Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 985, the so-called Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act.

This outrageous legislation would severely limit the ability of injured consumers and workers to obtain relief through class action lawsuits. If that were not bad enough, the bill also contains a totally unrelated measure to violate the privacy of asbestos victims, and subject them to potential discrimination. Together, this legislation is just one more measure in the Republican parade of bills this week to further tilt the playing field in favor of wealthy corporations over ordinary people.

Class action suits are an essential tool to enable victims of corporate wrongdoing to be compensated for their injuries and to deter future misconduct. Plaintiffs often seek to band together as a class when the potential damages they could receive individually are too low to make it practical to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit alone. But, as members of a class, they have the power to secure relief from a multimillion-dollar company and put an end to its illegal practices.

That is exactly why the big corporations oppose them. It makes it harder for those companies to operate with impunity from the law, with little regard for the injuries they may cause.

It was class action lawsuits that helped uncover years of corrupt practices in the tobacco industry and began to turn around a public health disaster, not to mention recover billions of dollars. It was class action lawsuits that revealed contamination of groundwater that cause certain forms of cancer. It was class action lawsuits that revealed fraudulent pricing practices and misleading advertising by drug companies, widespread employment discrimination, and predatory payday lending practices. Class action lawsuits also helped expose and bring down the sham university peddled on winning victims by the current occupant of the White House.

But this bill includes a range of provisions that would make such class action suits practically impossible. For example, it would require each member of a class to suffer ``the same type and scope of injury'' as the named class representative. What this means is that if two people use a defective product, but one suffers first-degree burns while the other person suffers third-degree burns, they cannot join together in a class because their injuries are of a different scope. Or take a company with a pattern of racial discrimination. If some workers are being paid less than others for doing the same job while other workers find themselves repeatedly passed over for deserved promotions, they cannot join in the same class action because they would not be deemed to have suffered the same type of injury--one having been paid less, the other having been passed over for promotions--despite being victims of the same discriminatory policies.

This is just one of a host of unnecessary and onerous requirements placed on victims by this bill that makes it virtually impossible to form a class. When added together, it amounts to a giant bailout for wealthy corporations at the expense of injured consumers and workers.

Mr. Chairman, we do not want the Federal courts to be simply collection agencies to large corporations. We need justice for the small, ordinary person.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional young Australian who is currently interning in my Washington, D.C. office. James Holland came to our office as part of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme (UCWIP) and has been a valuable contributor to our efforts on behalf of New York's Tenth Congressional District.

UCWIP has worked with congressional offices to foster strong ties and understanding between the United States and Australian governments by bringing the best and the brightest from top Australian universities to intern on Capitol Hill. I am proud to have personally hosted 13 Australians since 2003, each bringing their unique outlooks on policy and desire to contribute.

James, a student from Monash University as well as valedictorian for the UCWIP Class of 2017, has worked in our office since January and quickly proved himself to be a highly valuable member of our team. He has researched important issues, attended briefings, and drafted constituent correspondence, among many other duties. He consistently displays a deep desire to learn and treats everyone that he encounters with respect. His hard work and dedication is a tremendous asset to our office and the Tenth Congressional District.

My team has learned a great deal about the current political situation in Australia as James' fascination with America continues to grow. He is an absolute pleasure to have in the office and I offer him my thanks for a job well done. I wish him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, Republicans are continuing their crusade to cut off access to comprehensive family planning services. Last year they tried to zero out title X in their budget. This year they intend to repeal ACA's cost-free contraception coverage for women with private insurance. Today Republicans are attempting to stop the flow of title X grants to health centers around the country.

Title X grants ensure that low-income families have access to birth control and can plan their pregnancies so that moms and kids stay healthy. Research has shown that without these vital services, the unintended pregnancy rate would be 33 percent higher and the number of abortions would also be higher. My anti-choice Republican colleagues should cheer this program, but instead not only are Republicans trying to defund Planned Parenthood so they won't be able to provide contraception help, but now we are hypocritically rolling back a rule that allows title X funds to flow to reproductive health centers, which are the most effective providers of title X services and which we were told would provide the contraception and other health services that Planned Parenthood no longer would be able to.

Women are watching us today. They know that this joint resolution is nothing more than another attempt to stop low-income women from accessing the health care they need and to allow the government to once again step between women and their doctors.

