed families where the children might be citizens and the parents undocumented. The kids are afraid to go to school, wondering if their parents will be there when they get home.

But that trip to the border that the Congresswoman helped organize is something that I will never, ever forget. Seeing people in cages, seeing that grandmother--remember?--who was inconsolable because she came with her 7-year-old granddaughter who was taken from her because our country did not recognize a grandmother as family. That child was redesignated as an unaccompanied minor, and she thought she may never see her granddaughter again, and maybe that is true.

There are thousands, we think, of children and families that are separated. We don't know. Nobody knows. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't know how many children have been separated from their parents.

We saw some moms who were being reunited with their children, and one of them was furious, and I was curious as to why. This mother said her 8-year-old daughter was told, ``Your mother abandoned you.'' Someone representing our country said that to a child.

Who does that?

``Your mother abandoned you, and you will be in a shelter until you are 18 years old.'' That reunion, mother and daughter, did not go smoothly at first, as you can imagine.

I mean, we saw a whole room full of people pleading guilty to crossing the border because it wasn't at a designated border crossing. It was so painful to see that. And that was the beginning of the zero- tolerance policy. And we are still seeing families separated, families suffering 1 year later.

And, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for calling attention to this and for organizing that visit to the border, which is forever in my mind.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.

Climate change is the greatest, the greatest, and most urgent challenge of our time and this government should never put corporate profits and those kinds of concerns ahead of the health and safety of our children and our future.

Climate change isn't just a Democratic or a Republican issue. It is an existential issue for our species on this planet.

I am hearing so many mischaracterizations of what the Paris accord is. These standards that are applied to the United States are not from the outside, not coming from across the pond. We agree to reduce carbon emissions on our own terms. Every country develops its own plan and its own program.

This issue about jobs is just ridiculous. Everyone understands that our future is not in the fossil fuel industry. The future is in the green technologies that are being developed by entrepreneurs. Young people get it. The 21st century jobs of the future are clean technologies that make sure our planet is good and that entrepreneurs can actually succeed.

The costs of not doing this right now are so enormous. We are seeing, practically every year, what are called 500-year floods. They are only supposed to happen once every 500 years, and now we are seeing State after State, in my own Midwest, under water, and it happens all the time.

What is the cost that we are bearing in all of our States and at the Federal level to mitigate the problems that are caused by climate change? And I want to just say to my colleagues: These words are on the Record. You might want to consider not embarrassing your children and your grandchildren and future generations of yours with making the kinds of statements you are.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, we have hit a nerve with the Republicans on the Affordable Care Act, which they opposed before it began, have been opposing it for 9 years, promising to come up with some sort of a repeal and replace, never being able to do it, and now standing up here and saying life was better before the Affordable Care Act. Amazing.

People with preexisting conditions love the Affordable Care Act.

Why are we here in the majority today? Because the American people came to understand that before the Affordable Care Act, children born with preexisting conditions from the day of birth were not able to be covered by healthcare, that there were limits in how much insurance companies would pay per year or per lifetime caps, and making families live in fear of disaster and financial chaos.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the Trump administration and their decision to support the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, not in the Congress, but now in the courts.

They couldn't defeat it here. They tried when they had the majority in both Houses and could not repeal it.

When I came here, being a woman was essentially a preexisting condition. Women paid more for healthcare, sometimes 40 percent more, just because we are women. Pregnancy was very rarely covered by insurance, and now women are covered for those things like preventive services, mammograms, pregnancy.

The Affordable Care Act has let people 26 years old stay on their parents' policies.

No wonder the American people have completely turned around and understood the sham that the Republicans were offering and support the Affordable Care Act.

Madam Speaker, as we near the end of March, which is Lymphedema Awareness Month, I rise to mark my reintroduction of the Lymphedema Treatment Act. When a cancer patient has her lymph nodes removed and experiences swelling and discomfort, it is a jarring experience. She is then often hit with another surprise: many insurers, including Medicare, do not cover a critical treatment for lymphedema-- compression garments. This is one more challenge on top of the monumental battle of fighting cancer.

Including medically-necessary compression garments in Medicare coverage is a common-sense solution to increase access for the 10 million people who suffer from lymphedema. That is what my bill would do. Coverage under Medicare sets a precedent and is an important step in increasing access to compression garments for all Americans. 384 of my colleagues cosponsored this bill last Congress, and almost 100 have joined me and Representatives Buddy Carter, Earl Blumenauer, and Mike Kelly as original cosponsors today. It is critical that we pass this bill into law.

Finally, I want to thank the Lymphedema Advocacy Group in particular for their tireless work in championing the Lymphedema Treatment Act. Today, my heart is with Elaine Eigeman, board chair of the Lymphedema Advocacy Group, who recently entered hospice care. She has been a champion for lymphedema patients for years, and she is the primary reason this bill was first introduced four years ago. I am proud to reintroduce this bill in her honor.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished career of Michael Mikulka, who is retiring after 43 years of distinguished service at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and after serving as President of AFGE Local 704. Mike was recently awarded ``Man of the Year'' honors by AFGE District 7 for his fight to save the EPA Region 5 office and the jobs of the scientists and engineers who protect the Midwest. He helped protect our environment and fought for the rights of EPA workers over his more than four decades of work at the EPA, and I honor and thank him for his important work.