It is no secret I support a woman's constitutional right to access abortion; but even if you don't and are committed to reducing abortion in this country, you should step up to the plate and support comprehensive and robust family planning for all women. This joint resolution should do the opposite. We should all support contraception for the women of this country.

I urge my colleagues to reject this joint resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 387, the Email Privacy Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which will provide a critical update to the privacy laws governing electronic communications.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or ECPA as it is known, was enacted in 1986. It was an attempt to reestablish a balance between privacy and law enforcement needs at a time when personal and business computing was becoming more commonplace. Over the last 30 years, however, we have seen a revolution in communications technology, and what might have made sense in 1986 is vastly out of date today.

New technologies, including cloud computing, social networking, and location-based services, have rendered many of the law's provisions outdated, vague, or inapplicable to emerging innovations. For example, even a single email is potentially subject to multiple different legal standards under current law.

In 2009 and 2010, when I was the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, we held multiple hearings to consider reforms to our Nation's electronic and privacy laws. This work culminated in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Modernization Act of 2012, a bill I introduced along with Ranking Member Conyers requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching emails. That approach, now embodied in the Yoder-Polis Email Privacy Act, is what we are here today to consider.

In an era in which government access to an individual's private information held by third-party providers has become far too easy, this legislation will finally update our laws to reflect our new understanding of what it means, in the words of the Fourth Amendment, for ``people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.''

Clarifying the laws will also help industry stakeholders who currently struggle to apply the existing, outdated categories of information to their products and services, and it will provide a clear standard for law enforcement.

This bill is not perfect and, clearly, there is more to be done. In particular, we must keep working to require a probable cause warrant for location information. However, this bill is an important step forward toward ensuring that our laws strike the right balance between the interests and needs of law enforcement and the privacy rights of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I congratulate all those involved in its development.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on individuals like Dr. Suha Abushamma, a Sudanese doctor at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic, who was denied entry, forced to leave the country, and, therefore, deprived the country of his medical services.

Madam Speaker, there is obviously a difference of opinion in this country on the morality of abortion. I am appalled by the moral arrogance of the Republicans who would use political power to impose their views on the millions of women who disagree with them and want to make their own decisions.

Though the Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a State may place an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, the Hyde amendment makes abortion access virtually impossible for low-income women.

As unjust and despicable as the Hyde amendment is, this bill goes beyond it. For the first time, Republicans are attempting to restrict the right of women to use their own money to pay for abortions by denying normal tax deductions for medical expenses if those medical expenses include an abortion, by denying normal tax credits for health insurance if that insurance covers abortion, and by denying use of tax- free money from an FSA or an HSA for an abortion.

The intent of this bill is obvious: to end insurance coverage for all abortions, thereby making it nearly impossible for women to exercise their constitutional rights.

Republicans should pay heed to the millions of women who marched to protect their rights this weekend and are watching how we vote today.

Madam Speaker, there is obviously a difference of opinion in this country on the morality of abortion. I am appalled at the moral arrogance of the Republicans who would use political power to impose their views on the millions of women who disagree with them and want to make their own decisions.

If Saturday's protests are any indication, the women of America and the world are watching us. They are not going to stand silently by while Republicans in Congress and the White House take away their rights, their health care, their families, and their livelihoods. They sent this message loud and clear, but it seems my Republican colleagues have not heard it. Yesterday morning, President Trump signed an executive order reinstating the Global Gag Rule, which will deny thousands of women around the world access to reproductive health care, which will lead to a dramatic decline in maternal and infant health around the world.

Today, Republicans are bringing up a bill that will deny women the right to access comprehensive reproductive health care, a right protected by the Constitution.

The right of a woman to decide whether to become pregnant, to decide to continue her pregnancy, or to make the decision to terminate her pregnancy is protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a state may place an ``undue burden'' on that right. Denial of Medicaid or other government funding that would be available for other medical procedures should be considered an ``undue burden.'' For decades, Congress has imposed the Hyde Amendment on every appropriations bill. This language disproportionately impacts poor women and women of color, effectively denying them their constitutional right to access abortion. Yet today, Republicans want to make that language permanent.

As unjust and despicable as the Hyde Amendment is, this bill goes beyond it. For the first time, Republicans are restricting the right of women to use their own money to pay for abortions. This bill will deny normal tax deductions for medical expenses if those expenses include abortion, normal tax credits for health insurance if that insurance includes abortion, and denying the ability to use tax-free money from an FSA or HSA for an abortion.

The bill does include an exception in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. You may ask, how the IRS will know a woman's reason for getting an abortion. Well, under this bill, women will have to prove they are a victim of rape or incest or will have to provide detailed medical records to determine just how at risk their life was. Women will not only have to suffer the trauma of a sexual assault or the loss of a pregnancy because of life-threatening complications, they will now also have to face an IRS inquisition to get their own money back. So much for Republicans' pledge to get ``big government'' out of people's lives.

The intent of this bill is obvious: to end insurance coverage for all abortions thereby making it nearly impossible for women to exercise their constitutional rights. Republicans are clearly out of step with the millions of women who marched to protect their rights this weekend. Those women, and the millions more who stand with them, are watching and ready to fight back. I am proud to vote against this bill and to join their fight.

Mr. Chairman, repeal of the Affordable Care Act will be a disaster for the American public. It will send America back to the days when people went bankrupt trying to pay medical bills, and seniors on Medicare spent $3,000 on prescription drugs alone.

Adding insult to a very serious injury, the bill before us would defund Planned Parenthood because of debunked accusations. Republicans are asking us to pass legislation that will punish an invaluable organization without any evidence of due process because they don't agree with it. This bill smacks of an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

If we do pass this bill, we will leave millions of women with no access to health care. Republicans know that community health centers and Medicaid networks do not include enough providers, particularly OB/ GYNs, to take on all of Planned Parenthood's patients.

By voting to defund Planned Parenthood today, we will be leaving 2.7 million women and men with no access to reproductive health care.

What a statement for the Republicans to make as their first major piece of legislation. They are saying to the American people, and to women in particular: Republicans don't care about your health or about your families. Republicans just care about politics.

Well, my Democratic colleagues and I care about the health of the American people, about American jobs and about American women. That is why we will vote against this absurd budget resolution; that, and the ACA repeal.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Chair, this budget resolution is primarily a vehicle to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to defund Planned Parenthood, steps the Republicans are taking without putting any plans in place to ensure that millions of men, women, and children will continue to have access to health care they need. They are proposing to let Americans get sick, even die, to score cheap political points.

Repeal of the Affordable Care Act will be a disaster for the American public. In New York State alone, it will result in 2.7 million people losing health insurance and will create a $3 billion hole in the state budget. It will also result in the loss of thousands of health care jobs across the state. Republicans will send America back to the days when people went bankrupt trying to pay medical bills. It will mean that people with private insurance--from their employers or the individual market--will have their insurance cancelled for pre-existing conditions. It will mean that people once again will be subject to annual or lifetime limits--in other words, if you get an expensive illness, a heart attack or cancer, your insurance will run out just when you need it the most. And people on Medicare will have to pay an average of $3,000 a year for prescription drugs.

Adding insult to very serious injury, this bill would defund Planned Parenthood because of debunked accusations. If members have real evidence that Planned Parenthood broke the law, they should send it to federal law enforcement agencies. Instead, they are asking us to pass legislation that will punish an invaluable organization without any evidence or due process because they don't agree with them. My colleagues who love to cloak themselves in the Constitution should know Congress is not the law enforcement body this bill asks us to be--it smacks of a clearly unconstitutional bill of attainder.

If we do pass this bill, we will leave millions of women with no access to health care. Republicans may claim that women can go elsewhere for the services provided by Planned Parenthood--they've even gone so far as to provide additional funding for Community Health Centers to fill the gaps they clearly know this bill will leave behind. But did they check to see if the existing Community Health Centers or Medicaid networks can fill these gaps? Did they ask HHS to confirm that Community Health Centers even employ enough OB/GYNs and other specialists to actually take on the patients currently treated by Planned Parenthood? Of course not.

Republicans know HHS would never be able to make that determination. More than half of Planned Parenthood patients rely on Medicaid. Most states do not have enough Medicaid providers, particularly specialists like OB/GYNs, to absorb Planned Parenthood's patients. By voting to defund Planned Parenthood today, you are leaving 2.7 million women, men, and families with no access to health care.

Republicans are leaving women to suffer with no access to prenatal care, condemning seniors to undiagnosed cancers, and leaving children to suffer with asthma and other chronic illnesses all to make a political statement.

And what a statement for Republicans to make as their first major piece of legislation. They are saying to the American people, and women in particular: Republicans don't care about your health. Republicans don't care about your families. Republicans just care about politics.