Michael Mikulka started his career at the Environmental Protection Agency in November 1976 in the Water Division at EPA's Region 5 Chicago, Illinois Office, where he first helped municipalities receive grants under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to install wastewater treatment plant systems. He then enforced the Clean Water Act, taking charge of the Region's CWA enforcement, bringing cases in civil court for injunctive relief and penalties against polluters who dumped toxins into our lakes and streams. Mike then moved to the EPA Region 5 Land and Chemicals Division, where he was charged with cleaning up complicated hazardous waste sites in communities throughout the Midwest.

As part of his career at EPA, Mike received numerous commendations, awards and medals attesting to his superior service to the region. Mike has been a Professional Engineer for over 35 years and was recently elected a life member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, where he has been a member for over 40 years.

Some of the significant projects Mike worked on at EPA include:

Participating on an inter-agency task force which developed the plan to clean up the Combined Sewer Overflows in the Twin Cities;

Helping develop the Region 5 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) control strategy, much of which was later incorporated into the national CSO control strategy;

Leading an interagency task force to develop a strategy to clean up the Grand Calumet River, the most polluted river in the Great Lakes region;

Bringing and resolving cases against those polluting the Grand Calumet River, as Chief of Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement officer for Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota;

While he was the EPA Region 5 head of CWA enforcement, the region consistently led the nation in environmental enforcement with respect to numbers of cases, penalties collected, and environmental benefit;

Helping EPA Region 5's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Branch became the regional enforcement contact on the RCRA hazardous waste air emissions standards and conducted training nationwide for EPA, states and industry;

Providing technical assistance to regional staff to develop and prosecute cases against fuel blenders and other treatment, storage and disposal facilities who were not meeting the RCRA air emissions standards;

Working on significant hazardous waste cleanup projects across the Region, including active and closed steel mills in northwest Indiana and Ohio;

Cleaning up arsenic and other contamination from the Menominee River, resulting in an ability to de-list the river as a Great Lakes Area of Concern.

As a Member of Congress, I have personally worked with Mike and have observed his endless dedication to the environment and to the hard- working employees of the EPA. Mike will be remembered for his important work protecting the environment in the region, for his leadership in AFGE Local 704, and for his support of the EPA and its wonderful staff. He will be missed.

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the following letter submitted to the Daily Herald newspaper by my constituent Frank G. Splitt of Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Splitt rightly acknowledges the contributions to our nation made by General Andrew J. Goodpaster, who amongst other things, served as the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and superintendent of West Point. I encourage all my colleagues to learn about the contributions made by this legendary general from Illinois.

[From the Daily Herald, Mar. 9, 2019]

An Illinoisan Too Important To Ignore

(Letter to the Editor, Opinion)

In a recent Wall Street Journal column, ``Five Best Books

on American Generals'' Winston Groom recommended works about

military leaders. C. Richard Nelson's book, ``The Life and

Work of General Andrew J. Goodpaster,'' was conspicuous by

virtue of its absence from Groom's list--so too was the

absence of General Goodpaster from the Herald's March 3, 2019

supplement, ``Illinois' Rich History, People Places & Things

that Make Illinois Stand Out.''

Readers of Nelson's biography will find that Goodpaster

(1915-2005), born in Granite City, Illinois, graduated from

West Point in 1939. He was a soldier, engineer, and scholar

who led and fought with uncommon valor in World War II,

advised several presidents, most notably President Dwight D.

Eisenhower, and served as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander,

Europe (1969-1974). He has been called the finest officer of

our era.

Goodpaster was brought out of retirement in 1977 to serve

as the superintendent of West Point as it was reeling from a

cheating scandal. In his four-year tenure at the academy, he

sought to substitute ``positive leadership'' for hazing and

personal abuse.

Subsequent to Goodpaster's government service, among other

things, he served as the Chairman of the George C. Marshall

Foundation and as a senior fellow at the Woodrow Wilson

International Center for Scholars. He was the recipient of

the Presidential Medal of Freedom, by President Reagan in

1984, for ``lifetime accomplishments that changed the face

and soul of our country.''

Goodpaster's approach to analysis and decision making

provides valuable lessons for current and aspiring leaders.

His life story should serve as an inspiration to others who

are challenged with the task of resolving complex domestic

and foreign policy issues. It has been said that General

Goodpaster remains ``too important to ignore.''

Frank G. Splitt,

Mount Prospect.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to stand here today as we work to pass gun violence prevention legislation.

I would like to share a letter from a fifth grader constituent of mine, Alex, from Northfield, Illinois, that perfectly explains why we must pass H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112.

Alex writes: ``I don't want to see innocent people dying for no reason. I want all children to feel safe at school. I want all adults to feel safe at work. I want all people to feel safe in their city. I think stronger gun laws will help and also make sure that everyone that buys a gun has to have a thorough background check.''

Well, Alex, you are absolutely right, and we are about to finally ensure that everyone who purchases a gun undergoes a comprehensive background check. The next step is banning assault weapons.

This fifth grader and students around the country are telling us to do something real to make them safer, and finally, at long last, the House of Representatives will take action today.