Well, my Democratic colleagues and I care about the health of the American people. We care about American jobs. We care about American women. That's why we will vote against this absurd budget resolution. I urge my Republican colleagues to join us.

I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for yielding, for hosting this Special Order, and for granting me this opportunity to speak.

Since the first nomination was announced by President-elect Trump's transition team, phones in my office have been ringing off the hook; and not a day goes by when I do not hear from my neighbors, friends, and constituents of their angst, frustration, and discontent. I share their anger and dread--that feeling of being punched in the gut--as name after name has been released. Each nomination from President-elect Trump has put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

We are not talking about simple differences in partisan ideology. We are talking about nominees who have devoted much of their professional lives to undermining the small-d democratic institutions that are the foundation of our country. This new administration is so extreme that we cannot, in any good faith, give this President-elect the traditional deference to name a cabinet that represents his governing philosophy because the appointments show it to be a philosophy that seeks to corrupt, if not fully destroy, our institutions, traditions, and values.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the nominee for Attorney General, was considered too racist to serve on the Federal bench by a Republican Senate, much less to head the Justice Department, and is someone who has so little respect for women's rights he voted against the Violence Against Women Act and called Roe v. Wade a colossal mistake.

Ben Carson, the nominee for HUD Secretary, said today in his confirmation hearing that he was against protecting LGBT Americans from housing discrimination because protecting them from housing discrimination would be granting them extra rights, refusing to recognize that LGBT Americans deserve equal rights.

Tom Price, the nominee for HHS Secretary, wants to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid as we know them, repeal the Affordable Care Act without a second thought for the millions of Americans who would lose coverage or would be subject to limits on preexisting conditions and would be subject to lifetime and annual limits, and has so little understanding of women's health that he insisted that not a single woman would lose access to contraception if contraception coverage were eliminated.

Betsy DeVos, the nominee for Education Secretary, advocated for years to move taxpayer dollars away from public schools and towards for- profit, private schools that would leave behind low-income students, minority students, and children with disabilities.

Scott Pruitt, the nominee for EPA administrator, does not believe in climate change and is so linked to the fossil fuel industry that he has sued the EPA a dozen times to block environmental regulations designed to protect us from the effects of climate change.

The list goes on and on, each more horrifying than the one before. These are not the values the majority of Americans voted for in November, and I don't just mean because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million. I cannot imagine that the voters who wanted to drain the swamp and voted for Mr. Trump for that purpose and have the needs of working people represented are thrilled to see him name the wealthiest cabinet--with the greatest collection of Wall Street insiders--in American history.

The fact is, President-elect Trump and the Republican Party do not have any mandate from the people to carry out the dystopian horror show this cabinet presents. Rather than rubber stamping the most extreme cabinet I have seen in my 25 years in Washington, the Senate should reject these extreme nominees, and then both Houses should do their constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the administration.

I am ready to do that work. Over a month ago, along with my Democratic Judiciary Committee colleagues, I sent a letter to Chairman Goodlatte asking him to hold hearings on the conflict of interest and ethics provisions that apply to the President of the United States. I have not heard a response. Every Democrat in this House signed on to the Protect Our Democracy Act, legislation to create an independent, bipartisan-appointed commission to investigate Russian hacking in the 2016 election and to make recommendations to ensure nothing like that happens again. It is interesting that not a single House Republican has joined us.

I join my constituents and millions of Americans in wanting to know why Republicans are working so hard to protect President-elect Trump from having to answer questions about Russian influence in this election. Why are Republicans working so hard to support President- elect Trump's extreme and out-of-touch cabinet? Why aren't Republicans asking the same questions about how President-elect Trump will avoid conflicts of interest?

I have served in this body for nearly 25 years. I have seen this body take on the big questions of our time--the role of government in the lives of everyday Americans, the threat of terrorism in the city I call home and around the country, the right of every American to marry whomever they love, the right of every American to vote free of intimidation, and the right of every American to make their own healthcare choices. I have seen us come through those battles bruised and battered but stronger.

That is why I refuse to despair. I refuse to put my head down and hide. I refuse to give up on America. I will stand here and fight for the country we all believe in. I will do everything in my power to represent the strong progressive values of the men and women who sent me here.

I will work with my colleagues here in the House and the Senate to stand united against any effort to undermine the rights we have fought so hard to achieve, whether it comes from the other end of the world or the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

But if there is to be any check on this administration, congressional Republicans will need to join in that fight, and it starts with rejecting the shameful slate of nominees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Gina Quattrochi, a champion for HIV/AIDS healthcare and housing, who passed away in December.

In 1986, at the height of the AIDS crisis, Ms. Quattrochi was named to the board of the AIDS Resource Center and led negotiations to acquire a former hotel on Christopher St., in my district, which was renamed Bailey House. This hotel became the first group residence for people with AIDS in the country. At a time when HIV/AIDS was shrouded in fear and paranoia, Gina was fearless. She later served as CEO of Bailey House for 25 years. It was under Ms. Quattrochi's leadership that Bailey House grew from a small housing agency to a multimillion- dollar organization that provides a wide range of health and housing services to over 1,800 clients.

In addition to Bailey House, Ms. Quattrochi was a board member of several HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations, including the National AIDS Housing Coalition, where she also served as president; the Harlem Hospital Community Advisory Board; the Ryan White Integration of Care committee; and iHealth NYS. In 2014, she was appointed to Governor Andrew Cuomo's task force to reduce new statewide HIV infections to just 750 per year by 2020.

Ms. Quattrochi also fulfilled her longtime goal of extending the city's HIV/AIDS Services Administration, or HASA, services beyond just AIDS diagnoses to qualified people with HIV. Her lifetime of work transformed the conversation about how to help house, provide health care to, and feed people with HIV/AIDS.

As a longtime supporter and advocate for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, or HOPWA, I am proud to have represented Gina and Bailey House for many years, but I am more proud to have called her a friend. She leaves behind an indelible legacy, she will be profoundly missed by the city of New York, the country, and the HIV/AIDS advocacy community. I can think of no greater tribute than the words of Emmy and Tony Award-winning author and AIDS activist Larry Kramer: ``She was the most noble of heroines. She fought not only for us, but for all of mankind.''

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from the bill any regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor safety. In other words, my amendment would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the NRC to continue to issue rules under the current system, thereby making it easier to protect Americans from potential nuclear disaster.

The underlying legislation, the REINS Act, would grind the gears of rulemaking to a halt by requiring all major rules to be affirmatively approved in advance by Congress. A regulation would be blocked from being implemented if even one Chamber declines to pass an approval resolution. The goal of this legislation, quite simply, is to stop the regulatory process in its tracks, regardless of the impact on public health and safety.

One example that highlights the risks and dangers of this legislation is

the subject of this amendment: Nuclear power.

The world watched in horror when an earthquake and resulting tsunami devastated the area around Fukushima, Japan, a few years ago. That disaster then caused its own disaster--the meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The meltdown led to the release of radioactive isotopes, the creation of a 20-kilometer exclusion zone around the power plant, and the displacement, consequently, of 156,000 people. Just last month, seaborne radiation from Fukushima was even detected on the West Coast of the United States.

The same year as the Fukushima meltdown, Virginia was struck by a relatively rare but strong earthquake, felt up and down the eastern seaboard. While the region was spared a similar disaster, the earthquake required a nuclear power plant near the epicenter to go offline as a precaution and served as a wake-up call that our nuclear reactors needed additional safety protocols.

For me, this concern hits close to home. A nuclear power plant, Indian Point, which has suffered numerous malfunctions in recent years, lies just less than 40 miles away from my New York City district, about 30 miles away from the city. Twenty million people live within a 50- mile radius around the plant, the same radius used by the NRC as the basis for the evacuation zone recommended after the Fukushima disaster.

Indian Point also sits near two earthquake fault lines and, according to the NRC, is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience core damage because of an earthquake.

Because of the catastrophes that can result from disasters, be they natural or manmade at nuclear power plants, prevention of meltdowns is absolutely vital. Since Fukushima, the NRC has issued new rules designed to upgrade power plants to withstand severe events like earthquakes, and to have enough backup power so as to avoid a meltdown for a significant length of time.

The NRC must retain the ability to issue new regulations to safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans. However, this bill is intentionally designed so that new and important regulations, including those to prevent a nuclear power plant meltdown which could affect millions of American, will likely never be put in place, thwarted by either chamber of Congress.

Congress delegates authority to executive agencies because we do not have the expertise or time to craft all technical regulations ourselves. We should defer to the engineers and scientists at the NRC who determine, after careful study, that a particular regulation is critical to our safety and to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant. This bill, however, would all too easily allow Members of Congress to substitute their own judgment or, most likely, the wishes of a narrow group of special interests.

This week we began a new Congress. Later this month we will have a new administration, all controlled by Republicans. Between this bill and the Midnight Rules bill we passed yesterday, they have chosen to make their first order of business the dismantling and destruction of the regulatory process, regardless of the impact on public health and safety. This gives us a good idea of the priorities we should expect to see in the next 2 years.

The least we can do is to try to ensure that the antiregulatory agenda of the Republicans does not have devastating consequences such as a nuclear meltdown. I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler amendment to exempt nuclear safety regulations from the onerous requirements of the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, nuclear meltdowns are a tremendous danger to the life and safety of millions of Americans. The Congressional Review Act provides if the NRC makes such a regulation, Congress can say no. That is appropriate. But to say Congress has to approve any regulation in advance, when there may be thousands of regulations or hundreds of regulations from different agencies, they may not get to it. We may not have time to study it, and lives are at stake. It does not make sense. That is why this amendment at least cuts out nuclear meltdown regulations, nuclear safety regulations, to say Congress can veto them if they don't agree. But the agency should be able to promulgate it in the absence of congressional veto.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 21, the Midnight Rules Relief Act.

This irresponsible legislation would enable Congress to wipe out hundreds, or even thousands, of regulations enacted during the final year of the President's term in office, in one fell swoop, with little examination, no deliberation, and little regard to their impact on public health or safety.

Members from both sides of the aisle have expressed concern in recent years over rules adopted during a Presidential transition period-- typically, the last 60 to 90 days of the President's term. But this legislation differs greatly from previous legislation that I and others have introduced in the past to deal with this problem.

For example, the Midnight Rule Act, which I introduced in the 110th and 111th Congresses, would have merely delayed the implementation of rules submitted to Congress within the final 90 days of a President's term, with appropriate exceptions for imminent threat to health and safety, enforcement of criminal laws, implementation of an international trade agreement, and national security.

This proposal was a response to concerns with last-minute rulemaking under the George W. Bush administration, which was roundly criticized at the time for allowing insufficient time for public comment, ignoring public comments, and otherwise departing from accepted rulemaking practices.

My bill would have given an incoming President 90 days to determine if any rules issued should not go forward. This measure would have allowed legitimate regulatory reform to proceed on schedule while putting the power to review and overturn controversial new rules into the hands of the newly elected administration.

The legislation before us today, however, goes much further and creates a process to simply erase the last months of an outgoing administration's regulatory agenda.

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can overturn a regulation issued by the executive branch through a disapproval resolution that must be signed by the President. This bill would allow Congress to package these disapproval resolutions together and eliminate dozens, hundreds, or even thousands, of regulations all at once, with little debate over the merits of any individual rule.

Under the CRA, agencies would be prevented from proposing similar rules ever again, absent explicit congressional authorization. You would have a rule terminated with no debate because it is one of a thousand rules done away with in one resolution. You can't even look at it again.

The Republican majority has waged an all-out assault on the regulatory process, trying to add hurdle after hurdle on the ability to issue regulations that protect public health and safety. Not content to grind the gears of rulemaking to a halt, they now want to eliminate wholesale those regulations that have gone through the exhaustive rulemaking process--a process that often takes many years to complete.

Even more concerning, this bill would apply to rules issued in the last 60 legislative days of a President's

term. Not calendar days, but legislative days.

Given how little we worked last year, this would mean that any regulation issued by the Obama administration, stretching back to June 13, 2016, could be canceled in one sweeping motion, with hardly any consideration given to the merits of any individual regulation.

Article II of the Constitution provides that a President shall serve a 4-year term. But the Republicans seem to believe that this doesn't apply to President Obama. Somehow, when he was reelected by broad majority in 2012, he was given only a 3-year term. The Senate refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee and, under this bill, his entire regulatory agenda for the last 6 months could be undone in an instant.

While I am sympathetic to the need for an incoming administration to review regulations issued in the closing days of an outgoing administration, this bill goes much further and allows for a rushed and partisan process that could undermine critical health and safety regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible and dangerous legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the people of New York's tenth congressional district in recognition of Barnard College for 125 years of dedication and commitment to providing a rigorous liberal arts education to talented women from all over the world. On October 26, 2014, Barnard opened its campus to the community, and the entire City of New York, in celebration of its 125th anniversary, sharing the ``Barnard experience'' with all who visit.

In 125 years of education and service, Barnard has established an incomparable legacy and has become an integral part of its community, as well as the entire city beyond its historic Morningside Heights campus. Since its founding in 1889, the College has produced many distinguished alumni who have gone on to be leaders in nearly every field of endeavor. Today's students are following in their footsteps by impacting not just their campus or New York City, but the entire world. In commemoration of the 125th anniversary, the Barnard women have again chosen outreach as their most important message and have pledged to perform 125 Days of Service in New York City and beyond.

Over the years, I have been proud to work with the College in some of its many pursuits of supporting and developing collaborations between the College and many on- and off-campus constituencies. Through these efforts, Barnard has made a positive impact throughout the city, particularly in the Morningside Heights and Harlem communities.

Barnard participates in numerous community partnerships and initiatives, both through

annual contributions as well as organizing volunteer opportunities with local organizations like Morningside-Area Alliance, Community Impact, the Friends of Morningside Park, the Friends of Riverside Park, and the Broadway Mall Group. It has also worked to provide educational opportunities to young people in its community, working together with groups like St. John the Divine's ACT summer camp program, Tompkins Hall, and the Learning Center. And through an annual bike-a-thon, it raises funds for Columbia Community Service, with donations and participation increasing every year.

In addition to its foundational commitment of educating promising young women, the College has historically reached out to those students who may be otherwise hindered by a lack of access to opportunities, which I commend. This has resulted in a diverse and inclusive student body, faculty, and staff.

For all this and more, I would like to honor Barnard College for 125 years of significant and enduring contributions to the civic life of our community and the scholarship of our Nation. I wish the College the best of luck in its future endeavors, as I know it will continue to impact the lives of its students and its fellow community members throughout New York City and the world. I ask my colleagues to please join me in recognizing Barnard College's efforts.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I will comment on the demerits of this terrible bill in the debate on the bill. I want to comment now on how this bill got before us.

This is, I think, the fifth bill we have considered in this Congress. Not one of those bills went through committee. Not one of those bills had a markup, a hearing, an opportunity for people to amend the bills in committee, and now the bills come to the floor for an hour

of debate with no opportunity to offer amendments. This is hardly the transparency and the due process that the GOP leaders promised us.

This bill is even worse because this bill was not on the calendar until late last night. Yesterday, when the Republican anti-choice women rebelled at the terrible rape provisions of the bill we were supposed to debate today and when they found they couldn't pass a bill today on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, they brought another off-the-shelf bill, which is a terrible bill, with no hearing in committee, no debate in committee, no markup, no opportunity to offer amendments, no vote in committee, no opportunity to offer amendments on the floor.

This is not the way you run or should run the House of Representatives of the United States. It is a shameful procedure for a shameful bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

The name of the bill is a lie. There is now no taxpayer funding for abortions. I wish there were. The right of a woman to decide whether to become pregnant, to decide to continue her pregnancy, or even to make the difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy is protected by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a State may place an undue burden on that right. Denial of Medicaid or other government funding that would be available for other medical procedures should be considered an undue burden, but that is not the law, unfortunately. Taxpayer funding of abortion is prohibited by the Hyde amendment.

This bill goes far beyond that. This bill for the first time ever denies tax deductions and credits for women who use their own money to pay for abortions or to purchase insurance that covers abortions. In so doing, the Republican majority increases taxes for women and families.

This bill for the first time denies the itemized medical tax deduction that is otherwise available for medical expenses if the medical expense is for an abortion.

This bill for the first time treats as taxable income any distribution from a flexible spending account or health savings account that is used to pay for abortion expenses.

This bill for the first time denies small employers the ability to use tax credits to help them to provide health coverage for their employees if that coverage includes abortion.

This bill also denies income-eligible women the use of premium tax credits available under the Affordable Care Act if the insurance coverage they select includes abortion coverage.

In first opposing and then voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act 50 times, my Republican colleagues have complained that government should not meddle in the private insurance market or in private health care choices, but this legislation obviously is designed to do just that.

It seems that many Republicans believe in freedom, provided no one uses that freedom in the way they do not approve. That is a strange understanding of freedom.

Even more stunning, this bill increases taxes on families, businesses, and the self-employed if they spend their own money--let me repeat that--their own money on abortion coverage or services, and this tax increase is being championed by Republicans, all of whom have taken a pledge not to raise taxes on individuals or businesses.

The intent of the bill is clear. It is to end insurance coverage for abortions for all women, whether or not they obtain their insurance on an exchange, and even if they use their own money to purchase the insurance.

My colleagues in the majority believe that, if you like your insurance coverage, you should get to keep it unless it is for choices that they don't like. Then they have no qualms about taking your insurance coverage away. That is the intended and likely result of this bill.

Currently, the vast majority of insurance policies cover abortion services, but insurance companies will likely respond to the tax penalties this bill imposes by dropping the coverage of abortions from all of their plans. This will have a significant effect on all women, not just on lower income women, who have long felt the brunt of Federal restrictions on their health care choices.

H.R. 7 is a radical departure from the current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance coverage, and it is neither justifiable nor necessary to prevent the Federal funding of abortion. It is a frontal assault on the liberty and dignity of all American women. It should be roundly rejected.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a clean Homeland Security Appropriations bill.

We are just a week into the new Congress, and the Republicans are already back to their old games, but this time, they are playing politics with the security and safety of the Nation.

We get it. They are frustrated with the President's executive order which attempts to reunite families and bring a rational, priority-based approach to our immigration system. Given the Constitution, the laws, and the legal precedents, the President's actions are clearly well within his executive powers.

If they don't like it, they can pass an immigration bill, which would clearly supercede the actions of the President, but they wouldn't even try. That is what this is all about. It is about making false statements about the President, demonizing immigrants and their families, and trying to score political points back home. That is a disgrace, but it gets even worse.

Not only are the Republicans stalling on immigration reform and leaving millions of families in limbo, but they are holding up funding for the entire Homeland Security Department. They are threatening the safety of Americans at our airports. They are making our borders less secure and are potentially leaving us more vulnerable to attack. This is particularly shocking, given the tragic events in Paris last week.

Holding the security of the American people hostage to the demands of the anti-immigration fringe of their party is totally irresponsible. This is not the time for political games. We live in a dangerous world, and the security of the Nation is serious business. Reject this political stunt.

Pass a clean Homeland Security bill that we all agree on. Then, if you want to, pass an immigration bill that would supersede what the President has done; but don't give us all of this nonsense about blackmailing the country by threatening our safety and saying, ``Unless we get the immigration provisions we want,'' which we know the President won't sign, ``there will be no Homeland Security bill, potentially no Homeland Security Department funding, and no guards at our borders.'' That is absurd.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I too came to the legislature and served for 16 years there. And for most of that time, Mario Cuomo was Governor.

We all know that he was an eloquent philosopher in politics, someone who could express the goals and the principles of public office and of government more eloquently than almost anyone else.

Mario Cuomo graduated first in his class from St. John's Law School in 1946. And despite sending out over 70 resumes, he couldn't get a response or an interview from a top law firm because he was Italian. And that was the

state of prejudice in this country--or at least on Wall Street in 1946.

He went on from there to become a major lawyer, to become the Governor of a State, to become a leader of a philosophy in American politics. But in doing so, he never forgot where he came from. He didn't forget his experiences, and he knew that other people were having similar experiences.

He was a man of great principle. He vetoed the death penalty--though he knew that the death penalty was very popular in New York--12 times in a row, and he sustained those vetoes. Having not forgotten where he came from, he always wanted to use government to help defenseless people who needed the help of government, and he did.

We all know many of the things he did. I am not going to repeat them here. But I want to just mention a couple of things that didn't get great publicity but that I saw as a member of the legislature.

When he became Governor, he set up a commission. I forget the exact title--Commission on Child Support, Commission on Day Care, whatever it was. But every year for years, that commission came up with legislation which he supported and pushed, and some of us in the legislature worked on that. And he passed--we passed pioneering legislation, pioneering in this country on child support enforcement, which was considered a radical idea in the early 1980s. We passed the Child Support Standards Act so that judges couldn't leave women and their children without adequate support. He passed day care resource and referral legislation and family day care, all of which came from the initiatives of Governor Cuomo, none of which got a lot of publicity, which was focused on so- called bigger items. But these helped people. These were vital for people living their lives without a lot of money, without a lot of resources. But government became a helper and a friend because of Governor Cuomo.